Romney: Income inequality is just "envy"

[drsmith1072]

I love you idiots who want to blame everything on the so called rich or on corporations that somehow are robbing you of your shot to make money.

Who has actually made that exact argument??

Here's something for all you fucking sheep to think about. I'll write in small words so you can understand.

coming from a sheep that is priceless. LOL

If Joe Business walks into Senator Asshole's office with 100K in cash and asks Senator Asshole to give hm some consideration on a bill, that would be illegal right?

Right 100% illegal and both parties are indicted.

Now if Joe Business says to Senator Asshole, "I have 20,000 shares of my company I can sell you at $5 apiece before our IPO and when we go public that stock will be worth $100 apiece. And I'll even sell them to you on margin so you don't have to come up with the purchase price"

Now Senator asshole makes 2 million dollars on a stock trade the day of Joe Business's IPO.

Illegal?

FUCK NO.

And do you know why it's not illegal?

Because the fucking corrupt Senators and Congressman passed a fucking law to make it legal.


And you fucking morons are whining about corporations.

IDIOTS!

That's nice and all but that doesn't counter the strawman that you started this post with. Instead, it adds to it. LOL Yay, you argued that congress has corruption but in your story who is the corruptor? Joe business, who is trying to buy "some consideration on a bill" from a member of congress.

So how exactly does that show that the rich and corporations are not culpable when according to your own argument they are a major player based on the fact that they are trying to buy consideration from a member of congress?

You bascially just tried to substantiate your own strawman. LOL

 

[Skull Pilot]

I love you idiots who want to blame everything on the so called rich or on corporations that somehow are robbing you of your shot to make money.

Who has actually made that exact argument??

Here's something for all you fucking sheep to think about. I'll write in small words so you can understand.

coming from a sheep that is priceless. LOL

If Joe Business walks into Senator Asshole's office with 100K in cash and asks Senator Asshole to give hm some consideration on a bill, that would be illegal right?

Right 100% illegal and both parties are indicted.

Now if Joe Business says to Senator Asshole, "I have 20,000 shares of my company I can sell you at $5 apiece before our IPO and when we go public that stock will be worth $100 apiece. And I'll even sell them to you on margin so you don't have to come up with the purchase price"

Now Senator asshole makes 2 million dollars on a stock trade the day of Joe Business's IPO.

Illegal?

FUCK NO.

And do you know why it's not illegal?

Because the fucking corrupt Senators and Congressman passed a fucking law to make it legal.


And you fucking morons are whining about corporations.

IDIOTS!

That's nice and all but that doesn't counter the strawman that you started this post with. Instead, it adds to it. LOL Yay, you argued that congress has corruption but in your story who is the corruptor? Joe business, who is trying to buy "some consideration on a bill" from a member of congress.

So how exactly does that show that the rich and corporations are not culpable when according to your own argument they are a major player based on the fact that they are trying to buy consideration from a member of congress?

You bascially just tried to substantiate your own strawman. LOL

The corrupters are the assholes who pass laws that benefit them but do not apply to the rest of us you fucking moron. Businesses are not breaking any laws because the crooks in the government write the laws and the chief crook in the white house signs them. But those laws only apply to politicians and not to the rest of us.

If Joe Business gave you that deal , you'd be in jail. Yet you want more government which means more corruption.

You want to talk income inequality then start with your beloved politicians you brainless ovine.

How else does one who only makes 160K a year become a multi millionaire after just a few terms in congress other than institutional corruption?

You'd rather blame people who work for their money legally than blame the real fucking criminals.

So getting back to the thread

You're jealous because you're too fucking stupid to make it on your own.

 

[Gadawg73]

I remember in the early 60s in my neighborhood in Raleigh NC. The man down the road, Mr. Parsons, owned the local hardware store, a 5 and dime store and a dry cleaners. He sponsored the Little League baseball team I played on.
I vividly rememver the Ford Thunderbird and Corvette convertible he drove. One day I was out in the hot sun as a 9 year old raking grass and picking weeds in the yard. Dad came out to bring me some water.
Dad was a school principal at that time in the early 60s. As I was drinking my water and Dad was giving me my next chore Mr. Parsons came whizzing by with the top down in his Corvette. "There goes Mr. Parsons son, work real work and one day you just might be like him. He sure is a good role model and does a lot of good investing in the community with his businesses."
Now turn today and the Obama rhetoric:
"There goes Mr. Parsons. He stole everything he has from the gullible neighbors. He already has a Thunderbird so why does ne need a Corvette too. He is greedy and evil and it is not fair that he has more than us."
That is the mentality 100% of the Occutard movement.

LOL Now if you could please come back to reality that would be greatly appreciated. LOL

Personally, I think it's hilarious that you have to make shite up and attribute fictional quotes to obama in a desperate attempt to support your baseless opinions. LOL

Now tell us the story about the abandoned haunted house in your neighborhood that no one dared spend a single night it because the last kid who tried was never heard from again. LOL

How many videos do you want me to post where Obama uses the words "fair share" and "millionaires and billionaires"?
How many?

 

[IndependntLogic]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- According to Mitt Romney, the nation's growing focus on income inequality is all about envy.

"You know, I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare," the leading Republican presidential candidate said Wednesday on The Today Show.

When asked if there are any fair questions about wealth distribution, Romney replied, "It's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like."

Romney: Income Inequality Is Just 'Envy' - Politics News Story - WCVB Boston

Okay so he's partly right and partly wrong. A lot of people DO envy the wealthy for no other reason than their wealth. I remember my nephew used to say how "material" he considered me. I told him we just had different priorities. I like my profession and providing for my family. He likes smoking pot at 11 in the morning. So his daily priority was pot and mine was success.
When we went to Europe, we needed someone to take care of the house, the cars and the dogs for a couple months and I asked him if he would like to do this. He could have friends over, drive with the Benz or the Vette, whatever - as long as he didn't go overboard. Although he isn't the most responsible guy, he's okay - no disaster occurred.
But when we got back he admitted he was genuinely "bummed out" about going back to his little apartment and driving his own car. Turns out he likes material things as much as we do - he just doesn't want to work for them.

That being said, do we have a need to openly discuss tax poicies etc... that are unfair? Sure. DO our tax policies favor the rich and also corporations? Sure. So we work on them and do our best not to screw either side of the equation.
Anyone running for POTUS shouldn't be so foolish as to EVER use the phrase "Back rooms". Oops.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Furthermore since you went the way of once again trying to argue that there must be an "equal share" to pay off a common debt (which in reality has NOTHING to do with the defition of "class warfare" anywhere but in your own warped little mind, can you state for a FACT and prove that all private and public workers are paying an "equal share" to git rid of this common debt since walker fot his way??

In addition, your continued BS spin about the post office as you continue to ignore the fact that the requirement placed on the post office to "PRE-FUND 100% of their FUTURE retirees" is what created a large portion of their problem and that if they had similar funding requirements as other government agencies and private entitites they would not have that problem to deal with.

Would you like a box of Kleenex would that help? lol Apparently crying the same old whining crap about how the United States Post Office has to (dare we say) come up with a way to pay for their own benefits like every "financially responsible" company, is all I'm hearing from you.

Once again you show your ignorance. the problem is that they are not required to act just like every other "financially responsible" company because the actions of the republicans in congress. How many more times does this have to be explained and shown to you before you understand that the requirements placed on the post office are far greater than the responsibilities of other companies and government entities?

First, you have not shown me how your argument has ANYTHING to do with class warfare at all. Nothing. I broke it down nice and simple, and (1) showed from a list of benefit coverages from a Post Office link to support MY argument on their benefits costs from the Post Office benefit website (I received no dispute on their coverages). Do you have any comment about the cost of their benefit package or did you just skip over it? (2) Then I provided information as to what's to be found under a local electical union through another supportive link to, to show how much more expensive they through a comparitive discription of THEIR benefits. Then I asked you to just give me ONE example of a corporation with benfits that cover full-time, part-time and part-time flexible. You chose to back away and repeat the same old excuses. Why? Are you really having trouble defending your argument? It's a legitiment question.

Every corporation has to handle their OWN fiscal responsibilites, what makes you think the Post Office shouldn't? Why must they be the exception, simply because you would rather the Federal Government supplies all their financial needs? Every business has a budget that includes "labor costs" and when the labor costs includes very expensive benefits that burdens the company's business they have only a few options. Either reduce the benefits to save on cost, increase the cost of running their business to create more revenue to cover these expensive costs, or keep them as they are and go into debt. The Post Office apparently isn't interested in funding for it's own benefits package, judging by your constant repetition of the subject.

All I ask is PROVE TO ME the Post Office is class warfare. Why are you finding it sooo hard to provide a source or link that backs up and supports your point of view? Now arrogant people, as you call it, only bloviate without having the ability to defend their own point of view with ANY supportive piece of information. All you have provided to me is unsupported opinion, and nothing more. Show me that you can at least provide some form of informative factual links that backs your point of view. Can you or not? Yes or no?

Your response unfortunately will tell me all I need to know. Whether you desire to "support" your argument and can back it up, or you are simply a person who just content on complaining about the issue. I'm done wasting my time with complainers!

 

[drsmith1072]

I love you idiots who want to blame everything on the so called rich or on corporations that somehow are robbing you of your shot to make money.

Who has actually made that exact argument??



coming from a sheep that is priceless. LOL

If Joe Business walks into Senator Asshole's office with 100K in cash and asks Senator Asshole to give hm some consideration on a bill, that would be illegal right?

Right 100% illegal and both parties are indicted.

Now if Joe Business says to Senator Asshole, "I have 20,000 shares of my company I can sell you at $5 apiece before our IPO and when we go public that stock will be worth $100 apiece. And I'll even sell them to you on margin so you don't have to come up with the purchase price"

Now Senator asshole makes 2 million dollars on a stock trade the day of Joe Business's IPO.

Illegal?

FUCK NO.

And do you know why it's not illegal?

Because the fucking corrupt Senators and Congressman passed a fucking law to make it legal.


And you fucking morons are whining about corporations.

IDIOTS!

That's nice and all but that doesn't counter the strawman that you started this post with. Instead, it adds to it. LOL Yay, you argued that congress has corruption but in your story who is the corruptor? Joe business, who is trying to buy "some consideration on a bill" from a member of congress.

So how exactly does that show that the rich and corporations are not culpable when according to your own argument they are a major player based on the fact that they are trying to buy consideration from a member of congress?

You bascially just tried to substantiate your own strawman. LOL

The corrupters are the assholes who pass laws that benefit them but do not apply to the rest of us you fucking moron. Businesses are not breaking any laws because the crooks in the government write the laws and the chief crook in the white house signs them. But those laws only apply to politicians and not to the rest of us.

If Joe Business gave you that deal , you'd be in jail. Yet you want more government which means more corruption.

You want to talk income inequality then start with your beloved politicians you brainless ovine.

How else does one who only makes 160K a year become a multi millionaire after just a few terms in congress other than institutional corruption?

You'd rather blame people who work for their money legally than blame the real fucking criminals.

So getting back to the thread

You're jealous because you're too fucking stupid to make it on your own.

Actually I did not only blame "joe business" I said he is part of the problem. Without his money and offers to make politicians rich if they give some consideration for a bill then what reason would congress have to make such a deal?

It's obvious that you are biased one here. I blame all parties involved while you only blame the politicians even as you refuse to hold "joe business" accountable for offering the money and the deals.

I still find it hilarious that you countered your own strawman and none of your anger towards me for pointing out will change that. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

I remember in the early 60s in my neighborhood in Raleigh NC. The man down the road, Mr. Parsons, owned the local hardware store, a 5 and dime store and a dry cleaners. He sponsored the Little League baseball team I played on.
I vividly rememver the Ford Thunderbird and Corvette convertible he drove. One day I was out in the hot sun as a 9 year old raking grass and picking weeds in the yard. Dad came out to bring me some water.
Dad was a school principal at that time in the early 60s. As I was drinking my water and Dad was giving me my next chore Mr. Parsons came whizzing by with the top down in his Corvette. "There goes Mr. Parsons son, work real work and one day you just might be like him. He sure is a good role model and does a lot of good investing in the community with his businesses."
Now turn today and the Obama rhetoric:
"There goes Mr. Parsons. He stole everything he has from the gullible neighbors. He already has a Thunderbird so why does ne need a Corvette too. He is greedy and evil and it is not fair that he has more than us."
That is the mentality 100% of the Occutard movement.

LOL Now if you could please come back to reality that would be greatly appreciated. LOL

Personally, I think it's hilarious that you have to make shite up and attribute fictional quotes to obama in a desperate attempt to support your baseless opinions. LOL

Now tell us the story about the abandoned haunted house in your neighborhood that no one dared spend a single night it because the last kid who tried was never heard from again. LOL

How many videos do you want me to post where Obama uses the words "fair share" and "millionaires and billionaires"?
How many?

How does "fair share" and "millionares and billionares" even come close to being the same as your fictitious quote.

In order to substantiate your quote you would have to quote obama saying something similar to what you posted. You know that whole "greedy and evil" thing applied to all corporations.
The way you are trying to argue would be like me claiming to quote that W said "saddam hussein, ahmadinejad and kim jong il had a plan to attack inside america" and then asked you how many quotes you wanted me to offer to show video of W saying "evil doers" and "axis of evil".

They are NOT the same to pretend that they are is beyond absurd.

 

[drsmith1072]

Would you like a box of Kleenex would that help? lol Apparently crying the same old whining crap about how the United States Post Office has to (dare we say) come up with a way to pay for their own benefits like every "financially responsible" company, is all I'm hearing from you.

Once again you show your ignorance. the problem is that they are not required to act just like every other "financially responsible" company because the actions of the republicans in congress. How many more times does this have to be explained and shown to you before you understand that the requirements placed on the post office are far greater than the responsibilities of other companies and government entities?

First, you have not shown me how your argument has ANYTHING to do with class warfare at all. Nothing. I broke it down nice and simple, and (1) showed from a list of benefit coverages from a Post Office link to support MY argument on their benefits costs from the Post Office benefit website (I received no dispute on their coverages). Do you have any comment about the cost of their benefit package or did you just skip over it? (2) Then I provided information as to what's to be found under a local electical union through another supportive link to, to show how much more expensive they through a comparitive discription of THEIR benefits. Then I asked you to just give me ONE example of a corporation with benfits that cover full-time, part-time and part-time flexible. You chose to back away and repeat the same old excuses. Why? Are you really having trouble defending your argument? It's a legitiment question.

Every corporation has to handle their OWN fiscal responsibilites, what makes you think the Post Office shouldn't? Why must they be the exception, simply because you would rather the Federal Government supplies all their financial needs? Every business has a budget that includes "labor costs" and when the labor costs includes very expensive benefits that burdens the company's business they have only a few options. Either reduce the benefits to save on cost, increase the cost of running their business to create more revenue to cover these expensive costs, or keep them as they are and go into debt. The Post Office apparently isn't interested in funding for it's own benefits package, judging by your constant repetition of the subject.

All I ask is PROVE TO ME the Post Office is class warfare. Why are you finding it sooo hard to provide a source or link that backs up and supports your point of view? Now arrogant people, as you call it, only bloviate without having the ability to defend their own point of view with ANY supportive piece of information. All you have provided to me is unsupported opinion, and nothing more. Show me that you can at least provide some form of informative factual links that backs your point of view. Can you or not? Yes or no?

Your response unfortunately will tell me all I need to know. Whether you desire to "support" your argument and can back it up, or you are simply a person who just content on complaining about the issue. I'm done wasting my time with complainers!

Ok MORON you are once again confusing TWO separate arguments.

There was one about the post office and how the bill passed by republicans in congress has added to the budgetary problems of the post the post office.


and then there is the argument where you provided your own personal definition of class warfare (no source citred) in a desperate attempt to defend another poster in a discussion about wisconsin and how I used your own definition to show how it applied to what happened it wisconsin.

The fact that you desperately seem to want to continue to merge the two arguments shows how completely lost you are and how you have no valid points to offer.

P.S. I just love the fact that you continue to pretend that the post oiffice being required to PRE-FUND 100% of their FUTURE retirees healthcare is standard operating procedure for all businesses.

Oh and i also just love the fact that you have to omit parts of my posts that you can't counter because they call you out for your BS. LOL

 

[Gadawg73]

LOL Now if you could please come back to reality that would be greatly appreciated. LOL

Personally, I think it's hilarious that you have to make shite up and attribute fictional quotes to obama in a desperate attempt to support your baseless opinions. LOL

Now tell us the story about the abandoned haunted house in your neighborhood that no one dared spend a single night it because the last kid who tried was never heard from again. LOL

How many videos do you want me to post where Obama uses the words "fair share" and "millionaires and billionaires"?
How many?

How does "fair share" and "millionares and billionares" even come close to being the same as your fictitious quote.

In order to substantiate your quote you would have to quote obama saying something similar to what you posted. You know that whole "greedy and evil" thing applied to all corporations.
The way you are trying to argue would be like me claiming to quote that W said "saddam hussein, ahmadinejad and kim jong il had a plan to attack inside america" and then asked you how many quotes you wanted me to offer to show video of W saying "evil doers" and "axis of evil".

They are NOT the same to pretend that they are is beyond absurd.

I love your side step, dodge, twist and distort responses.
Bush has nothing to do with any of this.

 

[drsmith1072]

How many videos do you want me to post where Obama uses the words "fair share" and "millionaires and billionaires"?
How many?

How does "fair share" and "millionares and billionares" even come close to being the same as your fictitious quote?

In order to substantiate your quote you would have to quote obama saying something similar to what you posted. You know that whole "greedy and evil" thing applied to all corporations.
The way you are trying to argue would be like me claiming to quote that W said "saddam hussein, ahmadinejad and kim jong il had a plan to attack inside america" and then asked you how many quotes you wanted me to offer to show video of W saying "evil doers" and "axis of evil".

They are NOT the same to pretend that they are is beyond absurd.

I love your side step, dodge, twist and distort responses.
Bush has nothing to do with any of this.

What did I side step?? You made a stupid argument so I gave an example of a stupid argument about W in terms that I thought you would understand in an attempt to show you how stupid your argument was. I never said W had anything to do with it.

1. You created a fictional quote from obama.

2. I called you out for it.

3. You asked how many clips of obama saying something, which had NOTHING to do with your fictional quote, do I want you to find.

4. I point out to you that what you want to go looking for won't substantiate your fictional quote

5. Then you fail to post anything to substantiate your ficitional quote and despite your failure to provide anything real you are accusing me of sidestepping?? LOL

If you want to try to prove your argument then prove YOUR actual argument. Show proof that obama said anything that has the same meaning as the fictional quote that you created and stop blaming me for your failure to do so. LOL

 

[Gadawg73]

How does "fair share" and "millionares and billionares" even come close to being the same as your fictitious quote?

In order to substantiate your quote you would have to quote obama saying something similar to what you posted. You know that whole "greedy and evil" thing applied to all corporations.
The way you are trying to argue would be like me claiming to quote that W said "saddam hussein, ahmadinejad and kim jong il had a plan to attack inside america" and then asked you how many quotes you wanted me to offer to show video of W saying "evil doers" and "axis of evil".

They are NOT the same to pretend that they are is beyond absurd.

I love your side step, dodge, twist and distort responses.
Bush has nothing to do with any of this.

What did I side step?? You made a stupid argument so I gave an example of a stupid argument about W in terms that I thought you would understand in an attempt to show you how stupid your argument was. I never said W had anything to do with it.

1. You created a fictional quote from obama.

2. I called you out for it.

3. You asked how many clips of obama saying something, which had NOTHING to do with your fictional quote, do I want you to find.

4. I point out to you that what you want to go looking for won't substantiate your fictional quote

5. Then you fail to post anything to substantiate your ficitional quote and despite your failure to provide anything real you are accusing me of sidestepping?? LOL

If you want to try to prove your argument then prove YOUR actual argument. Show proof that obama said anything that has the same meaning as the fictional quote that you created and stop blaming me for your failure to do so. LOL

How can I ever prove anything to someone as arrogant and closed minded as you after you called me a liar?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Who has actually made that exact argument??



coming from a sheep that is priceless. LOL



That's nice and all but that doesn't counter the strawman that you started this post with. Instead, it adds to it. LOL Yay, you argued that congress has corruption but in your story who is the corruptor? Joe business, who is trying to buy "some consideration on a bill" from a member of congress.

So how exactly does that show that the rich and corporations are not culpable when according to your own argument they are a major player based on the fact that they are trying to buy consideration from a member of congress?

You bascially just tried to substantiate your own strawman. LOL

The corrupters are the assholes who pass laws that benefit them but do not apply to the rest of us you fucking moron. Businesses are not breaking any laws because the crooks in the government write the laws and the chief crook in the white house signs them. But those laws only apply to politicians and not to the rest of us.

If Joe Business gave you that deal , you'd be in jail. Yet you want more government which means more corruption.

You want to talk income inequality then start with your beloved politicians you brainless ovine.

How else does one who only makes 160K a year become a multi millionaire after just a few terms in congress other than institutional corruption?

You'd rather blame people who work for their money legally than blame the real fucking criminals.

So getting back to the thread

You're jealous because you're too fucking stupid to make it on your own.

Actually I did not only blame "joe business" I said he is part of the problem. Without his money and offers to make politicians rich if they give some consideration for a bill then what reason would congress have to make such a deal?

You don't get it do you. It would be illegal if the criminals in congress didn't specifically make laws that benefit only them. Hence the corruption is 100% the fault of corrupt politicians

It's obvious that you are biased one here. I blame all parties involved while you only blame the politicians even as you refuse to hold "joe business" accountable for offering the money and the deals.

he's not breaking any laws is he. It's the same as you blaming people who legally follow the tax codes for paying less than you

I still find it hilarious that you countered your own strawman and none of your anger towards me for pointing out will change that. LOL

I didn't as I said congress made those laws specifically so they could peddle influence and make themselves rich in the process. It wasn't corporations or the rich who passed those laws was it?

 

[drsmith1072]

I love your side step, dodge, twist and distort responses.
Bush has nothing to do with any of this.

What did I side step?? You made a stupid argument so I gave an example of a stupid argument about W in terms that I thought you would understand in an attempt to show you how stupid your argument was. I never said W had anything to do with it.

1. You created a fictional quote from obama.

2. I called you out for it.

3. You asked how many clips of obama saying something, which had NOTHING to do with your fictional quote, do I want you to find.

4. I point out to you that what you want to go looking for won't substantiate your fictional quote

5. Then you fail to post anything to substantiate your ficitional quote and despite your failure to provide anything real you are accusing me of sidestepping?? LOL

If you want to try to prove your argument then prove YOUR actual argument. Show proof that obama said anything that has the same meaning as the fictional quote that you created and stop blaming me for your failure to do so. LOL

How can I ever prove anything to someone as arrogant and closed minded as you after you called me a liar?

Says the hack who falsely accused me of a side step, dodge, twist and distortion even as he side steppted, dodged and distorted my argument as he falsely tried to claim I was arguing that W had anything to do with his deliberate misrepresentation of what obama said.

What? You can call other people names and accuse them of things but others can't hold you to the same scrutiny?? WOW! Thanks for the hypocrisy.

Furthermore, the fact that you still have failed to provide anything to support your misrepresentation shows that you still have nothing valid to offer or you would have already done it instead of running away from doing so. The truly saddest fact of all is that you are trying to blame me for your failure to substantiate your own arguments. LOL

However, If you can actually prove that obama said the same things that you quoted him as saying then I will admit that you were right. However, presenting video clips of him using the terms "fair share" and "millionares and billionares" is not even close to the meaning of what your misrepresentation impies or outright says.

The thing is that I know that you won't, because you can't, because obama never said anything like what you tried to attribute to him. Instead you will conitnue to try to blame me for your failure to prove your own arguments.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think "Income inequality is utter horse shit" would have been a better response... there always has been, and always is going to be income inequality. We are all different, we all have different levels of ambition and talents, etc.

Next.

 

[drsmith1072]

The corrupters are the assholes who pass laws that benefit them but do not apply to the rest of us you fucking moron. Businesses are not breaking any laws because the crooks in the government write the laws and the chief crook in the white house signs them. But those laws only apply to politicians and not to the rest of us.

If Joe Business gave you that deal , you'd be in jail. Yet you want more government which means more corruption.

You want to talk income inequality then start with your beloved politicians you brainless ovine.

How else does one who only makes 160K a year become a multi millionaire after just a few terms in congress other than institutional corruption?

You'd rather blame people who work for their money legally than blame the real fucking criminals.

So getting back to the thread

You're jealous because you're too fucking stupid to make it on your own.

Actually I did not only blame "joe business" I said he is part of the problem. Without his money and offers to make politicians rich if they give some consideration for a bill then what reason would congress have to make such a deal?

You don't get it do you. It would be illegal if the criminals in congress didn't specifically make laws that benefit only them. Hence the corruption is 100% the fault of corrupt politicians

It's obvious that you are biased one here. I blame all parties involved while you only blame the politicians even as you refuse to hold "joe business" accountable for offering the money and the deals.

he's not breaking any laws is he. It's the same as you blaming people who legally follow the tax codes for paying less than you

I still find it hilarious that you countered your own strawman and none of your anger towards me for pointing out will change that. LOL

I didn't as I said congress made those laws specifically so they could peddle influence and make themselves rich in the process.

OK what you don't seem to understand is that if a law is passed then it is LEGAL therefore the congress members aren't doing anything ILLEGAL either. So how are they "criminals" when they arenlt doing anything ILLEGAL?
Making it LEGAL it benefits both congress and Joe Business and they are both taking advantage of it therefore if one is "guilty" then both are "guilty" Furthermore, why would congress members pass such a law if Joe Business wasn't a willing participant as he buys their influence and support? They are both integral parts of a corrupt system and they BOTH contribute to it so they are both "quilty"

It wasn't corporations or the rich who passed those laws was it?

nope they didn't "pass" them but they did BUY them. Without their money there would be no reason to pass such laws.

The biggest flaw in your argument is that you are intent on calling congress members "criminals" for selling their votes and support but you refuse to apply that same standard to the BUYER of that now legel "product." If one party is guilty for selling it then by engaging in the same criminal enterprise so is the buyer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Actually I did not only blame "joe business" I said he is part of the problem. Without his money and offers to make politicians rich if they give some consideration for a bill then what reason would congress have to make such a deal?

You don't get it do you. It would be illegal if the criminals in congress didn't specifically make laws that benefit only them. Hence the corruption is 100% the fault of corrupt politicians



he's not breaking any laws is he. It's the same as you blaming people who legally follow the tax codes for paying less than you



I didn't as I said congress made those laws specifically so they could peddle influence and make themselves rich in the process.

OK what you don't seem to understand is that if a law is passed then it is LEGAL therefore the congress members aren't doing anything ILLEGAL either. So how are they "criminals" when they arenlt doing anything ILLEGAL?
Making it LEGAL it benefits both congress and Joe Business and they are both taking advantage of it therefore if one is "guilty" then both are "guilty" Furthermore, why would congress members pass such a law if Joe Business wasn't a willing participant as he buys their influence and support? They are both integral parts of a corrupt system and they BOTH contribute to it so they are both "quilty"

It wasn't corporations or the rich who passed those laws was it?

nope they didn't "pass" them but they did BUY them. Without their money there would be no reason to pass such laws.

The biggest flaw in your argument is that you are intent on calling congress members "criminals" for selling their votes and support but you refuse to apply that same standard to the BUYER of that now legel "product." If one party is guilty for selling it then by engaging in the same criminal enterprise so is the buyer.

They are criminals in every sense of the word. They exist to take our money from us and make themselves rich in the process. They do this by writing and passing laws that only apply to them.

They are the criminal elite.

There would be no legal graft if congress didn't first pass laws that apply only to them.

 

[Big Fitz]

I think "Income inequality is utter horse shit" would have been a better response... there always has been, and always is going to be income inequality. We are all different, we all have different levels of ambition and talents, etc.

Next.

get ready to hear more of this BS after the State of the Union, tonight

 

[JimH52]

...so says the Multimillionaire

 

[drsmith1072]

You don't get it do you. It would be illegal if the criminals in congress didn't specifically make laws that benefit only them. Hence the corruption is 100% the fault of corrupt politicians



he's not breaking any laws is he. It's the same as you blaming people who legally follow the tax codes for paying less than you



I didn't as I said congress made those laws specifically so they could peddle influence and make themselves rich in the process.

OK what you don't seem to understand is that if a law is passed then it is LEGAL therefore the congress members aren't doing anything ILLEGAL either. So how are they "criminals" when they arenlt doing anything ILLEGAL?
Making it LEGAL it benefits both congress and Joe Business and they are both taking advantage of it therefore if one is "guilty" then both are "guilty" Furthermore, why would congress members pass such a law if Joe Business wasn't a willing participant as he buys their influence and support? They are both integral parts of a corrupt system and they BOTH contribute to it so they are both "quilty"

It wasn't corporations or the rich who passed those laws was it?

nope they didn't "pass" them but they did BUY them. Without their money there would be no reason to pass such laws.

The biggest flaw in your argument is that you are intent on calling congress members "criminals" for selling their votes and support but you refuse to apply that same standard to the BUYER of that now legel "product." If one party is guilty for selling it then by engaging in the same criminal enterprise so is the buyer.

They are criminals in every sense of the word. They exist to take our money from us and make themselves rich in the process. They do this by writing and passing laws that only apply to them.

They are the criminal elite.

There would be no legal graft if congress didn't first pass laws that apply only to them.

OMG. If they pass laws to make it LEGAL then it is NOT ILLEGAL. LOL

However, if you argument is that it is a crime then ALL participants are guilty including joe business.

The fact that you continue to exclude joe business shows that your argument is flawed repeating it over and over again willl not validate it.

 

[drsmith1072]

I think "Income inequality is utter horse shit" would have been a better response... there always has been, and always is going to be income inequality. We are all different, we all have different levels of ambition and talents, etc.

Next.

And yet in another thread rightwingers are arguing that public sector workers should make the same as their private sector counterparts. LOL