not a single person’s (poor or not) bank account would get bigger as a result
Likely not, but I’d like to think the social reforms with an attack on the wealthy would bring some of our rights back and help with our standards of living issues our poor currently face thanks to the wealthy systematically disabling the things that brought prosperity and protected people. While you call it murderous envy, others might call it true social justice.
It’s not their stuff that’s wanted overall, to me it seems like hope is what’s in question here. They stand in the way of hope, voting doesn’t work, so I wonder if violent removal would.
Literally a nonsensical statement. Stuff overall worldwide is way better now than it was 100 years ago, and there were way fewer billionaires (even when adjusting for inflation) back then.
Stop making excuses. Nothing’s in your way other than your victim mentality.
How do those boots taste? That kind of shit right there is exactly how we backslide. Life expectancy is also higher than it was 1000 years ago. The only reason we left the first gilded age was a whole lot of legislation that’s been dismantled in the last 40 years, that if we go uncorrected we’ll be more impoverished than we were in that time period you referenced. “LOL” - as if to say it’s great that two generations can’t own a home, pay for healthcare, or retire. Real funny shit, asshole.
Me: There is less worldwide poverty than there was 100 years ago.
You: bOoTlIcKeR
It really is sad how emotionally-charged tantrums are the go-to response to the simple questions that interfere with your preconceived narratives.
P.S. Just because I had it handy, I’ll quickly debunk one of your lies: the home ownership rate is literally higher today than it was 40 years ago, lol. So much for “two generations can’t own a home” after those ‘40 years of dismantling’. If every time one of you dopes accused someone of being a “bootlicker”, you spent that time acquiring an actual fact, you’d be much better off.
Maybe if you weren’t dismissive of facts and cherry picked timeframes that support a narrow point of view, you wouldn’t be such an unpopular ass. (Oh shit I can link stuff too, oh man, fuck, that means you might have to look at information too). Also, you’re a piece of shit scumbag that’s now on the block list. Fuck off and have a shitty life.
Likely not, but I’d like to think the social reforms with an attack on the wealthy would bring some of our rights back and help with our standards of living issues our poor currently face thanks to the wealthy systematically disabling the things that brought prosperity and protected people. While you call it murderous envy, others might call it true social justice.
Killing people because you decided their stuff is valued too highly is not any kind of justice, no matter what kind of spin you put on it.
It’s not their stuff that’s wanted overall, to me it seems like hope is what’s in question here. They stand in the way of hope, voting doesn’t work, so I wonder if violent removal would.
Literally a nonsensical statement. Stuff overall worldwide is way better now than it was 100 years ago, and there were way fewer billionaires (even when adjusting for inflation) back then.
Stop making excuses. Nothing’s in your way other than your victim mentality.
Oh so medical bankruptcy isn’t a thing? Decline of ownership isn’t a thing? The unwinding of worker protections isn’t a thing? Shove off, bootlicker.
Is poverty worse or better today than 100 years ago?
EDIT: Deafening silence, lol.
How do those boots taste? That kind of shit right there is exactly how we backslide. Life expectancy is also higher than it was 1000 years ago. The only reason we left the first gilded age was a whole lot of legislation that’s been dismantled in the last 40 years, that if we go uncorrected we’ll be more impoverished than we were in that time period you referenced. “LOL” - as if to say it’s great that two generations can’t own a home, pay for healthcare, or retire. Real funny shit, asshole.
Me: There is less worldwide poverty than there was 100 years ago.
You: bOoTlIcKeR
It really is sad how emotionally-charged tantrums are the go-to response to the simple questions that interfere with your preconceived narratives.
P.S. Just because I had it handy, I’ll quickly debunk one of your lies: the home ownership rate is literally higher today than it was 40 years ago, lol. So much for “two generations can’t own a home” after those ‘40 years of dismantling’. If every time one of you dopes accused someone of being a “bootlicker”, you spent that time acquiring an actual fact, you’d be much better off.
Maybe if you weren’t dismissive of facts and cherry picked timeframes that support a narrow point of view, you wouldn’t be such an unpopular ass. (Oh shit I can link stuff too, oh man, fuck, that means you might have to look at information too). Also, you’re a piece of shit scumbag that’s now on the block list. Fuck off and have a shitty life.