Confirmed! Rich People Live Off The Work Of Others!

[daveman]

You're right. Life's unfair. So my question is: Since you don't give a shit about anybody else, why do you think anybody should give a shit about you?

Where am I demanding that anybody give a shit about me?

What he really means is "why should they listen to any protests from the people they are looting?"

They should be grateful the proto-totalitarians are stealing from them.

 

[Sundial]

Obviously, you didn't read the source. Don't claim you did, because you'd be lying.

Go read it, and then we can discuss it.

Lots of assumptions. Few appear to be based on reality.

You really think someone making $10mil in capital gains is going to spend less money buying stuff than the average member of the middle class?

Who said life is fair?

This isn't kindergarten. This is real life.

You're right. Life's unfair. So my question is: Since you don't give a shit about anybody else, why do you think anybody should give a shit about you?

Where am I demanding that anybody give a shit about me?

No where. A lot of conservatives spend a lot of time complaining about how they feel like they're being taxed too much.

I'm glad you don't expect anybody to listen to that crap.

 

[Sundial]

Where am I demanding that anybody give a shit about me?

What he really means is "why should they listen to any protests from the people they are looting?"

They should be grateful the proto-totalitarians are stealing from them.

Taxes aren't stealing.

Wait. You aren't complaining about being taxed... are you?

 

[daveman]

Way to avoid the question.

The answer is A.

Now who got poor because Bill Gates got rich?

Personally, I don't think anybody is "poor" because he got rich. Other people, however, have less money than they would have had.

Suppose it was Gill Bates, instead of Bill Gates, who licensed DOS to IBM. Then Bates would be the billionaire. Bates lost billions on that deal. Or suppose it was Linux, instead of Windows, that came preloaded on every PC. Then we'd all be a few hundred dollars richer.

Nobody's forcing you to buy a computer. You VOLUNTEERED to give "the rich" their money.

You're perpetuating the system you oppose.

 

[daveman]

You're right. Life's unfair. So my question is: Since you don't give a shit about anybody else, why do you think anybody should give a shit about you?

Where am I demanding that anybody give a shit about me?

No where.

Then you didn't have a point, did you?

A lot of conservatives spend a lot of time complaining about how they feel like they're being taxed too much.

I'm glad you don't expect anybody to listen to that crap.

Logic fail.

Meanwhile:

A lot of liberals spend a lot of time complaining about how they feel like other people aren't being taxed enough.

And you expect people to listen to that crap.

 

[bripat9643]

They should be grateful the proto-totalitarians are stealing from them.

That's the reason a thug is actual the moral superior of the liberal. At least a thug doesn't go around smugly believing he's doing good in the world. He knows what he does is wrong. A thug doesn't expect you to be grateful for being robbed, but liberals do.

 

[bripat9643]

Taxes aren't stealing.

Really? What's the difference between taxation and stealing?

 

[daveman]

They should be grateful the proto-totalitarians are stealing from them.

That's the reason a thug is actual the moral superior of the liberal. At least a thug doesn't go around smugly believing he's doing good in the world. He knows what he does is wrong. A thug doesn't expect you to be grateful for being robbed, but liberals do.

When totalitarianism comes to the US, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the CHILDREN!!"

 

[bripat9643]

Way to avoid the question.

The answer is A.

Now who got poor because Bill Gates got rich?

Personally, I don't think anybody is "poor" because he got rich. Other people, however, have less money than they would have had.

Suppose it was Gill Bates, instead of Bill Gates, who licensed DOS to IBM. Then Bates would be the billionaire. Bates lost billions on that deal. Or suppose it was Linux, instead of Windows, that came preloaded on every PC. Then we'd all be a few hundred dollars richer.

This is the classic liberal gambit that goes "if 'X' didn't invent the telephone, then someone else would have. Therefore, the vast mass of ordinary people owe nothing to the inventor of the telephone because it was inevitable." That ignores the possibility that the telephone might have been invented much later than it was invented. It also ignores the fact that only another man of the caliber of Alexander Graham Bell would have invented it, not one of the ignorant brutes who worked stringing up telephone wires.

The fact is that Windows and the PC increased the productivity of American business by many orders of magnitude. Every person on earth is considerably wealthier because of Windows and the PC. Linux wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Windows because Linux was initially written on Windows machines.

 

[Sunshine]

The answer is A.

Now who got poor because Bill Gates got rich?

Personally, I don't think anybody is "poor" because he got rich. Other people, however, have less money than they would have had.

Suppose it was Gill Bates, instead of Bill Gates, who licensed DOS to IBM. Then Bates would be the billionaire. Bates lost billions on that deal. Or suppose it was Linux, instead of Windows, that came preloaded on every PC. Then we'd all be a few hundred dollars richer.

This is the classic liberal gambit that goes "if 'X' didn't invent the telephone, then someone else would have. Therefore, the vast mass of ordinary people owe nothing to the inventor of the telephone because it was inevitable." That ignores the possibility that the telephone might have been invented much later than it was invented. It also ignores the fact that only another man of the caliber of Alexander Graham Bell would have invented it, not one of the ignorant brutes who worked stringing up telephone wires.

The fact is that Windows and the PC increased the productivity of American business by many orders of magnitude. Every person on earth is considerably wealthier because of Windows and the PC. Linux wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Windows because Linux was initially written on Windows machines.

This is true. Not only is the finance aspect of it importnat, but the efficiency aspect as well. I got 'tennis elbow' (tendonitis) from hand writing medical notes. Now I do computer documentation and that alone has increased productivity and saved God knows how many trees. There are just so many people now, that if we didn't have technology we would all be poorer.

I will have to qualify your statement about 'ignorant brutes' stringing up telephone wires. We don't have wires so much now, we have fiber optics and cell. A person who works with that technology can't be an 'ignorant brute' even though he may not have invented the telephone. And even those who did work with the wires had to have extensive training to do so and to keep from gettinig fried by the high voltage wires which were strung just above the telephone wires. And if you think back to the days of actual wires, the telephone was about the only thing in your house that you could count on working almost 100% of the time. If the phone didn't work in those days, there had been a major catastrophe. Even now, though, that can be almost true. When we had our ice storm here my cell phone still worked. No one could get in or out of my subdivision for days due to fallen trees and downed electric wires, but the cell phone was up and running as long as it held a charge and then there was always the car to charge it from.

http://www.drgibson.com/towers/

...This set of pages is dedicated to the men and women of AT&T Long Lines...the group who built a communications network designed to withstand World War III. Fortunately for us, they never had the chance to check it out

We would all be poorer if not for this amazing technology which we now take completely for granted.

 

[Sunshine]

Way to avoid the question.

The answer is A.

Now who got poor because Bill Gates got rich?

Personally, I don't think anybody is "poor" because he got rich. Other people, however, have less money than they would have had.

Suppose it was Gill Bates, instead of Bill Gates, who licensed DOS to IBM. Then Bates would be the billionaire. Bates lost billions on that deal. Or suppose it was Linux, instead of Windows, that came preloaded on every PC. Then we'd all be a few hundred dollars richer.

Of course, those of us who buy cars are several thousand dollars poorer than we were when we bought them, particularly after depreciation. And someone is richer; many someones have been able to put food on the table that night. However, if there is anyone who couldn't afford to send Bill Gates their money, they COULD have folded it and put it back in their pocket. It was their choice!~

 

[Sundial]

The answer is A.

Now who got poor because Bill Gates got rich?

Personally, I don't think anybody is "poor" because he got rich. Other people, however, have less money than they would have had.

Suppose it was Gill Bates, instead of Bill Gates, who licensed DOS to IBM. Then Bates would be the billionaire. Bates lost billions on that deal. Or suppose it was Linux, instead of Windows, that came preloaded on every PC. Then we'd all be a few hundred dollars richer.

Nobody's forcing you to buy a computer. You VOLUNTEERED to give "the rich" their money.

You're perpetuating the system you oppose.

Who said I opposed it?

I'm in favor of the system - particularly the part where men with guns come and make you pay your taxes.

 

[Sundial]

Taxes aren't stealing.

Really? What's the difference between taxation and stealing?

One is legal, the other is not.

 

[Sundial]

They should be grateful the proto-totalitarians are stealing from them.

That's the reason a thug is actual the moral superior of the liberal. At least a thug doesn't go around smugly believing he's doing good in the world. He knows what he does is wrong. A thug doesn't expect you to be grateful for being robbed, but liberals do.

When totalitarianism comes to the US, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the CHILDREN!!"

You're still whining about paying taxes, aren't you?

You've already said life's not fair. Or does fairness only matter when you're applying it to you?

 

[Sundial]

The answer is A.

Now who got poor because Bill Gates got rich?

Personally, I don't think anybody is "poor" because he got rich. Other people, however, have less money than they would have had.

Suppose it was Gill Bates, instead of Bill Gates, who licensed DOS to IBM. Then Bates would be the billionaire. Bates lost billions on that deal. Or suppose it was Linux, instead of Windows, that came preloaded on every PC. Then we'd all be a few hundred dollars richer.

This is the classic liberal gambit that goes "if 'X' didn't invent the telephone, then someone else would have. Therefore, the vast mass of ordinary people owe nothing to the inventor of the telephone because it was inevitable." That ignores the possibility that the telephone might have been invented much later than it was invented. It also ignores the fact that only another man of the caliber of Alexander Graham Bell would have invented it, not one of the ignorant brutes who worked stringing up telephone wires.

The fact is that Windows and the PC increased the productivity of American business by many orders of magnitude. Every person on earth is considerably wealthier because of Windows and the PC. Linux wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Windows because Linux was initially written on Windows machines.

How do you know if someone's a "great man" Britpat? Is it because he has a lot of money? If Bell invented the telephone, but didn't get rich, would he still be a great man? Is someone's bank account the measure of his greatness?

 

[Sundial]

Personally, I don't think anybody is "poor" because he got rich. Other people, however, have less money than they would have had.

Suppose it was Gill Bates, instead of Bill Gates, who licensed DOS to IBM. Then Bates would be the billionaire. Bates lost billions on that deal. Or suppose it was Linux, instead of Windows, that came preloaded on every PC. Then we'd all be a few hundred dollars richer.

This is the classic liberal gambit that goes "if 'X' didn't invent the telephone, then someone else would have. Therefore, the vast mass of ordinary people owe nothing to the inventor of the telephone because it was inevitable." That ignores the possibility that the telephone might have been invented much later than it was invented. It also ignores the fact that only another man of the caliber of Alexander Graham Bell would have invented it, not one of the ignorant brutes who worked stringing up telephone wires.

The fact is that Windows and the PC increased the productivity of American business by many orders of magnitude. Every person on earth is considerably wealthier because of Windows and the PC. Linux wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Windows because Linux was initially written on Windows machines.

This is true. Not only is the finance aspect of it importnat, but the efficiency aspect as well. I got 'tennis elbow' (tendonitis) from hand writing medical notes. Now I do computer documentation and that alone has increased productivity and saved God knows how many trees. There are just so many people now, that if we didn't have technology we would all be poorer.

I will have to qualify your statement about 'ignorant brutes' stringing up telephone wires. We don't have wires so much now, we have fiber optics and cell. A person who works with that technology can't be an 'ignorant brute' even though he may not have invented the telephone. And even those who did work with the wires had to have extensive training to do so and to keep from gettinig fried by the high voltage wires which were strung just above the telephone wires. And if you think back to the days of actual wires, the telephone was about the only thing in your house that you could count on working almost 100% of the time. If the phone didn't work in those days, there had been a major catastrophe. Even now, though, that can be almost true. When we had our ice storm here my cell phone still worked. No one could get in or out of my subdivision for days due to fallen trees and downed electric wires, but the cell phone was up and running as long as it held a charge and then there was always the car to charge it from.

AT&T Long Lines Microwave Towers Remembered

...This set of pages is dedicated to the men and women of AT&T Long Lines...the group who built a communications network designed to withstand World War III. Fortunately for us, they never had the chance to check it out

We would all be poorer if not for this amazing technology which we now take completely for granted.

Not to mention mention GPS (provided by the government), or the Internet (ditto), or the interstate highway system, or the "ignorant grunts" who won WWII...

People take a lot of things for granted.

 

[daveman]

Personally, I don't think anybody is "poor" because he got rich. Other people, however, have less money than they would have had.

Suppose it was Gill Bates, instead of Bill Gates, who licensed DOS to IBM. Then Bates would be the billionaire. Bates lost billions on that deal. Or suppose it was Linux, instead of Windows, that came preloaded on every PC. Then we'd all be a few hundred dollars richer.

Nobody's forcing you to buy a computer. You VOLUNTEERED to give "the rich" their money.

You're perpetuating the system you oppose.

Who said I opposed it?

I'm in favor of the system - particularly the part where men with guns come and make you pay your taxes.

Like the OWS idiots, I don't think you know what you want.

 

[daveman]

That's the reason a thug is actual the moral superior of the liberal. At least a thug doesn't go around smugly believing he's doing good in the world. He knows what he does is wrong. A thug doesn't expect you to be grateful for being robbed, but liberals do.

When totalitarianism comes to the US, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the CHILDREN!!"

You're still whining about paying taxes, aren't you?

You've already said life's not fair. Or does fairness only matter when you're applying it to you?

No, I'm not whining at all. About taxes or anything.

I'm laughing at the left's concept of "fairness" and their overall view of the world. It's really childlike.

 

[kiwiman127]

When totalitarianism comes to the US, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the CHILDREN!!"

You're still whining about paying taxes, aren't you?

You've already said life's not fair. Or does fairness only matter when you're applying it to you?

No, I'm not whining at all. About taxes or anything.

I'm laughing at the left's concept of "fairness" and their overall view of the world. It's really childlike.

So you're laughing at the millions of people who have experienced no wage growth after inflation, while the wealthy reap all the rewards that include the "grunt work" by the working Middle Class and working poor that helped drive the bottom-line?

Yeah, that's really funny!

 

[Sunshine]

You're still whining about paying taxes, aren't you?

You've already said life's not fair. Or does fairness only matter when you're applying it to you?

No, I'm not whining at all. About taxes or anything.

I'm laughing at the left's concept of "fairness" and their overall view of the world. It's really childlike.

So you're laughing at the millions of people who have experienced no wage growth after inflation, while the wealthy reap all the rewards that include the "grunt work" by the working Middle Class and working poor that helped drive the bottom-line?

Yeah, that's really funny!

So how do you explain the very American ideal: ' Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property' ???