Buys Ad To Warn About Socialism

[PoliticalChic]

How absolutely amazing -- a multi-millionaire who is opposed to socialism. I can hardly believe it!

I would like to tell this greedy sonofabitch to his face what I think, which is every penny over twenty million dollars in personal assets which he and others like him have managed to accumulate through his "hard work" on Wall Street (or some other exploitative scheming) should be confiscated by the IRS. And see how he likes that. Because the primary flaw in the U.S. economic system is permitting gluttons like him to hoard more money than any rational human being could need to lead a luxurious life.

I'd like to hear him lament how he couldn't get along on twenty million.

Imagine that: a computer programmer on Wall Street gets rich. How utterly incredible.

Why does the word, guillotine, come to mind?

1. "...this greedy sonofabitch..."
Clearly, Mikey, you're angry, but not informed.
He doesn't fit the definition of 'greedy.'
I suspect that the rest is untrue as well.


2. Here is a basic lesson in economics, and the key error in your thinking.
Wealth is not subject to federal taxation.
Earnings are.
Therefore, the greatest bar to becoming wealthy is taxation.
Which party is in favor of raising taxes, Mikey?
Do you vote Democrat?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is a fool who has nothing better to do with his money.

'Nothing better'?

Is that how you view education?
Now, your posts become clear.

 

[kiwiman127]

Here's a Bible verse that all those who are constantly defending the wealthy while disgarding the working class and poor should read and think about.

"Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, 'Here's a good seat for you,' but say to the poor man, 'You stand there' or 'Sit on the floor by my feet,' have you not discriminated among yourselves and becomes judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?" James 2:2-6

"...while disgarding the working class and poor should read and think about."

Muddled thinking on your part.

1. The 'working class' and the wealthy are one and the same....unless their names are 'Kennedy.'


2. "Poor" means no home, no heat, no food.
Do you see any such?


3. On the other hand, your post identifies you as a 'reliable Democrat voter.'
Carry on.

PC, Just because someone is to the left of you necessarily doesn't mean they are a"reliable Democratic voter". That's a lot of assumption on your part.
I never have voted straight ticket in my life. I leave that for the devote Kool-aid drinkers who have a serious problem thinking for themselves.

1. The working class as described by economist typically refers to those who are working in a non-supervisory position.
2. Poor would describe those within the lower 20% percentile.
3. Just because someone is to the left of you necessarily doesn't mean they are a"reliable Democratic voter". That's a lot of assumption on your part.
I never have voted straight ticket in my life. I have voted GOP and will continue to vote for moderate Republicans or moderate Democrats, in other words whoever comes closest to my values.

 

[kiwiman127]

Here is a fool who has nothing better to do with his money.

'Nothing better'?

Is that how you view education?
Now, your posts become clear.

Here we go again, PC demeans another poster implying their lack of education. You are truly a broken record who needs new material.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's a Bible verse that all those who are constantly defending the wealthy while disgarding the working class and poor should read and think about.

"Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, 'Here's a good seat for you,' but say to the poor man, 'You stand there' or 'Sit on the floor by my feet,' have you not discriminated among yourselves and becomes judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?" James 2:2-6

"...while disgarding the working class and poor should read and think about."

Muddled thinking on your part.

1. The 'working class' and the wealthy are one and the same....unless their names are 'Kennedy.'


2. "Poor" means no home, no heat, no food.
Do you see any such?


3. On the other hand, your post identifies you as a 'reliable Democrat voter.'
Carry on.

PC, Just because someone is to the left of you necessarily doesn't mean they are a"reliable Democratic voter". That's a lot of assumption on your part.
I never have voted straight ticket in my life. I leave that for the devote Kool-aid drinkers who have a serious problem thinking for themselves.

1. The working class as described by economist typically refers to those who are working in a non-supervisory position.
2. Poor would describe those within the lower 20% percentile.
3. Just because someone is to the left of you necessarily doesn't mean they are a"reliable Democratic voter". That's a lot of assumption on your part.
I never have voted straight ticket in my life. I have voted GOP and will continue to vote for moderate Republicans or moderate Democrats, in other words whoever comes closest to my values.

1. "Just because someone is to the left of you necessarily doesn't mean they are a"reliable Democratic voter". That's a lot of assumption on your part."
Oh...noooozzzz! I's a baaaaaaad girl.

2. "The working class as described blah blah blah..."
Definition designed to beg the question.
The wealthy are that because they work harder than other folks.
More hours. More risk. And more failures.


3."Poor would describe those within the lower 20% percentile."
Bogus.
Your definition is more like 'has a little less than you do...maybe...."
Let's use my definition, the reality based one: no home, no heat, no food.
Pick some to help....or, leave that to conservatives.


4. "Just because someone is to the left of you necessarily doesn't mean they are a"reliable Democratic voter".
Votin' for Obama?
Case closed.

5. And...speaking of definitons, 'reliable Democrat voter' can be shortened to 'uninformed.'
Raise your paw.

 

[daveman]

There are two groups of people who vote Republican, millionaires and suckers.

PC & friends...

Which particular The Man is keeping you down?

 

[daveman]

Here is a fool who has nothing better to do with his money.

'Nothing better'?

Is that how you view education?
Now, your posts become clear.

Here we go again, PC demeans another poster implying their lack of education. You are truly a broken record who needs new material.

Odd -- I never see you object to lefties who do that.

I'm sure you just missed those posts, huh?

 

[Rshermr]

"... he can damn well pay his fair share..."

Let's see how long it takes to prove how vapid both your rhetoric and your mind are....


1. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article.
Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166


a. I challenge you to provide links/sources of Liberal/Progressives/Democrats identifying exactly what that 'fair share' is.

If you cannot do so....it will lead to the conclusion that 'he can damn well pay his fair share' is merely an obfuscation of....

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need..."



Put your money where your mouth is.....no pun intended.

Stupidest post ever. You can never, ever prove to a con that the rich do not pay enough in taxes. There is an entire study in Economics about wealth distribution in economies over time. But the con mind wants to simply post opinion of what they would LIKE to believe. So Politichic does. She can not prove that taxes are unfair to the rich, but she believes it and wants to waste peoples time trying to prove the unproveable. Neither side of this issue allows for a quick proof. Just opinion is available in quick links to opinion. But there are studies of economies that have failed over time, and in every case, income distribution has been one of the major predictors of failure.
So, we can all copy and paste opinion. Total waste of time; No one cares about politichic's opinion or about mine. Simple waste of time.

"Stupidest post ever."

Well, then, you little worm, as the 'stupidest poster ever,' you've come to the right place.

Politicalchic says:

"Stupidest post ever."

Well, then, you little worm, as the 'stupidest poster ever,' you've come to the right place.

How clever. Politicalchic makes an attempt at insulting me. But then, you are a con tool. So considering the source leaves me rather non-insulted. Stupid is defined by your quote of Ann Coulter. Pretty much says it all to normal human entities.
So, you express libertarian ideas. Is that your leaning, PC?? You a CATO fan??

 

[MikeK]

1. "...this greedy sonofabitch..."
Clearly, Mikey, you're angry, but not informed.
He doesn't fit the definition of 'greedy.'
I suspect that the rest is untrue as well.

Other than the pathology called greed, what else would motivate a Wall Street billionaire to spend millions to resist an emerging socialist influence, which he knows will threaten his hoard?

2. Here is a basic lesson in economics, and the key error in your thinking.
Wealth is not subject to federal taxation.
Earnings are.

Making money via any legitimate means is called earning, according to the IRS (and Tony Soprano).

Therefore, the greatest bar to becoming wealthy is taxation.

You need to tell that to Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, the Koch Brothers, and a hell of a lot more. Maybe you can advise them on what they've been doing wrong.

Where the matter of standing wealth is concerned, I would strongly advocate confiscation of all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars. That is all personal assets!

Which party is in favor of raising taxes, Mikey?

The Democrat Party.

Do you vote Democrat?

Yes.

I was a registered Republican going back to the Barry Goldwater era, and for a time I leaned toward conservatism. But the things I've seen in recent years have convinced me there no longer is a Republican Party as it once was. Rather it has moved in the direction of fascism. So in 2003 I re-registered as a Democrat -- but only because there is no Independent Party in New Jersey and I wish to vote in primaries.

Essentially, I am an Independent thinker. I vote Democrat because I believe neo-Republican control of government would be a disaster which surely would bring about either a violent revolution or restoration of the Gilded Age.

I voted for Obama because the alternative was a Republican. I think Obama has been a major disappointment but a vast improvement over his degenerate predecessor. I will vote for Obama again because I fear a Romney/Ryan presidency. But I wish someone like Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Sherrod Brown, or Eliot Spitzer were in Obama's place.

PS. I have become a committed socialist because I firmly believe a strong socialist influence is necessary to preserve democracy and the middle class.

 

[Rshermr]

And PoliticalChic makes the following libertarian statements:

2. "The working class as described blah blah blah..."
Definition designed to beg the question.
The wealthy are that because they work harder than other folks.
More hours. More risk. And more failures.

You define the wealthy as their because of harder work, etc, etc. To which I say, your opinion has little value. You do not understand. I have rubbed elboes with the wealthy for the past 45 years, and I can tell you that they do not work harder, and do not risk more than the workers in their companies. Because, PC, they ENJOY what they do. Many, but not all, have no problem laying off hundreds and thousands of employees, shipping their jobs to china or india or cambodia, or bumfuck. Because they gain more power, more money, and their stockholders keep them around until they take the golden parachute to wherever they please. They care about themselves, plain and simple, and no one else. So, must be a great bunch, eh. Who could do that, lay off a thousand and feel nothing but pride? Obvious, me poor con tool. They are psychopaths. Smart as hell, with no conscience at all. So, good for you. You go ahead, sing their praises. But stop the working hard shit. They are having the time of their lives.

3."Poor would describe those within the lower 20% percentile."
Bogus.
Your definition is more like 'has a little less than you do...maybe...."
Let's use my definition, the reality based one: no home, no heat, no food.
Pick some to help....or, leave that to conservatives.

Actually, you needed little thought to come up with that definition of poor. How about lost their home to bankruptcy. How about went bankrupt as a result of medical costs (the most common reason for bankruptcy in this country). Had their jobs outsourced off shore. Etc, etc. But to you, they are all just non-productive people. Simple answers come from the far right, from the wealthy who want to be more so. But it has very little to do with truth.

4. "Just because someone is to the left of you necessarily doesn't mean they are a"reliable Democratic voter".
Votin' for Obama?
Case closed.

A common trait of stupid people is that they believe they have all the answers. Too stupid to consider any one else's ideas. Sound familiar, PC?

5. And...speaking of definitons, 'reliable Democrat voter' can be shortened to 'uninformed.'
Raise your paw.

See my response to 5 above. dipshit.l

 

[Rshermr]

PoliticalChic makes the incredibly simplistic statement:

Quote:
Which party is in favor of raising taxes, Mikey?

So, under the present administration, according to the cbo and other organizations studying the issue, tax rates for all levels of income in the us are lower than at any time since the early 1950's. Am I missing something, PC.
But, I have to agree, Obama wants tax rates on taxable income over $250K to go back to where they were when Clinton was in office. A whole 4% (well, not quite 4% but closer to 4 than 3) on the margin over $250K. Jesus, can they POSSIBLY stand it??? The cons are all having coronaries over the possibility. Just because we had the best economy in decades during those years. You know, that thing that never happens under repub admins - A DEFICIT. More new jobs than during any admin in the past 40 years or more.
But Jesus, PC. If you made $500K in taxable income, you would have to pay an extra $10K in taxes. Can they possibly stand to loose that much. No wonder they are screaming.
But then, a tax decrease would be much better, according to PC. You know, during all of those bad economies when tax decreases pulled us out. Right?? Oh, damn, PC. That NEVER happened. Only made the economy worse. Or do you have some example of when a bad economy was helped by tax decreases?? Of course you don't, PC. You do not because there were none. Only good results with tax decreases during good economic times. But just bad results when the economy was down. Care to explain that, PC. Otherwise, I would have to say you have been lying to us. Nothing new, I know. Or, maybe you are just that ignorant. Cmon, PC. Get out to those bat shit crazy con web sites and see what you can dredge up.

 

[Annie]

Here is a fool who has nothing better to do with his money.

'Nothing better'?

Is that how you view education?
Now, your posts become clear.

Here we go again, PC demeans another poster implying their lack of education. You are truly a broken record who needs new material.

Um, you missed her point, by several miles.

 

[NoNukes]

Here is a fool who has nothing better to do with his money.

He can spend his own money however he wants. If he was doing this for Obama, you'd be calling him a 'hero'. Fucking hypocrite.

And I can have whatever opinion that I choose.

 

[Bfgrn]

There are two groups of people who vote Republican, millionaires and suckers.

PC & friends...

Which particular The Man is keeping you down?

WOW, I could write a 50 page essay, and not prove my point more convincingly than your simple, unwitting question.

Only the subservient believe there is 'The man', or a hierarchy and only the subservient look 'up' to 'The man', or a hierarchy.

In my life, 'The Man' is I.

Liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are two groups of people who vote Republican, millionaires and suckers.

PC & friends...

Which particular The Man is keeping you down?

WOW, I could write a 50 page essay, and not prove my point more convincingly than your simple, unwitting question.

Only the subservient believe there is 'The man', or a hierarchy and only the subservient look 'up' to 'The man', or a hierarchy.

In my life, 'The Man' is I.

Liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Equality?


Equality means before the law....

....not, the impossibility, of material condition.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is a fool who has nothing better to do with his money.

'Nothing better'?

Is that how you view education?
Now, your posts become clear.

Here we go again, PC demeans another poster implying their lack of education. You are truly a broken record who needs new material.

You've got a point there, fruity.....

....it's a weakness I haven't been able to mitigate: I have little patience for stupidity....



But, thanks so much for providing 'debate prep' in that regard.

 

[NoNukes]

Here is a fool who has nothing better to do with his money.

'Nothing better'?

Is that how you view education?
Now, your posts become clear.

I consider propaganda and education to be different. Spending money posting my opinion might be 'education' to me, but you may differ, of course, you usually agree with me.

 

[NoNukes]

Here is a fool who has nothing better to do with his money.

'Nothing better'?

Is that how you view education?
Now, your posts become clear.

Here we go again, PC demeans another poster implying their lack of education. You are truly a broken record who needs new material.

I would have to respect someone's opinion in order to find it demeaning.

 

[daveman]

There are two groups of people who vote Republican, millionaires and suckers.

PC & friends...

Which particular The Man is keeping you down?

WOW, I could write a 50 page essay, and not prove my point more convincingly than your simple, unwitting question.

Only the subservient believe there is 'The man', or a hierarchy and only the subservient look 'up' to 'The man', or a hierarchy.

You could, but it would be wrong.

The left believes in hierarchy. They're the only ones fighting the class war, in case you didn't notice. They're the ones demanding that the upper class be punished for being successful, and that they pay for the left's bad choices.

In my life, 'The Man' is I.

Oh...so YOU'RE keeping you down.

Your position in life is the direct result of the choices you made. No one owes you anything.

So why are you bitching about those who made a success out of their lives?

Oh, yes...greed and envy.

So, how's your impotent bitching on the internet working out for you?

Liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Horseshit. Liberals pigeonhole people based on skin color, based on economic circumstance...liberals most definitely do NOT assume a natural equality of humans.

Conservatives do. We believe everyone can succeed without one group being given special privilege due to their skin color.

But you just keep lying to yourself.

 

[Bfgrn]

Which particular The Man is keeping you down?

WOW, I could write a 50 page essay, and not prove my point more convincingly than your simple, unwitting question.

Only the subservient believe there is 'The man', or a hierarchy and only the subservient look 'up' to 'The man', or a hierarchy.

In my life, 'The Man' is I.

Liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Equality?


Equality means before the law....

....not, the impossibility, of material condition.

The subservient always parrot some 'qualifier', because the subservient literally love the order that dominates them.