Comments by "" (@pwrserge83) on "Paris Labor Protests Turn Violent: VICE News Quick Hit" video.

  1. +Ahhh714 Tell me more about how Marx caused Henry Ford to introduce the five day work week in the US.
    5
  2. Ahhh714 Anti-discrimination laws are de-facto unconstitutional. The government has no right to dictate what I do with my property. See the 10th amendment.
    4
  3. Flagellum Dei "off the labor of others"? Really? Please, do I, as a lawyer take some poor people out back and beat their money out of them? The only people making money off of the labor of others are liberal welfare whores. Fuck off you commie piece of shit.
    3
  4. Ahhh714 There is no such thing as "wrongfully fired" I can fire anybody for any reason. It's my fucking business. If you want to set the rules, start your own.
    3
  5. Dylan Grey Sit down and shut up private. If I want your opinion, I will IT it into your ass. I spent years as an active duty Marine. Funny how I remember what the Constitution I swore to protect stands for. It sure as hell is not a massive government that gives handouts to worthless scumbags in exchange for votes. Oh, and 50 hours per week? I smell a fucking FOBBIT.
    2
  6. Dylan Grey The fucker who fights to support people like Obama who pervert the Constitution is complaining about a wealthy elite who pervert the Constitution. There's a reason why I didn't re-up in December of 2008. I will be damned before I have a liberal fucktard in my chain of command. Just look at what his dumb ass has done to my beloved Corps.
    2
  7. Dylan Grey Oh... That's cute... A squid is complaining about his "horrible work load"... How about you join the actual military rather than a glorified taxi service? USMC 1371, tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Go get me my chow squiddy. Oh, and you have no 1st amendment rights. You're in the military. Go take a look at the UCMJ. Right now, if you were in my unit, I'd have your ass in front of the CO for an article 134 (if not a full court). Who is getting the handouts from the people OBAMA bailed out? Would that be Hillary? Gee, what a coincidence?
    2
  8. Muddy Fudger Oh look, a worthless pony fuking liberal. How spectacularly common.
    2
  9. Ahhh714 Bullshit. Most of the advances in order conditions in the US came long before the rise of labor unions. Fun fact, Ford paid his workers more and gave them weekends off because he wanted them to be able to buy his fucking products.
    2
  10. Ahhh714 ... Yes, he refused to bow to union terrorist tactics. The fact that he introduced the same things voluntarily in the FUCKING 20s, proves you're full of shit.
    2
  11. Ahhh714 Fucktard, wealth does not "move" it is CREATED.
    2
  12. Ahhh714 Yes, yes it is. The 14th and 15th amendments apply to GOVERNMENT ENTITIES, not private businesses.
    2
  13. Ahhh714 Yes... It is ok. Why? Because America is about freedom. If I am not free to do with my property (i.e. my business) as I see fit, we don't live in a free country.
    2
  14. Ahhh714  1. The pledge has nothing to do with the law. 2. That only applies to the GOVERNMENT fucktard. A business cannot affect your liberty or deliver injustice.
    2
  15. Ahhh714 Yeah... again. Private businesses have nothing to do with individual liberty or justice. So sorry. The US has never been the haven of "social justice" you commies think it is.
    2
  16. Ahhh714 Irrelevant. Private businesses are not a branch of government. Constitutional restrictions do not apply to them.
    2
  17. Ahhh714 Irrelevant. Brown vs Board of Ed applied to an agent of the government. It has nothing to do with private businesses.
    2
  18. ThornInTheEye Please tell me how a peaceful sit-in is the same thing as a riot that did millions of dollars in damage.
    2
  19. KyuubiValkyurie [CITATION NEEDED] Please cite one high poverty urban area that has voted GOP in the past 20 years.
    1
  20. Dylan Grey ... and I, in good conscience, could not take orders from someone (directly or indirectly) who spits on the CotUS. Funny how you CAN. That's the difference between combat arms and fucking FOBBITS. We have principles. ... and again. In the military, you don't HAVE 1st amendment rights. If I called Obama a cock-sucking commie while I was in uniform, I would be in the brig faster than you can turn your little swivel chair... and for good reason.
    1
  21. Dylan Grey Actually, ANY NCO of ANY branch can discipline an enlisted man of lower rank. It's not polite, and generally we take it through channels, but it's legal. (Normally, I'd have your PO or Chief bust your ass.) That's why I said... "if you were in my unit" Somehow I doubt a waste of space like you would have rank on me.
    1
  22. Theo McReich You do realize that the state can't give anything to anybody that it doesn't first take at gunpoint from someone else? Right? If you feel so strongly about helping others, donate to a charity that does so. Forcing others to donate to government charity at government gunpoint to make yourself feel better is basically armed robbery.
    1
  23. Tevo77777 Yes, and do you know what's CAUSING that negative population growth? Socialism.
    1
  24. Tevo77777 Bullshit. Socialism promotes not having children because children are expensive and the government is supposed to take care of you in your old age. So you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
    1
  25. Tevo77777 It's not a contradiction. As people become wealthier, leftists tend to need to import new welfare whores. (Except for their black vote plantation.) Wealthy people in socialist systems tend to have fewer kids as the benefits of having kids are far outweighed by the costs. (As I explained above.) Socialism is basically a three generation cultural suicide pact.
    1
  26. Tevo77777 Simple, the main economic benefit of having kids is that they are around to take care of you in your old age. When socialism makes that care unnecessary, the upfront investment in having kids makes no economic sense. Worse, socialism requires taxes to be raised and thus reduces cash available to families that WOULD have been used to raise kids.
    1
  27. Tevo77777 Except that for the middle class those benefits are irrelevant. The tax hikes necessary to support a welfare state far exceed the credits and the food money is a pittance when applied to the average household income. "The average cost of raising a child born in 2013 up until age 18 for a middle-income family in the U.S. is approximately $245,340 (or $304,480, adjusted for projected inflation), according to the latest annual “Cost of Raising A Child” report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Aug 18, 2014 Are you seriously going to tell me that the child will result in more than $300,000 of tax benefits over 18 years?
    1
  28. Tevo77777 Actually, in the 50s and 60s the middle class had almost double the fertility rate of today. Funny how that exactly coincides with the rise of the welfare state and skyrocketing middle class income tax rates. I note how you've completely backed off the "kids are an economic benefit" argument.
    1
  29. Tevo77777 You used your own experience as an argument. The debate was over at that point. Oh, and the taxes in the 1940s and 50s were far LOWER than today. Why? Because more than 50% of the population paid federal income taxes.
    1
  30. Ahhh714 ... and I will still laugh in your face because you have no authority to enforce your bullshit.
    1
  31. Ahhh714 When the law of the land conflicts with the constitutional right to property, it has no standing.
    1
  32. Ahhh714 It has no authority to make me hire or retain anyone. If such an authority exists, please cite the part of the Constitution that grants it. (If the CotUS does not explicitly grant such powers, then the 10th amendment applies and such powers do not exist.) As I said before, the Bill of Rights restricts GOVERNMENT acts, not private acts. For example, the government can't punish you for running your mouth. Your employer, however, CAN.
    1
  33. Ahhh714 If that was a bad thing, please explain how China managed to lift 2/3 of their population out of poverty in the past 20 years. (Because you just described what happened in the Chinese marketplace.)
    1
  34. Ahhh714 So the solution to crony capitalism caused by corrupt government is to give the government more power? Do you even logic bro? Do you think the government is going to become less corrupt when it has more power? How about we eliminate government corruption just by taking away any power in the government worth corrupting? That seems like a far more reliable idea.
    1
  35. Ahhh714 Sorry bro, but you can't "do away" with the 1st amendment. A business owner has as much right to political speech as anyone else. But please, let me know how voting for "non corrupted" Demokkkrats is working out for you... Where do you think your presidential nominee is getting her money?
    1
  36. Ahhh714 I don't give a shit what courts held. My rights are not subject to regulation, legislation, registration, or the democratic process.
    1
  37. Ahhh714 What part of I don't care what a court says didn't you understand. In this country, the people are sovereign, not the government. Somebody who tries to ram their rulings down my throat will find themselves with a case of rapid onset lead poisoning.
    1
  38. Ahhh714 Ah... The 92% myth.... Go fuck yourself. Oh, and the 10th amendment basically says that unless the Constitution EXPRESSLY grants the federal government a power, such a power does not exist. Please cite the portion of the CotUS that grants the federal government the authority to tell me who I can fire and for what reason.
    1
  39. ***** Actually, the limit on military grade weapons is unconstitutional per US v Miller. Oh, and machine guns are not banned. They are just unconstitutionally restricted. If they had outright banned them, that law would have been struck down by now.
    1
  40. Ahhh714 No, the SCotUS has struck down any and all bans on firearms that have ever been brought before them.
    1
  41. Ahhh714 Nobody has ever proposed banning all muslims. Banning muslim immigration is not the same thing fucktard.
    1
  42. Ahhh714 Again... Don't give a shit, but the law would be off the books. The two are not related.
    1
  43. Ahhh714 Again... fucktard, nobody proposed banning all muslims. What was proposed was a ban on all muslim immigration, which is both constitutional and well within the authority of the President under existing law.
    1
  44. Ahhh714 What "ties"? Are you talking about the bullshit "terror watch list"? If they have provable ties, make a case. US citizens have the unconditional right to keep and bear arms. End of fucking line.
    1
  45. Ahhh714 Actually, no, no it doesn't. There is no 1st amendment protections to foreigners not physically in the country. Try again.
    1
  46. Ahhh714 Sorry bro. Again. The Constitution does not apply outside the borders of the United States. We don't need a new law, existing statute allows the president to unilaterally deny entrance to any foreigners for any reason.
    1
  47. Ahhh714 [CITATION NEEDED] UCLA calls bullshit.
    1
  48. Ahhh714 You can't be a fascist if you have no government power fucktard.
    1
  49. Tevo77777 Again... UCLA economists call bullshit.
    1
  50. Ahhh714 Still waiting you to cite a source.
    1
  51. Tevo77777 Actually, he did it so that his employees had time to go buy his products. It's not a complicated concept. Besides, half the Demokkkratic party was in bed with Hitler right until 1939 and most of them still hate jews today.
    1
  52. Ahhh714 No. you're paraphrasing out of context. You do this to set up a contradiction that did not exist in the original argument. aka... Straw manning. Let's take your second example. "It's my right to discriminate Blacks/ Japanese just because of their complextion they were born into" Correct, I have a 1st amendment right to associate (or not) with whomever I choose without government compulsion one way or the other. "Japanese-Americans can't CHOOSE to not be Japanese-Americans [therfore it's wrong FOR THE GOVERNMENT to descriminate and segregate them]" See, no contradiction. One is the action of a private individual. The other is the action of a state entity. The former cannot be legitimately restrained in a free country, the other has to be for it to REMAIN a free country. Any other straw men you want me to set on fire for you?
    1
  53. Ahhh714 Nice to see that you're the one dodging arguments again. The Constitutional argument is actually rather simple. I don't acknowledge the right of any court to restrict the plain wording of the CotUS. Even if I didn't, I use your own reliance on the Court's rulings, to point out that your argument doesn't hold water.
    1
  54. Ahhh714 "The vast majority" BULLSHIT. I don't know a single gun owner that supports "universal" background checks. (and my gun club has 2000 members) Those studies have been demolished numerous times. The preface is irrelevant because the right is reserved for the people, not the militia. Just like the freedom of religion has nothing to do with the freedom of the press.
    1
  55. Ahhh714 90% of Americans != 90% of gun owners. In any case, 90% of Americans also wanted slavery. The federal government has no constitutional authority to require background checks and the 2nd amendment prevents the states from requiring them. Like I said. I don't give a shit what voters think about my rights. Rights are not subject to regulation, registration, legislation, or the democratic process. I also reserve the right to shoot in the face anybody who attempts to force any of the above on my rights.
    1
  56. Ahhh714 Thanks for keeping track of how often you make bullshit up. There is no way to conduct a poll of NRA members by anybody other than the NRA. The NRA does not release membership rolls therefore any study that claims to have surveyed NRA members is full of shit. Oh, when the NRA conducted the same polling, they got drastically different results. It's almost like they don't have a fucking agenda.
    1
  57. Tevo77777 Ah yes... The pro-Obama or pro-Russian troll arguing for a minimized libertarian government. How logical.
    1
  58. +DarkSideSixOfficial Yeah... Notice how conservatives never resort to riots. How many CVS Pharmacies were looted over the Finnicum shooting?
    1
  59. ThornInTheEye Yes, the firearms are what KEEPS it peaceful... on all sides. Your jackbooted thugs aren't all that willing to lob teargas at protesters ready to shoot back with live ammo. And yes, my wife and I sit down to breakfast with guns on our hips. Her with her service pistol, me with my CCW.
    1
  60. ThornInTheEye Actually, it doesn't. There are plenty of industrialized countries with much higher homicide rates. [cough]RUSSIA[cough]Mexico[cough] The problem is that we have a welfare state subsidized criminal underclass and a failed state right across the border. 80% of all homicides in the US are drug related. 
    1
  61. lolitabubbles26 If you don't like it, you can go work for a company that doesn't require that, or start your own. That's the fun part of a free market.
    1
  62. ***** Yes fucktard, that's why we also have a free market of labor. If you don't like the way your employer treats you, go find another employer.
    1
  63. ***** So you don't think happy employees are more productive? Are you fucking high? Why do you think Ford implemented a five day work week decades before it became law?
    1
  64. ***** Please tell me more about how taking shit that doesn't belong to you is "justice"...
    1
  65. ***** Gee... Because clearly THAT worked out so well in... Chine, Cambodia, The Soviet Union, etc... Face it, communists are the largest mass murderers in human history.
    1
  66. ***** Yeah... Keep thinking that. We've kicked the shit out of you commie fucks before. We'll do it again.
    1
  67. ***** Welcome to the 21st century. There is no such thing as the "bourgeoisie"... A bunch of rich people with no extra legal status do not qualify.
    1
  68. Tevo77777 You men land that was taken by threat of force from the farmers in the first place?
    1
  69. Tevo77777 The federal government is not allowed to own land in the Constitution fucktard. There are only a few very specific exceptions.
    1
  70. SirVixIsVexed To be fair, the average liberal IQ hovers right around 85. Right in the golden zone for irrational bravado and a tendency towards violence.
    1
  71. Tevo77777 No argument needed. There is a direct clause in the Constitution that contradicts your position. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--" Since the land was not purchased from the state with the consent of the relevant state legislature and was not used for the purposes listed, it belongs to the relevant state.
    1
  72. Tevo77777 Not what the Constitution says. The land belongs to the United States, but that's not the same thing as belonging to the federal government. There are a few very specific ways for land to become federal property war and purchase from a foreign power are not among them.
    1