The bizarre liberal ideology

[P@triot]

Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons

Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist? To "distribute" someone has to control the supply dumb-ass. Who is controlling the economy and distributing the money? Anyone not a progressive minion knows the answer is "nobody".

 

[regent]

Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons

Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist? To "distribute" someone has to control the supply dumb-ass. Who is controlling the economy and distributing the money? Anyone not a progressive minion knows the answer is "nobody".

So nobody is distributing Social Security monies?

 

[Slade3200]

Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons

Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist? To "distribute" someone has to control the supply dumb-ass. Who is controlling the economy and distributing the money? Anyone not a progressive minion knows the answer is "nobody".

Why are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.

Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot

 

[Rustic]

Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons

Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist? To "distribute" someone has to control the supply dumb-ass. Who is controlling the economy and distributing the money? Anyone not a progressive minion knows the answer is "nobody".

Why are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.

Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot

Why would you care who owns shit, how much someone makes or doesn't make is none of your fucking business nor is it the federal governments

 

[Slade3200]

Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons

Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist? To "distribute" someone has to control the supply dumb-ass. Who is controlling the economy and distributing the money? Anyone not a progressive minion knows the answer is "nobody".

Why are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.

Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot

Why would you care who owns shit, how much someone makes or doesn't make is none of your fucking business nor is it the federal governments

From an economics stand point it makes a big difference. If there was no government and no taxation to provide economic balance we would be in very big trouble. There a reason why it's called trickle down and not waterfall. Show me an unregulated untaxed system what works more effectively in our modern society

 

[NoNukes]

So you're saying someone has to be poor to talk about wealth inequality?

Even for you, that's 'effin retarded.

So you're saying you are so insanely stupid that you don't see the glaring insanity of a man making $26 million per movie (which equates to $1 million per line) crying about "wealth inequality"?!?

I would say that even for you, that's 'effin retarded except that there appears to be no end to your stupidity.

You can have money and still think inequality is wrong. Are you so thick that you cannot understand this?

No, really, you can't. Because if you thought it was wrong - you would give all of your money to those in low or no income situations. Are you so stupid that you cannot understand this or are you such a partisan hack that you have to pretend like this is too difficult to understand?

Not true. Giving all of your money away would not help. Conditions need to change.

 

[NoNukes]

So you're saying someone has to be poor to talk about wealth inequality?

Even for you, that's 'effin retarded.

So you're saying you are so insanely stupid that you don't see the glaring insanity of a man making $26 million per movie (which equates to $1 million per line) crying about "wealth inequality"?!?

I would say that even for you, that's 'effin retarded except that there appears to be no end to your stupidity.

You can have money and still think inequality is wrong. Are you so thick that you cannot understand this?

No, really, you can't. Because if you thought it was wrong - you would give all of your money to those in low or no income situations. Are you so stupid that you cannot understand this or are you such a partisan hack that you have to pretend like this is too difficult to understand?

And in doing so one would do nothing to fix the systemic problem that exists.

Damen and people like him use their voice and power to promote the ideology they believe in. To support officials they feel will institute change where they feel there should be change. If he feels that wealth inequality is a problem then he will likely push for somebody that will vote for higher taxes on the top earners. If this happens then I don't imagine he would have a problem with it. He does a ton of personal charity work. Giving away all his money is a cop out proposal on your part and you know it.

Complaining about wealth inequality? Sounds like envy…

Not if you have money.

 

[JoeB131]

No, really, it's not. Because the true free market is completely flawless. You know why? Choice. Options. If Acme Inc. is full of unethical criminals, I can choose not to do business with them. When unethical criminals like Barack Obama and Hitlery Clinton occupy Washington - they impact my life and I can't choose to not let them. They operate at the barrel of a gun. The free market does not.

So, Poodle, when was the last time someone pointed a gun at you?

 

[P@triot]

So nobody is distributing Social Security monies?

So it is your contention that Social Security creates "wealth inequality"?

 

[P@triot]

Why are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.

Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot

Says the idiot who has been so thoroughly defeated in this debate that he has to keep moving the goalposts. First you said that nobody distributes money and that "of course it was earned". Then you turned around and gave the example of a product supply distributor". Oops.

You can't figure out which way is up because you can't defend your irrational position. There is no such thing as "wealth inequality". Everyone has unlimited opportunity to earn unlimited income. Some capitalize on those unlimited opportunities, some don't.

 

[P@triot]

From an economics stand point it makes a big difference. If there was no government and no taxation to provide economic balance we would be in very big trouble. There a reason why it's called trickle down and not waterfall. Show me an unregulated untaxed system what works more effectively in our modern society

Wait a second...I thought the official progressive position was that taxation was critical to run the government that was so critical for survival. Now you're admitting that taxation is used to punish successful people and "balance" income?

I bet your fellow progressives are wishing you'd shit the fuck up already. The more you talk, the more you expose the idiocy of the ideology.

 

[P@triot]

Not true. Giving all of your money away would not help. Conditions need to change.

If hypocrite asshole like Matt Damon gave away all of their money, that would "change the conditions", genius.

 

[P@triot]

Complaining about wealth inequality? Sounds like envy…

Not if you have money.

Yeah...if you have money it sounds like vintage progressive hypocrisy and trying to pull the ladder up behind you to ensure you maintain all wealth.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberals do not oppose personal wealth

They just believe the wealthy should contribute at the rates we had before our failed supply side economics experiment

 

[NoNukes]

Not true. Giving all of your money away would not help. Conditions need to change.

If hypocrite asshole like Matt Damon gave away all of their money, that would "change the conditions", genius.

It would make very little difference. The conditions causing this inequality have to change.

 

[Slade3200]

Why are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.

Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot

Says the idiot who has been so thoroughly defeated in this debate that he has to keep moving the goalposts. First you said that nobody distributes money and that "of course it was earned". Then you turned around and gave the example of a product supply distributor". Oops.

You can't figure out which way is up because you can't defend your irrational position. There is no such thing as "wealth inequality". Everyone has unlimited opportunity to earn unlimited income. Some capitalize on those unlimited opportunities, some don't.

Wow, you really think you are winning this debate, never mind the multiple comments from multiple posters calling your ideas idiotic and the fact that nobody has supported your position at all. You can't even recall the discussion correctly. You play word games over the definition of distribute which has nothing to do with the conversation. I gave you an example to put it into context that I thought your simple mind would understand, but I guess not. I can't fix stupid so I'm not going to bother trying anymore. You didn't even make it to the table on this arguement. Back to JV with ya.

 

[Slade3200]

From an economics stand point it makes a big difference. If there was no government and no taxation to provide economic balance we would be in very big trouble. There a reason why it's called trickle down and not waterfall. Show me an unregulated untaxed system what works more effectively in our modern society

Wait a second...I thought the official progressive position was that taxation was critical to run the government that was so critical for survival. Now you're admitting that taxation is used to punish successful people and "balance" income?

I bet your fellow progressives are wishing you'd shit the fuck up already. The more you talk, the more you expose the idiocy of the ideology.

Now I need to explain taxation to you? Jesus. Taxation funds government programs that provide security infrastructure and support for our vets, children, poor, elderly and all citizens as a whole. Funds are collected in a way to try and somewhat balance the economic scales and incentivize smart, healthy and proactive spending. The programs fill a need that profit driven companies can't fill as their purposes is to support the education, security, and well being of our citizens.

 

[AntonToo]

Dude, stop with the word games, of course it is earned, but in the act of earning money creates a distribution of wealth. Just like a product supply distributor distributes goods that are purchased. Sit in on one of your 4 year olds vocabulary lessons

Oh....you mean like a centralized faction that you admit doesn't exist?

Slade forget it, this guy is clearly retarded.

 

[P@triot]

Liberals do not oppose personal wealth

They just believe the wealthy should contribute at the rates we had before our failed supply side economics experiment

The only failed economics is progressive economics. It certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that created the worst economy in U.S. history under FDR. And it certainly wasn't "supply side economics" that the second worst economy in U.S. history under Jimmy Carter and it sure as hell wasn't "supply side economics" that created the third worst economy in U.S. history under Barack Obama.

See a pattern here? Whenever we implement progressives and progressive economic policy, we collapse. Whenever we realize that punishing wealth, prosperity, and success is like brutally spanking a child for a 4.0 grade point average, we flourish.

Progressivism is a cancer that kills everything that it touches. We need to find a cure for the cancer.

 

[P@triot]

Why are you arguing about the word distribute and playing word games? Do you really not understand the core of the discussion? Money circulates in our economy, wealth is acquired, as our economy progresses we see trends and stats of where that money goes, this determines a class system... The term "wealth inequality" is used to describe the problems that occur in our economic system when a small number of individuals own the vast majority of wealth.

Argue the validity and causes of the problems, argue about proposed solutions, but don't argue that wealth inequality does not exist... It just makes you sound like an idiot

Says the idiot who has been so thoroughly defeated in this debate that he has to keep moving the goalposts. First you said that nobody distributes money and that "of course it was earned". Then you turned around and gave the example of a product supply distributor". Oops.

You can't figure out which way is up because you can't defend your irrational position. There is no such thing as "wealth inequality". Everyone has unlimited opportunity to earn unlimited income. Some capitalize on those unlimited opportunities, some don't.

Wow, you really think you are winning this debate, never mind the multiple comments from multiple posters calling your ideas idiotic and the fact that nobody has supported your position at all. You can't even recall the discussion correctly. You play word games over the definition of distribute which has nothing to do with the conversation. I gave you an example to put it into context that I thought your simple mind would understand, but I guess not. I can't fix stupid so I'm not going to bother trying anymore. You didn't even make it to the table on this arguement. Back to JV with ya.

Bwahahahaha! Exactly, junior. Run away once you've painted yourself into a corner. You proclaim that distribution doesn't exist and doesn't need to for "wealth inequality" and then you turn around and your example is of a "product supply distributor". Any why? Because you're bizarre and immature belief of "wealth inequality" could only exist with someone distributing wealth. If there isn't a centralized body distributing wealth and doing so unfairly, then "wealth inequality" cannot possibly exist. And you know it. Which is why you can't give an accurate analogy that doesn't include a "distributor".