Untold Wealth: The Rise of the Super Rich

[DiveCon]

Look at even a company like Amway. Somthing like only 10 percent of people involved in it make money. Most of the product sits in people's garages because the people can't sell it. They get into churches and pollute them with this Amway religion.

i dont remember how many times i've had someone try to get me into that
if not Amway, then another one that was just like it
but those are pyramid schemes and not Ponzis
Social Security is a Ponzi
but that one is legal

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Because it outlines how billions of dollars were stolen from hard working Americans by hedge fund managers.

No Chrissy... it doesn't... There's not a single point within your little video which shows ANY theft from hard working Americans... where that THEFT is sanctioned by the Government or Conservatism or "the Right"... as you're desperate to imply.

It's a lie; a myth snatched from the leftist ether which is designed for no other purpose than to misinform the apolitical... the great unwashed... the mindless cattle who never fail to follow whatever path appears to provide the least resistance... and all of this towards the end of gathering sufficient political power to usurp the means of Americans to exercise their inalienable rights...

LOL... Keep pushin' girls... the tab is steadily addin' up and while it seems like it will never end, it will and there will be no escaping having to settle up.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Demonize the rich, nationalize the banks. You are on your way to communism.

Typical Republican silliness.

We are not headed toward communism.

But when the theves destroy the system, the government has to come in and repair it.

The same thing was done in the 30's with FDR, and in the 80's with the Savings and Loan scandal.

No it's not Republican.

Willow doesn't know jack shit about Republicanism or conservatism.

A lot of our trolls think if they insult people and take what they thinks is a hard-assed position against what what they believe liberalism or conservatism stand for, that passes for intelligence political discourse.

They don't really know socialism, capitalism, communism, liberalism or conservatism means because they are counting on the partisan talking heads to define their world views for them.

What they lack in critical thinking skills, they try to make up for with bombast.

ROFLMNAO... Isn't it cool how the Centrist is ONCE AGAIN FOUND DEFENDING LEFTISM?

And as is so often the case, she's decided to do so in this case by insulting a Conservative, while lamenting those that insult; and to redefine the termswhich define leftism without actually stating a definition.

Of course, the reason that she didn't cite a definition, while demanding that her opposition is wrong in thier understanding of that definition, is that were she to do so, she would erase any potential for a reasonable doubt in her intellectual means...

 

[Diuretic]

Well ... if the people are so smart then why don't they just boot them out?

Groupthink?

 

[Diuretic]

I don't feel sorry for the people who fall for scams, any more than I feel sorry for the idiots living beyond their means with credit cards. It's the same logic, which holds true as to why there are "super wealthy" as well. People keep giving them money, it's not their fault people love living so ignorant that they just give these people more and more money. Here's a clue, if you don't like people getting rich then stop buying everything from the same place. For instance Bill Gates ... rich ... why? Because people are too scared to try other OSs ... so then they have control, all they had to do was tighten the hold on their code a little more each release and no one stopped them (well most didn't). Should he be blamed just because everyone went to him for contracts in businesses? Or should he be blamed for everyone demanding his products because they didn't want to try anything new?

If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped. It's a bit like proving that Jesus didn't exist and was an invented character. If you had solid evidence of it would you release it? I wouldn't. It would result in chaos. This is just an analogy, I'm not trying to discuss Christianity and derail the thread.

Gates - it seems to non-technical me - made using a computer available to people like me. That was a damn smart move. He made his fortune on that idea alone I reckon.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Too bad neither you nor edit have a clue on this particular disaster Chris Again as much as Stanford and Madoff stole it would have made a dent in anything beyond the bank accounts of a few celebrities that should ahve known better. And neither of them were selling derivatives.

Madoff and Stanford's total theft will be over $59 billion dollars.

Many of their investors were charities.

Who said Stanford or Madoff were involved with derivatives?

ROFLMNAO... SO WHAT?

>WHO< or >WHAT< is standing up for THEFT, BESIDES THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT?

Chrissy here wants to toss out these two THEIVES as some sort of example of Capitalism... as if THEFT is a tenet of Capitalism... She want's to use the sourced examples of THEFT AND DECEPTION as examples of CONSERVATISM...

Which BTW, it should be noted that the self declared 'Centrist', the arbiter of 'fairness' has not advanced a word towards correcting this absurdity... CRAZY HUH?... you'd think a 'Centrist' would have RUN to do so...

Anywho... there is NO ONE in Conservatism, nor ANYTHING in Capitalism which even SUGGESTS that theft and deception are a necessary or even ACCEPTABLE tenet of either. To the Contrary... DECEPTION AND THEFT ARE FORBIDDEN IN BOTH CAPITALISM AND CONSERVATISM.

Yet here Chrissy is, with the implied assent of Editec, projecting that Madoff and company were standards of Conservative Capitalism.

 

[KittenKoder]

I don't feel sorry for the people who fall for scams, any more than I feel sorry for the idiots living beyond their means with credit cards. It's the same logic, which holds true as to why there are "super wealthy" as well. People keep giving them money, it's not their fault people love living so ignorant that they just give these people more and more money. Here's a clue, if you don't like people getting rich then stop buying everything from the same place. For instance Bill Gates ... rich ... why? Because people are too scared to try other OSs ... so then they have control, all they had to do was tighten the hold on their code a little more each release and no one stopped them (well most didn't). Should he be blamed just because everyone went to him for contracts in businesses? Or should he be blamed for everyone demanding his products because they didn't want to try anything new?

If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped. It's a bit like proving that Jesus didn't exist and was an invented character. If you had solid evidence of it would you release it? I wouldn't. It would result in chaos. This is just an analogy, I'm not trying to discuss Christianity and derail the thread.

Gates - it seems to non-technical me - made using a computer available to people like me. That was a damn smart move. He made his fortune on that idea alone I reckon.

Actually ... no. He perpetuated his company by branching out into that notion. MS-DOS was his first big seller, and that was nowhere near as use friendly as Windoze. Windoze started off as just a GUI to make MS-DOS more user friendly for the typical user, while it did revolutionize IBM based computers, it wasn't even the first such GUI, Apple had the first one. What made Gates rich was that he could market it best. He made people think his was better. That was genius. Bill doesn't even know how to write a program, hell, as we have seen he can barely turn the machines on sometimes.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually ... no. He perpetuated his company by branching out into that notion. MS-DOS was his first big seller, and that was nowhere near as use friendly as Windoze. Windoze started off as just a GUI to make MS-DOS more user friendly for the typical user, while it did revolutionize IBM based computers, it wasn't even the first such GUI, Apple had the first one. What made Gates rich was that he could market it best. He made people think his was better. That was genius. Bill doesn't even know how to write a program, hell, as we have seen he can barely turn the machines on sometimes.

Okay, I got that wrong. I suppose I was using my own experience. My second computer was MS-DOS (my first wasn't really a computer as such but that's another story). I struggled to learn how to use it, really struggled. Then I got hold of Wndows 3.0 (I still have the floppies, I never throw anything out!) and didn't look back. It made using the computer much easier for me.

Now, sorry if that's a thread drift.

 

[manu1959]

Demonize the rich, nationalize the banks. You are on your way to communism.

Typical Republican silliness.

We are not headed toward communism.

But when the theves destroy the system, the government has to come in and repair it.

The same thing was done in the 30's with FDR, and in the 80's with the Savings and Loan scandal.

lets see......if you amke less than 250k you will be rewarded.......if you make more you will be punished.....if you make way more you will be ridiculed.......unless you are a sorros or a kennedy or a pelosi or a reid or a kerry or a fienstien......then you are a member of the ruling elite and get to tell everyone what to do......but you need to take their guns first so they go quitely......

 

[Diuretic]

lets see......if you amke less than 250k you will be rewarded.......if you make more you will be punished.....if you make way more you will be ridiculed.......unless you are a sorros or a kennedy or a pelosi or a reid or a kerry or a fienstien......then you are a member of the ruling elite and get to tell everyone what to do......but you need to take their guns first so they go quitely......

That was a nice bit of hyperbole. Not much fact but good hyperbole

 

[manu1959]

lets see......if you amke less than 250k you will be rewarded.......if you make more you will be punished.....if you make way more you will be ridiculed.......unless you are a sorros or a kennedy or a pelosi or a reid or a kerry or a fienstien......then you are a member of the ruling elite and get to tell everyone what to do......but you need to take their guns first so they go quitely......

That was a nice bit of hyperbole. Not much fact but good hyperbole

really if i make less than 250k i am not getting a tax break......and if more i am not getting a tax increase....

and isn't this thread about ridiculing the super rich...

i am curious why the left super rich never get ridiculed by the the left .....

 

[DiveCon]

lets see......if you amke less than 250k you will be rewarded.......if you make more you will be punished.....if you make way more you will be ridiculed.......unless you are a sorros or a kennedy or a pelosi or a reid or a kerry or a fienstien......then you are a member of the ruling elite and get to tell everyone what to do......but you need to take their guns first so they go quitely......

That was a nice bit of hyperbole. Not much fact but good hyperbole

actually, it wasnt
since most of these guys write the laws, then exempt themselves from them

 

[DiveCon]

lets see......if you amke less than 250k you will be rewarded.......if you make more you will be punished.....if you make way more you will be ridiculed.......unless you are a sorros or a kennedy or a pelosi or a reid or a kerry or a fienstien......then you are a member of the ruling elite and get to tell everyone what to do......but you need to take their guns first so they go quitely......

That was a nice bit of hyperbole. Not much fact but good hyperbole

really if i make less than 250k i am not getting a tax break......and if more i am not getting a tax increase....

and isn't this thread about ridiculing the super rich...

i am curious why the left super rich never get ridiculed by the the left .....

because they use a generic term like "super rich" without actually looking for WHO they are

 

[KittenKoder]

That was a nice bit of hyperbole. Not much fact but good hyperbole

really if i make less than 250k i am not getting a tax break......and if more i am not getting a tax increase....

and isn't this thread about ridiculing the super rich...

i am curious why the left super rich never get ridiculed by the the left .....

because they use a generic term like "super rich" without actually looking for WHO they are

Using the generic term makes them look less human, which makes it easier for people to demonize them. The reason I won't demonize the "super rich" is because I have met some of them. Hell, I lived in a shelter which was started and paid for by one for many years. Another one (Bill Gates) funded for a ton of housing for the poor, which is all subsidized. By not actually getting to know the people they are attacking they can ignore the fact that they are attacking people.

 

[manu1959]

lets see......if you amke less than 250k you will be rewarded.......if you make more you will be punished.....if you make way more you will be ridiculed.......unless you are a sorros or a kennedy or a pelosi or a reid or a kerry or a fienstien......then you are a member of the ruling elite and get to tell everyone what to do......but you need to take their guns first so they go quitely......

That was a nice bit of hyperbole. Not much fact but good hyperbole

actually, it wasnt
since most of these guys write the laws, then exempt themselves from them

having lived in the soviet union during the 80's....they had their super rich elite ruling class.....religion and guns and money were the ruling classes privilege.....

funny how the country collapsed and suddenly billionaires appeared out of thin air.....

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I don't feel sorry for the people who fall for scams, any more than I feel sorry for the idiots living beyond their means with credit cards. It's the same logic, which holds true as to why there are "super wealthy" as well. People keep giving them money, it's not their fault people love living so ignorant that they just give these people more and more money. Here's a clue, if you don't like people getting rich then stop buying everything from the same place. For instance Bill Gates ... rich ... why? Because people are too scared to try other OSs ... so then they have control, all they had to do was tighten the hold on their code a little more each release and no one stopped them (well most didn't). Should he be blamed just because everyone went to him for contracts in businesses? Or should he be blamed for everyone demanding his products because they didn't want to try anything new?

If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped. It's a bit like proving that Jesus didn't exist and was an invented character. If you had solid evidence of it would you release it? I wouldn't. It would result in chaos. This is just an analogy, I'm not trying to discuss Christianity and derail the thread.

Gates - it seems to non-technical me - made using a computer available to people like me. That was a damn smart move. He made his fortune on that idea alone I reckon.

ROFL...

Cute... "If you stop people believing that anyone can get rich, then you shatter the illusion and that will lead to radical social change as people understand they've been duped."

Notice how this position is framed: "if you stop people believing..." Setting aside the syntactical trainwreck... notice that she didn't even TRY to speak to the simple fact that ANYONE CAN GET RICH... if 'getting RICH' is there goal... It's not particularly difficult... what IS difficult is the dedication and concentration required to gather the means necessary to establish being "RICH."

The position INSTEAD speaks to 'stopping the BELIEF'... and while it's unlikely that this was the intent... it's a delicious Fruedian slip and one which provides some insight into how these idiots 'feel'... which is as close to "thinking' as they get.

The simple fact is that if the individual didn't BELIEVE that they could EAT, they'd soon perish of starvation... as they would not pursue that which would produce the MEANS TO EAT.

Thus this position sets to lie the leftist means to their loathsome end...

The intention is; and has always been, to undermine the BELIEF that freedom, wealth and great personal acheivement is possible...

This is a function of their weakness, their own failure; the latter of which caused by the former... and their desperate attempt to avoid dismantling the delusion which they've carefully constructed to keep from facing the reasons for their failure; their failure to acheive; their failure to embrace that which is necessary to realize significant personal gain; THE BELIEF THAT SIGNIFICANT GAIN IS POSSIBLE.

The fact is they don't beleive it and they don't believe that it's fair that others do and that they use this "illusion' to gain that which they erroneously feel is that to which THEY are rightfully entitled: 'something for nothin' and the chicks for free...'

 

[KittenKoder]

More hot air in here from Pubicus ...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

lets see......if you amke less than 250k you will be rewarded.......if you make more you will be punished.....if you make way more you will be ridiculed.......unless you are a sorros or a kennedy or a pelosi or a reid or a kerry or a fienstien......then you are a member of the ruling elite and get to tell everyone what to do......but you need to take their guns first so they go quitely......

That was a nice bit of hyperbole. Not much fact but good hyperbole

ROFl... now watch how easy this is to refute kids...

Diur, what SPECIFICALLY in the post to which you respnded was NOT factual... And please note the query requires SPECIFICS... Now you've advanced an emphatic assertion, as fact; you've now been directly and unambiguously challenged to SUPPORT IT...

Now let the record reflect that Diur will not be able to specify that which is not factual... it's unlikely that she'll even TRY... but wither way will be very entertaining as either conclusively proves her ideological beliefs to be pure NONSENSE.

 

[DiveCon]

really if i make less than 250k i am not getting a tax break......and if more i am not getting a tax increase....

and isn't this thread about ridiculing the super rich...

i am curious why the left super rich never get ridiculed by the the left .....

because they use a generic term like "super rich" without actually looking for WHO they are

Using the generic term makes them look less human, which makes it easier for people to demonize them. The reason I won't demonize the "super rich" is because I have met some of them. Hell, I lived in a shelter which was started and paid for by one for many years. Another one (Bill Gates) funded for a ton of housing for the poor, which is all subsidized. By not actually getting to know the people they are attacking they can ignore the fact that they are attacking people.

Bill Gates is one of the most generous billionaires on the planet, yet he is despised by so many

i'll never understand it
i used to work for a MS subcontractor
and some of the stories we heard were amazing, and some really funny
like when he first had his house built, he was single and didnt even have a kitchen in it
when he got married he had to have it added on

 

[DiveCon]

More hot air in here from Pubicus ...

hey, dont knock hot air
we sure could use it here
we're getting more snow