Talk:We are the 53 percent

	This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Thanks for taking care of that, Nx. Wehpudicabok (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We are the 53% is a rather lame attempt by the American Right

^{[citation needed]} Ace^ace 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'We are the 99%' is kinda silly. Maybe they meant 00.000099% --208.40.4.94 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

[1] --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 15:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing quite like a foreign-born liberal trashing half of America.--208.40.4.94 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Purebred is much better, right? And no, he's not trashing "half of America" only the 5% nutjobs that think they are better people because they actually have enough money to effort paying taxes. --★uːʤɱ federalist 15:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I Cenk Uygur when he's angry. ADK^{...I'll burst your cabinet!} 19:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Foreginerz? THEY TOOK ER JOBS. Also, excuse me while I enjoy my Canadian healthcare benefits.

Did we directly reference income inequality in this article yet? People can't pay taxes if they don't earn any dough, you know. That's around half of the American population right there. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I must confess that I found the campaign positively brilliant, even if incredibly depressing. By showing so many people getting duped into essentially saying "My life is shit, but I bend over and take it", Erick Erickson has unintentionally created the greatest argument against The American Dream possible. Colossal Squid (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We are the 53 percent -- The Sequel!!

Given Mitt Romney's SECRET VIDEO, this page might need a couple of updates. Oh, and Mitt Romney is dangerously close to being added to the 'extreme wingnuttery' category, too. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wingnut Welfare

I'm having trouble working the following concept into the article: Erick Erickson complains that a whole bunch of people don't have jobs and supposedly are leeching off of everyone else, and doing so happily and with a sense of entitlement. However, he gets to bitch and moan about this perception of his for a living which means he himself does not have- pardon my French- a real job, relying instead on wingnut welfare. As I said, I'm having trouble incoporating this concept into the article as it is currently written. Any ideas? Rand0 (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)