Progressive Ideology

[a fan]

You really need to read that article a few more times. Preferably alone, with no external distractions. Think it over.

So I can learn to be as smug and unthinking as you are in these posts? Hard pass.

[Peter Brown]

You really need to read that article a few more times. Preferably alone, with no external distractions. Think it over.

So I can learn to be as smug and unthinking as you are in these posts? Hard pass.

Reread your posts. Every single one includes a gratuitous, personal insult. Every single one.

I really suggest you read that article. It’ll do some good, provided you read it in a quiet setting.

[a fan]

You really need to read that article a few more times. Preferably alone, with no external distractions. Think it over.

So I can learn to be as smug and unthinking as you are in these posts? Hard pass.

Reread your posts. Every single one includes a gratuitous, personal insult. Every single one.

Nope. I insult your ideas and thinking. And yep, every single one. Your'e the only poster I do that to, my little troll.

Don't like it? Shut up and stop trolling with your fake values and trolling that you don't ACTUALLY beleive.

[seacoaster]

seacoaster, I'm sure you're busy but when convenient (and if you care to) I'd be interested to get your opinion of this piece. As usual, I was skeptical this was just another biased article except for the number of personal account quotes from people within legal circles, who despite their political leanings, seem to substantiate.

The Takeover of America's Legal System

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-ta ... system?s=r

"Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."

Tech, I read this over my coffee this morning, and agree with the writer that there are things that are kind of disturbing. The shout-down of the symposium at Yale was disgraceful. This is the group of people who believe that there own speech and identity is diminished by the contrary speech of others. That is not the American way, in my view anyway. The First Amendment and citizenship do not provide a warranty against hearing views that collide with your own, even if the collision feels offensive and morally wrong.

But I don't see the thinking that underlies BLM, or CRT, or any theory aimed at eliminating the biases that exist in the system as the overwhelming thing the writer portrays. The quote above in your original post is interesting. I don't think "the imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important" to students than due process, the presumption of innocence and other norms of the rule of law. I think students are asking about the impact of race, gender and identity on due process, the presumption of innocence -- the inquiries aren't separate. When I am choosing a jury in a criminal trial involving the alleged rape of a white woman by a black man, how is the presumption of innocence impacted or impeded by the fact that my jury pool is 70% white? Does the system allow for the same due process for a upper-middle class white woman and a black woman? These are actually age-old issues in the law schools and in the courts. So I'm not seeing a "takeover" of the legal system. I'm seeing energetic, often misguided, actors trying to sort those questions out.

Interesting article all the same, and thanks for posting it and asking about it.

Oh, thank YOU.

I understand, along with Biden corruption, this issue may not be too high on your list of concerns (sorry, couldn't help myself).

I was hoping, like some of the professionals who were quoted in the piece, that your anecdotal experience over the years might add relevance (or not) to the trend this writer is trying to articulate... not the usual Pollyannaish "kids being kids" on campus rational that some like to glibly state on this board (not that you did that). I was looking for evidence through personal account that some underlying ideology, encouraged and practiced on campus, is in fact (or not) affecting the law profession.

One last question then I'll not bug you with this further. Throughout the years, have you had exposure to law students looking to break into the profession, if so and keeping this article in mind (justice, neutrality, erosion of rule of law), have you noticed any positive or negative trends?

Again, when convenient...

You're not bugging me at all.

Bear in mind, I work for a law firm that represents, for the most part, businesses and individuals that are well-heeled. So the folks coming to us from the law schools are not concerned, except maybe in some cocktail-party chatter academic way, with the social justice issues animating the crowd of disruptors at Yale. They just want to learn how to practice law, how to meet clients' needs, how to prepare and close transactions, how to take depositions, put together a case and try cases in front of courts and juries. I and others do pro bono work for the ACLU -- but that doesn't get in the way of mouth-piecing for rich folks!! Partners of mine have dropped out of practice to work in government, take jobs with the courts, and go in-house for our corporate clients. We encourage the youngsters to take on pro bono stuff, and a couple of our associates have helped out with criminal cases, and immigration cases on a regular basis.
ACLU... once bastion of First Amendment concerns is accused of having been "captured by the woke mob" (for lack of a better term)? That sentiment seems simpatico with article.

Pro bono is cool...

Over the past 25 years of so, I think the caliber of the law student we see and hire is improved, largely because we look for kids who fit a profile -- usually have some material experience in the private sector before going to law school and coming to work with us. But law, as a graduate school option and, less so but still enough to mention, a profession, certainly attracts political types and activists.

If the article's thesis is that the Courts and judicial systems writ large are trending left, I don't think that is borne out on the ground. Most of the federal courts are populated with women and men who devoted their careers to becoming a judge, which requires some political connections and considerable friend-making. If the article's thesis is that the law schools are trending left, I'd guess -- repeat, guess -- that that is the case and has been for a considerable time. The Federalist Society was, in large part, created to counterbalance and compete with the left-leaning of faculty and student cohorts, and has done a lot to carry out its mission.

We have a really good legal system; I really believe that. The judges I interact with -- even when the interaction is unpleasant -- are almost uniformly smart, thoughtful and impartial. The system moves too slowly for a society that is consistently ramping up the instantaneous nature of gratification and results, and that may prove to be a problem in the immediate future.

Sorry for this ramble. Hope that I've answered some of your questions.

Perhaps you didn't want to reply or missed this? A couple older articles that raise concerns with ACLU and seem to jibe with the Common Sense piece:

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis
An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/a ... peech.html

The Disintegration of the ACLU
A new documentary about former Executive Director Ira Glasser explains how the once-storied civil liberties organization came to embrace the ideology it was built to fight

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... s-kirchick

Missed both of those; thanks.

OK, read both articles and confess that they are unsettling. It seems true: the mission oriented advocacy for "speech" in the marketplace has given way -- with donor money and probably the weight of membership views -- to advocacy for "speech about stuff we agree with." This is a sad contagion-fire blowing across the arid prairie of American political discourse. Left and right, this is what speech means now: room for me, but not necessarily for you. Big, big problem.

[a fan]

seacoaster, I'm sure you're busy but when convenient (and if you care to) I'd be interested to get your opinion of this piece. As usual, I was skeptical this was just another biased article except for the number of personal account quotes from people within legal circles, who despite their political leanings, seem to substantiate.

The Takeover of America's Legal System

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-ta ... system?s=r

"Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."

Tech, I read this over my coffee this morning, and agree with the writer that there are things that are kind of disturbing. The shout-down of the symposium at Yale was disgraceful. This is the group of people who believe that there own speech and identity is diminished by the contrary speech of others. That is not the American way, in my view anyway. The First Amendment and citizenship do not provide a warranty against hearing views that collide with your own, even if the collision feels offensive and morally wrong.

But I don't see the thinking that underlies BLM, or CRT, or any theory aimed at eliminating the biases that exist in the system as the overwhelming thing the writer portrays. The quote above in your original post is interesting. I don't think "the imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important" to students than due process, the presumption of innocence and other norms of the rule of law. I think students are asking about the impact of race, gender and identity on due process, the presumption of innocence -- the inquiries aren't separate. When I am choosing a jury in a criminal trial involving the alleged rape of a white woman by a black man, how is the presumption of innocence impacted or impeded by the fact that my jury pool is 70% white? Does the system allow for the same due process for a upper-middle class white woman and a black woman? These are actually age-old issues in the law schools and in the courts. So I'm not seeing a "takeover" of the legal system. I'm seeing energetic, often misguided, actors trying to sort those questions out.

Interesting article all the same, and thanks for posting it and asking about it.

Oh, thank YOU.

I understand, along with Biden corruption, this issue may not be too high on your list of concerns (sorry, couldn't help myself).

I was hoping, like some of the professionals who were quoted in the piece, that your anecdotal experience over the years might add relevance (or not) to the trend this writer is trying to articulate... not the usual Pollyannaish "kids being kids" on campus rational that some like to glibly state on this board (not that you did that). I was looking for evidence through personal account that some underlying ideology, encouraged and practiced on campus, is in fact (or not) affecting the law profession.

One last question then I'll not bug you with this further. Throughout the years, have you had exposure to law students looking to break into the profession, if so and keeping this article in mind (justice, neutrality, erosion of rule of law), have you noticed any positive or negative trends?

Again, when convenient...

You're not bugging me at all.

Bear in mind, I work for a law firm that represents, for the most part, businesses and individuals that are well-heeled. So the folks coming to us from the law schools are not concerned, except maybe in some cocktail-party chatter academic way, with the social justice issues animating the crowd of disruptors at Yale. They just want to learn how to practice law, how to meet clients' needs, how to prepare and close transactions, how to take depositions, put together a case and try cases in front of courts and juries. I and others do pro bono work for the ACLU -- but that doesn't get in the way of mouth-piecing for rich folks!! Partners of mine have dropped out of practice to work in government, take jobs with the courts, and go in-house for our corporate clients. We encourage the youngsters to take on pro bono stuff, and a couple of our associates have helped out with criminal cases, and immigration cases on a regular basis.
ACLU... once bastion of First Amendment concerns is accused of having been "captured by the woke mob" (for lack of a better term)? That sentiment seems simpatico with article.

Pro bono is cool...

Over the past 25 years of so, I think the caliber of the law student we see and hire is improved, largely because we look for kids who fit a profile -- usually have some material experience in the private sector before going to law school and coming to work with us. But law, as a graduate school option and, less so but still enough to mention, a profession, certainly attracts political types and activists.

If the article's thesis is that the Courts and judicial systems writ large are trending left, I don't think that is borne out on the ground. Most of the federal courts are populated with women and men who devoted their careers to becoming a judge, which requires some political connections and considerable friend-making. If the article's thesis is that the law schools are trending left, I'd guess -- repeat, guess -- that that is the case and has been for a considerable time. The Federalist Society was, in large part, created to counterbalance and compete with the left-leaning of faculty and student cohorts, and has done a lot to carry out its mission.

We have a really good legal system; I really believe that. The judges I interact with -- even when the interaction is unpleasant -- are almost uniformly smart, thoughtful and impartial. The system moves too slowly for a society that is consistently ramping up the instantaneous nature of gratification and results, and that may prove to be a problem in the immediate future.

Sorry for this ramble. Hope that I've answered some of your questions.

Perhaps you didn't want to reply or missed this? A couple older articles that raise concerns with ACLU and seem to jibe with the Common Sense piece:

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis
An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/a ... peech.html

The Disintegration of the ACLU
A new documentary about former Executive Director Ira Glasser explains how the once-storied civil liberties organization came to embrace the ideology it was built to fight

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... s-kirchick

Now THIS is a real problem, and was something I was unaware of until I saw Glasser on Bill Maher. How do you fix this?

Only answer I can think of is to get the American right to support the ACLU.

[cradleandshoot]

seacoaster, I'm sure you're busy but when convenient (and if you care to) I'd be interested to get your opinion of this piece. As usual, I was skeptical this was just another biased article except for the number of personal account quotes from people within legal circles, who despite their political leanings, seem to substantiate.

The Takeover of America's Legal System

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-ta ... system?s=r

"Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."

Tech, I read this over my coffee this morning, and agree with the writer that there are things that are kind of disturbing. The shout-down of the symposium at Yale was disgraceful. This is the group of people who believe that there own speech and identity is diminished by the contrary speech of others. That is not the American way, in my view anyway. The First Amendment and citizenship do not provide a warranty against hearing views that collide with your own, even if the collision feels offensive and morally wrong.

But I don't see the thinking that underlies BLM, or CRT, or any theory aimed at eliminating the biases that exist in the system as the overwhelming thing the writer portrays. The quote above in your original post is interesting. I don't think "the imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important" to students than due process, the presumption of innocence and other norms of the rule of law. I think students are asking about the impact of race, gender and identity on due process, the presumption of innocence -- the inquiries aren't separate. When I am choosing a jury in a criminal trial involving the alleged rape of a white woman by a black man, how is the presumption of innocence impacted or impeded by the fact that my jury pool is 70% white? Does the system allow for the same due process for a upper-middle class white woman and a black woman? These are actually age-old issues in the law schools and in the courts. So I'm not seeing a "takeover" of the legal system. I'm seeing energetic, often misguided, actors trying to sort those questions out.

Interesting article all the same, and thanks for posting it and asking about it.

Oh, thank YOU.

I understand, along with Biden corruption, this issue may not be too high on your list of concerns (sorry, couldn't help myself).

I was hoping, like some of the professionals who were quoted in the piece, that your anecdotal experience over the years might add relevance (or not) to the trend this writer is trying to articulate... not the usual Pollyannaish "kids being kids" on campus rational that some like to glibly state on this board (not that you did that). I was looking for evidence through personal account that some underlying ideology, encouraged and practiced on campus, is in fact (or not) affecting the law profession.

One last question then I'll not bug you with this further. Throughout the years, have you had exposure to law students looking to break into the profession, if so and keeping this article in mind (justice, neutrality, erosion of rule of law), have you noticed any positive or negative trends?

Again, when convenient...

You're not bugging me at all.

Bear in mind, I work for a law firm that represents, for the most part, businesses and individuals that are well-heeled. So the folks coming to us from the law schools are not concerned, except maybe in some cocktail-party chatter academic way, with the social justice issues animating the crowd of disruptors at Yale. They just want to learn how to practice law, how to meet clients' needs, how to prepare and close transactions, how to take depositions, put together a case and try cases in front of courts and juries. I and others do pro bono work for the ACLU -- but that doesn't get in the way of mouth-piecing for rich folks!! Partners of mine have dropped out of practice to work in government, take jobs with the courts, and go in-house for our corporate clients. We encourage the youngsters to take on pro bono stuff, and a couple of our associates have helped out with criminal cases, and immigration cases on a regular basis.
ACLU... once bastion of First Amendment concerns is accused of having been "captured by the woke mob" (for lack of a better term)? That sentiment seems simpatico with article.

Pro bono is cool...

Over the past 25 years of so, I think the caliber of the law student we see and hire is improved, largely because we look for kids who fit a profile -- usually have some material experience in the private sector before going to law school and coming to work with us. But law, as a graduate school option and, less so but still enough to mention, a profession, certainly attracts political types and activists.

If the article's thesis is that the Courts and judicial systems writ large are trending left, I don't think that is borne out on the ground. Most of the federal courts are populated with women and men who devoted their careers to becoming a judge, which requires some political connections and considerable friend-making. If the article's thesis is that the law schools are trending left, I'd guess -- repeat, guess -- that that is the case and has been for a considerable time. The Federalist Society was, in large part, created to counterbalance and compete with the left-leaning of faculty and student cohorts, and has done a lot to carry out its mission.

We have a really good legal system; I really believe that. The judges I interact with -- even when the interaction is unpleasant -- are almost uniformly smart, thoughtful and impartial. The system moves too slowly for a society that is consistently ramping up the instantaneous nature of gratification and results, and that may prove to be a problem in the immediate future.

Sorry for this ramble. Hope that I've answered some of your questions.

Perhaps you didn't want to reply or missed this? A couple older articles that raise concerns with ACLU and seem to jibe with the Common Sense piece:

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis
An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/a ... peech.html

The Disintegration of the ACLU
A new documentary about former Executive Director Ira Glasser explains how the once-storied civil liberties organization came to embrace the ideology it was built to fight

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... s-kirchick

Now THIS is a real problem, and was something I was unaware of until I saw Glasser on Bill Maher. How do you fix this?

Only answer I can think of is to get the American right to support the ACLU.

SERIOUSLY??? Then dogs and squirrels can live together in perfect harmony.. not in my backyard.

[a fan]

SERIOUSLY??? Then dogs and squirrels can live together in perfect harmony.. not in my backyard.

Yeah, bit of a stretch, no?

Tip of the cap to Tech on the heads up. I had NO IDEA this had happened to the ACLU.

[Peter Brown]

seacoaster, I'm sure you're busy but when convenient (and if you care to) I'd be interested to get your opinion of this piece. As usual, I was skeptical this was just another biased article except for the number of personal account quotes from people within legal circles, who despite their political leanings, seem to substantiate.

The Takeover of America's Legal System

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-ta ... system?s=r

"Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law."

Tech, I read this over my coffee this morning, and agree with the writer that there are things that are kind of disturbing. The shout-down of the symposium at Yale was disgraceful. This is the group of people who believe that there own speech and identity is diminished by the contrary speech of others. That is not the American way, in my view anyway. The First Amendment and citizenship do not provide a warranty against hearing views that collide with your own, even if the collision feels offensive and morally wrong.

But I don't see the thinking that underlies BLM, or CRT, or any theory aimed at eliminating the biases that exist in the system as the overwhelming thing the writer portrays. The quote above in your original post is interesting. I don't think "the imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important" to students than due process, the presumption of innocence and other norms of the rule of law. I think students are asking about the impact of race, gender and identity on due process, the presumption of innocence -- the inquiries aren't separate. When I am choosing a jury in a criminal trial involving the alleged rape of a white woman by a black man, how is the presumption of innocence impacted or impeded by the fact that my jury pool is 70% white? Does the system allow for the same due process for a upper-middle class white woman and a black woman? These are actually age-old issues in the law schools and in the courts. So I'm not seeing a "takeover" of the legal system. I'm seeing energetic, often misguided, actors trying to sort those questions out.

Interesting article all the same, and thanks for posting it and asking about it.

Oh, thank YOU.

I understand, along with Biden corruption, this issue may not be too high on your list of concerns (sorry, couldn't help myself).

I was hoping, like some of the professionals who were quoted in the piece, that your anecdotal experience over the years might add relevance (or not) to the trend this writer is trying to articulate... not the usual Pollyannaish "kids being kids" on campus rational that some like to glibly state on this board (not that you did that). I was looking for evidence through personal account that some underlying ideology, encouraged and practiced on campus, is in fact (or not) affecting the law profession.

One last question then I'll not bug you with this further. Throughout the years, have you had exposure to law students looking to break into the profession, if so and keeping this article in mind (justice, neutrality, erosion of rule of law), have you noticed any positive or negative trends?

Again, when convenient...

You're not bugging me at all.

Bear in mind, I work for a law firm that represents, for the most part, businesses and individuals that are well-heeled. So the folks coming to us from the law schools are not concerned, except maybe in some cocktail-party chatter academic way, with the social justice issues animating the crowd of disruptors at Yale. They just want to learn how to practice law, how to meet clients' needs, how to prepare and close transactions, how to take depositions, put together a case and try cases in front of courts and juries. I and others do pro bono work for the ACLU -- but that doesn't get in the way of mouth-piecing for rich folks!! Partners of mine have dropped out of practice to work in government, take jobs with the courts, and go in-house for our corporate clients. We encourage the youngsters to take on pro bono stuff, and a couple of our associates have helped out with criminal cases, and immigration cases on a regular basis.
ACLU... once bastion of First Amendment concerns is accused of having been "captured by the woke mob" (for lack of a better term)? That sentiment seems simpatico with article.

Pro bono is cool...

Over the past 25 years of so, I think the caliber of the law student we see and hire is improved, largely because we look for kids who fit a profile -- usually have some material experience in the private sector before going to law school and coming to work with us. But law, as a graduate school option and, less so but still enough to mention, a profession, certainly attracts political types and activists.

If the article's thesis is that the Courts and judicial systems writ large are trending left, I don't think that is borne out on the ground. Most of the federal courts are populated with women and men who devoted their careers to becoming a judge, which requires some political connections and considerable friend-making. If the article's thesis is that the law schools are trending left, I'd guess -- repeat, guess -- that that is the case and has been for a considerable time. The Federalist Society was, in large part, created to counterbalance and compete with the left-leaning of faculty and student cohorts, and has done a lot to carry out its mission.

We have a really good legal system; I really believe that. The judges I interact with -- even when the interaction is unpleasant -- are almost uniformly smart, thoughtful and impartial. The system moves too slowly for a society that is consistently ramping up the instantaneous nature of gratification and results, and that may prove to be a problem in the immediate future.

Sorry for this ramble. Hope that I've answered some of your questions.

Perhaps you didn't want to reply or missed this? A couple older articles that raise concerns with ACLU and seem to jibe with the Common Sense piece:

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis
An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/a ... peech.html

The Disintegration of the ACLU
A new documentary about former Executive Director Ira Glasser explains how the once-storied civil liberties organization came to embrace the ideology it was built to fight

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news ... s-kirchick

The left will always seek to wreck the easiest entry points to culture, like water to a house’s foundation. The ACLU was an easy entry point, because their leadership over the decades has deteriorated.

The staff is divided from the dwindling number of old time liberals who value free speech and civil rights, to the growing younger staff who prioritize the DNC. The ACLU will go the same way as the Southern Poverty Law Center, simply an adjunct arm of the DNC, mocked by everyone who knows the actual score, mindlessly loved by the left, trumpeted by the partisan liberal media as ‘independent voices’.

[jhu72]

A real progressive - Wendell Willkie (R).

[dislaxxic]

Biden to Propose New “Billionaire Minimum Income Tax” of 20 Percent

Wish i only paid 20%...

..

[cradleandshoot]

Biden to Propose New “Billionaire Minimum Income Tax” of 20 Percent

Wish i only paid 20%...

..

I'm retired now yet still working part time. Im loving that SS. Do me a favor Dis.. work harder and longer. I need your help making sure my SS check arrives on time every month. I'll plant a tomato in your honor. Now I have to find a crabapple tomato equivalent. Sour, nasty with a bitter taste and maybe slightly poisonous.

[dislaxxic]

Socialist.

..

[youthathletics]

Biden to Propose New “Billionaire Minimum Income Tax” of 20 Percent

Wish i only paid 20%...

..

[cradleandshoot]

Socialist.

..

Badabumpbaba.. I'mm lovin' it. Why are you posting here Dis? You need to be working to support my lazy ass... Back to work, break is over....

[dislaxxic]

I’m older than you are Baloney Boy

Got 9.5 months to go til I go full socialist like you.

..

[Peter Brown]

Biden to Propose New “Billionaire Minimum Income Tax” of 20 Percent

Wish i only paid 20%...

..

Once again, Democrats showing they have zero grasp of basic finance and wealth.

Ok, skipping the part where wealthy folks and mobile capital will simply move to where they are taxed least, imagine the drag on stocks when you force a guy like Elin Musk to pay $50 billion in tax. He can only source that by selling stock.

Does any Democrat understand what happens to a stock when there are more sellers than buyers? I honestly don’t think they do. And if they did, they wouldn’t care anyway, because the average Democrat is more interested in shared misery than free enterprise.

Vote Democrats out. Vote them all out. They’re anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-excellence, anti-achievement, anti-success. They’ll come for your wallet too, trust me. They are pro-misery. It’s all they know how to do, steal and ruin.

[a fan]

Ok, skipping the part where wealthy folks and mobile capital will simply move to where they are taxed least

There it is, Petey Brown in a nutshell. He's actually telling the truth, for once.

Brags about how star spangled awesome America is.

Yet he can't be bothered to pay his share in taxes....rather move it overseas.

Taxes are for little people, right Petey? Let those fools pay your share, right Pete?

Awesome. It's nice when you're honest.....I'll give you that much.

[cradleandshoot]

I’m older than you are Baloney Boy

Got 9.5 months to go til I go full socialist like you.

..

Welcome to the party you old fart. How many years did you pay in for your socialism?? What are your plans when you retire??

I also have a couple of annuities i will start collecting on in another year. Are they socialism or capitalism??

[Peter Brown]

Ok, skipping the part where wealthy folks and mobile capital will simply move to where they are taxed least

There it is, Petey Brown in a nutshell. He's actually telling the truth, for once.

Brags about how star spangled awesome America is.

Yet he can't be bothered to pay his share in taxes....rather move it overseas.

Taxes are for little people, right Petey? Let those fools pay your share, right Pete?

Awesome. It's nice when you're honest.....I'll give you that much.

Who’s not paying their fair share of taxes? My personal federal earned income tax rate isn’t chump change. My Florida property taxes are nosebleed. My corporate rates are high. My corporate sales taxes are large. My fuel excise taxes are beyond imagination. My field fees levied by port authorities and municipalities are constant.

Kind of hard to move hangars ‘overseas’.

[a fan]

Who’s not paying their fair share of taxes? My personal federal earned income tax rate isn’t chump change. My Florida property taxes are nosebleed. My corporate rates are high. My corporate sales taxes are large. My fuel excise taxes are beyond imagination. My field fees levied by port authorities and municipalities are constant.

Yeah....no one believes you Pete. Not even you.

Nice try though. Keep funneling your money to those Republicans, Pete.