When Have You Made Enough Money?

[Polk]

@Harry:
You more often that not take up the conservative side of a given cause, at least based your posts here. That doesn't make you a bad person, but that does make you a conservative, and I won't back down from applying an apt definition.

@Tommy:
Envy is a terrible thing. I know it hurts you that the "evil liebul" had done something with his life, while you sit in your trailer with your cats, hugging that fifth of whiskey, but life is what you make of it.

 

[The T]

@Harry:
You more often that not take up the conservative side of a given cause, at least based your posts here. That doesn't make you a bad person, but that does make you a conservative, and I won't back down from applying an apt definition.

@Tommy:
Envy is a terrible thing. I know it hurts you that the "evil liebul" had done something with his life, while you sit in your trailer with your cats, hugging that fifth of whiskey, but life is what you make of it.

@ Polkshit?

FUCK YOU

 

[Cecilie1200]

It only "moves on" to the middle class because of the increasing push by your side to place everyone in the same boat. As I said before, there is no logical reason today's number of brackets has to be taken as an absolute rule of nature. This isn't about "soaking the rich", envy, or any other red herring you want to bring into the argument. It's that we simply can't afford our national commitments by putting everything on a charge card and hoping that no one checks on our ability to pay it back.

So gee, maybe we should stop spending like Paris Hilton on a bender?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Other
Any taxation is slavery.
Yes, I prefer anarchy to tyrrany.

To be perfectly honest, I cannot stand rich people. Perhaps it is irrational, perhaps not, but rich people scare the daylights out of me. I go to great lengths to avoid rich people in my day to day life. Granted there may be some rich people who are not evil to their core, just afflicted with inhumane desires... Still, most rich people are clearly not of good moral fibre. If they were, then they probably wouldn't be rich. Of course, even the rich deserve the respect and consideration I would grant any other individual, so please take my blanket statements, phobias, and ranting with a grain of salt.


At it's core being rich means subjugating others as a means of defining self or status. In other words, the rich are only satisfied with having more than the poor they so despise. I cannot think of a better word to describe one who only derives satisfaction from exploiting their fellow man other than "evil".

It is the rich who tax people, it is these elitists who start wars, who are predators preying upon the weaknesses and desperations of their fellow man. Usurers, warmongers, truly hateful inhumane people are among the elitist rich.

Sometimes I think the rich should be exiled to a land where they cannot compare themselves to the poor people they so hate... of course without poor people to exploit, this would likely be akin to a death sentence to such parasites of humanity. The elitists need the poor to enjoy their own lives, the poor do not need the rich to enjoy life.

So if the rich must play semantic games with the labels they use while extorting from the poor I suppose a flat tax is the most fair way to go about it, though it is silly to associate the word "fair" to the practice of slavery to begin with.

Why do I doubt that this 'tard avoiding rich people requires any "great lengths" whatsoever? I'm thinking he'd have to go to great lengths just to have the privilege of the entry-level receptionist of a rich person calling security to escort him from the building.

 

[csbarry]

There isn't enough time in my life to figure out just what the answer might be, but I will say this; it doesn't matter what you do, if you do it well, you should be well paid. The great majority of us that work put in 8 to 10 hours a day, have a couple hours to ourselves at the end of the work day, and try to get six to eight hours of sleep each night. What puzzles me is that there has always been those who believe they deserve a multi-million dollar yearly salary for what is usually the same amount of time put in as compared to the rest of the work force. There is no justification for that belief, and that is why capitalism is doomed to fail and egalitarianism will ultimately prevail or there will be world wide anarchy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When you can't come up with anything truely worth while to do with it.

Buying more expensive things that you don't really need doesn't count.

And who gets to decide what "anything truely [sic] worth while [sic]" is? You? I note that you feel qualified to tell us that "buying more expensive things you don't really need" with our money doesn't count, so I'll assume you ALSO feel that you get to decide what I "don't really need" is as well.

Must be nice to be able to elect yourself God.

 

[Harry Dresden]

@Harry:
You more often that not take up the conservative side of a given cause, at least based your posts here. That doesn't make you a bad person, but that does make you a conservative, and I won't back down from applying an apt definition.

no it may look like that....but look at who i am conversing with...Rdean,Zona,Political Asshat,Midcant,Chris....and a couple of others.....these people are so one sided Polk and in so many threads i have no choice....and of course since they are on the FAR Left it looks like i am taking the conservative side....when all i am doing is throwing their one sided shit right back at them.....i have agreed with Dean UNTIL he gets to the part in his posts where EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is either a Conservative or a Republican .....they are ALWAYS to blame....Democrats cant do no wrong....i will not take that shit from these assholes Polk....it gets fucking old....lately i was getting on PI....a RIGHT-WING version of Dean....now i find he has been banned....i have plenty of left leaners on my friends list....and i have backed them in various posts....so if it looks like that to you what can i say....check out the posts i am in where the Fringers are absent....you might think different....but when they come in....thats when my attitude changes....i dont like the extreme Fringers....sorry...

 

[arKangel]

Why do I doubt that this 'tard avoiding rich people requires any "great lengths" whatsoever? I'm thinking he'd have to go to great lengths just to have the privilege of the entry-level receptionist of a rich person calling security to escort him from the building.

First you call me a 'tard, simply because I avoid evil people. Why is that?

I suppose I should elaborate that I avoid all gold worshippers, this means the rich and their misguided slaves as much as I can. Why do you think this is a reason to belittle me?

Then you allude that avoiding userers and other elitists is not something hard to do, only to fantasize that I am being thrown out of an ivory tower that I am trying to avoid in the first place?


Is it that your only joy in life is the thought of evil people exerting force over others?

...there will be world wide anarchy.

 

[boedicca]

Why do I doubt that this 'tard avoiding rich people requires any "great lengths" whatsoever? I'm thinking he'd have to go to great lengths just to have the privilege of the entry-level receptionist of a rich person calling security to escort him from the building.

First you call me a 'tard, simply because I avoid evil people. Why is that?

I suppose I should elaborate that I avoid all gold worshippers, this means the rich and their misguided slaves as much as I can. Why do you think this is a reason to belittle me?

Then you allude that avoiding userers and other elitists is not something hard to do, only to fantasize that I am being thrown out of an ivory tower that I am trying to avoid in the first place?


Is it that your only joy in life is the thought of evil people exerting force over others?

...there will be world wide anarchy.

You're a tard because you prejudge a great many people as being evil based merely on the fact that they have more money than you do.

Envy is not a good lifestyle choice.

Just sayin'.

 

[Polk]

@Harry:
You more often that not take up the conservative side of a given cause, at least based your posts here. That doesn't make you a bad person, but that does make you a conservative, and I won't back down from applying an apt definition.

no it may look like that....but look at who i am conversing with...Rdean,Zona,Political Asshat,Midcant,Chris....and a couple of others.....these people are so one sided Polk and in so many threads i have no choice....and of course since they are on the FAR Left it looks like i am taking the conservative side....when all i am doing is throwing their one sided shit right back at them.....i have agreed with Dean UNTIL he gets to the part in his posts where EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is either a Conservative or a Republican .....they are ALWAYS to blame....Democrats cant do no wrong....i will not take that shit from these assholes Polk....it gets fucking old....lately i was getting on PI....a RIGHT-WING version of Dean....now i find he has been banned....i have plenty of left leaners on my friends list....and i have backed them in various posts....so if it looks like that to you what can i say....check out the posts i am in where the Fringers are absent....you might think different....but when they come in....thats when my attitude changes....i dont like the extreme Fringers....sorry...

Fair enough. I was making an observation based on what I've read of yours. Without reading everything though, I'll be the first to admit my view could be in error. I didn't intend my observation as an insult though, or to be dismissive. It was simply intended to highlight a situation I found interesting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do I doubt that this 'tard avoiding rich people requires any "great lengths" whatsoever? I'm thinking he'd have to go to great lengths just to have the privilege of the entry-level receptionist of a rich person calling security to escort him from the building.

First you call me a 'tard, simply because I avoid evil people. Why is that?

I suppose I should elaborate that I avoid all gold worshippers, this means the rich and their misguided slaves as much as I can. Why do you think this is a reason to belittle me?

Then you allude that avoiding userers and other elitists is not something hard to do, only to fantasize that I am being thrown out of an ivory tower that I am trying to avoid in the first place?


Is it that your only joy in life is the thought of evil people exerting force over others?

...there will be world wide anarchy.

Actually, dumbshit, I called you a 'tard for two reasons. The first is your asininely peurile equation of "Has money = evil". The second is your laughable assumption that YOU are the one "choosing" not to associate with rich people, and that you are somehow doing them a horrible wound by denying them your company, as though any of them know you exist or would deign to spit on you if they did. I think this is more than ample reason to belittle you. Also to mock you mercilessly as the waste of oxygen that you have proven, in one blindingly ignorant post, to be.

I don't doubt for a second that you're deeply confused about many things, so let me simple this up for you. You = bullshit little non-entity.

That help you any, Spanky?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do I doubt that this 'tard avoiding rich people requires any "great lengths" whatsoever? I'm thinking he'd have to go to great lengths just to have the privilege of the entry-level receptionist of a rich person calling security to escort him from the building.

First you call me a 'tard, simply because I avoid evil people. Why is that?

I suppose I should elaborate that I avoid all gold worshippers, this means the rich and their misguided slaves as much as I can. Why do you think this is a reason to belittle me?

Then you allude that avoiding userers and other elitists is not something hard to do, only to fantasize that I am being thrown out of an ivory tower that I am trying to avoid in the first place?


Is it that your only joy in life is the thought of evil people exerting force over others?

...there will be world wide anarchy.

You're a tard because you prejudge a great many people as being evil based merely on the fact that they have more money than you do.

Envy is not a good lifestyle choice.

Just sayin'.

Ah, but it has the advantage of being a luxury even losers like him can afford. And it allows him to imagine that the reason he can't get within five miles of a rich person is because HE chooses not to, rather than the fact that they wouldn't hire him to clean their pool filters, let alone associate with him.

 

[rightwinger]

SO WOULD YOU....Rw....but those same people will take 10 people with them and pick up the tab.....

No quite...

Those ten people are working and providing labor which contributes to the wealth of the one

so if you were on the wealthy side,which you may be,and you met 10 friends or family members at some upscale place for dinner....you would just pay for yourself and tell everyone else....hey your working....instead of grabbing the check?....

You must have dined with me before

 

[rightwinger]

Come on Harry, you know better than that.....

Congress is not expected to sway back and forth based on the daily whims of the populace.

Rw....lets say.....90% of America is against Amnesty for Illegals.....but Congress passes it anyhow.....are they representing us or themselves?.....many things these guys fuck with ARE NOT DAILY WHIMS......

The way it works is this. If 90% opposes it and Congress passes it anyway, those 90% are free to vote those congressmen out of office and elect those who are against amnesty. In the next session, the bill will be revised.

That is how it has always worked. 225 years and still working

 

[Foxfyre]

When you can't come up with anything truely worth while to do with it.

Buying more expensive things that you don't really need doesn't count.

And who gets to decide what "anything truely [sic] worth while [sic]" is? You? I note that you feel qualified to tell us that "buying more expensive things you don't really need" with our money doesn't count, so I'll assume you ALSO feel that you get to decide what I "don't really need" is as well.

Must be nice to be able to elect yourself God.

Setting the personal quarrel aside here, I think you have hit on the crux of the matter, Cecile.

Some in varying degrees despise the rich and/or who apparently deep down think nobody deserves to be rich. They usually believe nobody can become rich without obtaining that wealth through less than ethical or honorable means.

This particular phenomenon is sometimes overtly, and sometimes by more subtle means, reinforced by politicians who intend to gain personally and/or materially through promoting such class envy. The hypocrisy and dishonesty in that should be apparent as those promoting the class envy are usually people who already have they wealth safely stashed away, sheltered, and impervious to the ebb and flow of socioeconomic policy.

I believe President Obama is promoting such a prejudice and fallacious image of the rich in his statement that we eventually reach the point where we have enough. The implication is that people should not be allowed to earn more beyond that point.

I believe that this kind of thinking underpins and is the very foundation of all socialist philosophy: If some people are allowed to earn too much, then there won't be enough for everybody else.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The way it works is this. If 90% opposes it and Congress passes it anyway, those 90% are free to vote those congressmen out of office and elect those who are against amnesty. In the next session, the bill will be revised.

That is how it has always worked. 225 years and still working

but that was not the question i asked was it.....you said they represent us....if their votes dont represent us.....who are they then representing?.....here is the question again.....
..if 90% of America is against Amnesty for Illegals.....but Congress passes it anyhow.....are they representing us or themselves?.......

 

[Foxfyre]

The way it works is this. If 90% opposes it and Congress passes it anyway, those 90% are free to vote those congressmen out of office and elect those who are against amnesty. In the next session, the bill will be revised.

That is how it has always worked. 225 years and still working

but that was not the question i asked was it.....you said they represent us....if their votes dont represent us.....who are they then representing?.....here is the question again.....
..if 90% of America is against Amnesty for Illegals.....but Congress passes it anyhow.....are they representing us or themselves?.......

There was a time when our government had a healthy respect for and fear of the people. They knew if they voted against the will of the people, at least in an area the people were passionate about, they were dead meat. So they were truly representative of the people

We have seen a subtle change in that over the last several years as the media mostly stopped being the Fourth Estate representing the guardians of truth, respector of the American life and dream, and watchdog of ethics and underhanded dealing. The media has mostly become an extension of the Left with the responsibility to downplay the negative, obscure the realities, and promote whatever the talking points and propaganda of the day might be.

Thus our elected leaders, even some to the right of the ideological spectrum, no longer fear the people or care what they think. They know the media will promote their vote in a positive light and will not do its job to expose the downside of what government does. They count on an electorate that is so uninformed or so apathetic or so lulled into complacency that it presents no threat whatsoever to them.

And THAT is why they are now setting their sites on talk radio and the Internet, the last bastions of free thought. Control those two mediums, and they can do any damn thing to us that they want and we won't know what hit us until it's too late.

 

[The T]

When you can't come up with anything truely worth while to do with it.

Buying more expensive things that you don't really need doesn't count.

And who gets to decide what "anything truely [sic] worth while [sic]" is? You? I note that you feel qualified to tell us that "buying more expensive things you don't really need" with our money doesn't count, so I'll assume you ALSO feel that you get to decide what I "don't really need" is as well.

Must be nice to be able to elect yourself God.

Setting the personal quarrel aside here, I think you have hit on the crux of the matter, Cecile.

Some in varying degrees despise the rich and/or who apparently deep down think nobody deserves to be rich. They usually believe nobody can become rich without obtaining that wealth through less than ethical or honorable means.

This particular phenomenon is sometimes overtly, and sometimes by more subtle means, reinforced by politicians who intend to gain personally and/or materially through promoting such class envy. The hypocrisy and dishonesty in that should be apparent as those promoting the class envy are usually people who already have they wealth safely stashed away, sheltered, and impervious to the ebb and flow of socioeconomic policy.

I believe President Obama is promoting such a prejudice and fallacious image of the rich in his statement that we eventually reach the point where we have enough. The implication is that people should not be allowed to earn more beyond that point.

I believe that this kind of thinking underpins and is the very foundation of all socialist philosophy: If some people are allowed to earn too much, then there won't be enough for everybody else.

Interesting isn't it? I do wonder if Obama, and a good portion of the elected elites will subscribe to limits on what they make?

As long as it is everyone else but themselves?

 

[Modbert]

Interesting isn't it? I do wonder if Obama, and a good portion of the elected elites will subscribe to limits on what they make?

As long as it is everyone else but themselves?

I never knew you were a Liberal there Thomas.

 

[The T]

Interesting isn't it? I do wonder if Obama, and a good portion of the elected elites will subscribe to limits on what they make?

As long as it is everyone else but themselves?

I never knew you were a Liberal there Thomas.

Interesting that you gleaned that from what I wrote.

You're delusional.