There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:We are the 53 percent
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[edit]
[citation needed] Aceace 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 federalist 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)
- 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.
- 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!![edit]
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[edit]
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)