Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
disco

More fox lols

Recommended Posts

Since I'm too lazy to look for the news website comments thread, and the article I just read moderately dovetails into this discussion, please look at the following comments.

 

People like this scare me, but they, I believe, are indicative of the attitude that has developed against "the rich" in the country.

 

Wakehead, you can't force charity. When you do, it's called robbery.

 

Only by Libertarians and greedy @!$%#s.

 

It's a free country and they shouldn't have to provide for the rest of us.

 

Yes, it's a "free" country, no one did anything to stop them from stealing the wealth in the first place. Paying slightly higher taxes sure beats getting dragged out to meet the guillotine.

 

Their actions will be dealt with in the next life.

 

You may want to wait for the giant spaghetti monster in the sky to deal with it, some of us would rather be a bit more proactive.

 

I wonder how rich they will feel when the poor in this country start rebelling and slitting their throats? Keep up the greed ...it is only a matter of time.

 

People like warren and oprah help not the human race, hell some might not even help their own families, but they sure as hell help themselves to whatever they can get their greedy little digits upon. Disgusting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about College Professors that aren't Democrats and Christians that aren't Republicans?
I was pretty sure that neither economists nor catholics counted, ever. Especially catholic economists.
People like this scare me, but they, I believe, are indicative of the attitude that has developed against "the rich" in the country.
I think that the reason you see this is the fact that the tax rates, after accounting for deductions, tend to peak for the middle class and then decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with your description of why poor people are poor, and find it rather insulting to poor people honestly. But your campaign finance proposal is not too different from mine, so on that I suppose we could say we agree. I also do not mind people donating money for political causes, but I do mind when one person can give 500x as much as someone else - that means they're getting more input, and just because they have money doesn't always mean they've "earned" it or use it wisely.

 

Well, you are talking about .01% of the population. Cat is talking about the majority of poor people. (A slightly higher portion of the population)

 

You are thinking of a person who was born into an extremely wealthy family. Yes, in that case that specific person didn't do anything to get the money, but someone in there family did. At some point some person had to earn the money and PASS IT ON TO THERE CHILDREN.

 

I see that as the main difference between poor and rich people. Most poor people don't care about their children. They give them nothing, leave them nothing, or they give the children things that don't matter and that is why they are at the BOTTOM of society.

 

Cat is trying to say that poor people are a direct result of irresponsibility and bad decisions. Not because some rich guy oppressed them.

 

Yeah, I assume it would be insulting for a person to learn this information but it doesn't change the truth.

 

p.s.

 

I agree with RD's statement. The middle class is the class that gets fucked over the most. By the rich and the poor. Very unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The causes of being poor are infinite, and are definitely not limited to irresponsibility. Creating a judgment of a person's values by examining his net worth is retarded (its the type of idiocy which led to debtor's prisons, among other things), and I'm not going to get into that.

 

My point was, and remains, that a person with money should not have more influence over politics than someone without money, or someone with less money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The causes of being poor are infinite, and are definitely not limited to irresponsibility. Creating a judgment of a person's values by examining his net worth is retarded (its the type of idiocy which led to debtor's prisons, among other things), and I'm not going to get into that.

 

I agree with this for the most part. But I don't view the monetary value a person has as snapshot, but as a timeline. Something happened at some point to get a person on that path, or something has kept them on that path. Generally, it has to do with how motivated a person is, or how much opportunity they believe they have, which keeps them where they are, no matter what point on the financial spectrum they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most poor people don't care about their children. They give them nothing, leave them nothing, or they give the children things that don't matter and that is why they are at the BOTTOM of society.

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

Most poor people care about their children. Unfortunately, they HAVE nothing to give them, leave them, or they give the children the only things they have (i.e. items that have no monetary value yet may somehow be sentimental in some way). That is why they remain at the BOTTOM of society.

 

How can you say that rich people care about their children more than poor people just because they have something to give them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so. People who don't study history think democracy is something other than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

 

i think this is the weirdest way someone has ever agreed with me? i think.

 

at least when two wolves and a sheep vote it corresponds roughly to natural order. most of the time it's two sheep and a wolf deciding everyone's going to eat vegetarian...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy is a good form of government. But like all forms of government, it requires safeguards. No system of anything in its purest form works. It always requires caveats. This is why morons crying "abortion is MURDER" are morons.

 

Also at least two of you are totally ignorant of the correlation between sociology and poverty. Go study it before you make judgments, you ignorant fucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think this is the weirdest way someone has ever agreed with me? i think.

 

at least when two wolves and a sheep vote it corresponds roughly to natural order. most of the time it's two sheep and a wolf deciding everyone's going to eat vegetarian...

Umm... I'm pretty sure that the wolf will trump the two sheep in your scenario as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy is a good form of government. But like all forms of government, it requires safeguards. No system of anything in its purest form works. It always requires caveats. This is why morons crying "abortion is MURDER" are morons.

 

Also at least two of you are totally ignorant of the correlation between sociology and poverty. Go study it before you make judgments, you ignorant fucks.

 

So happy we could have an intelligent, reasoned conversation without devolving into name calling. Oh, wait. We can't.

 

THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why morons crying "abortion is MURDER" are morons.

 

 

 

Some people who are pro-abortion have bumper stickers that say "Don't like abortion? Don't have one." Does that sound like a well-reasoned argument?

 

Is a bumper sticker saying "Don't like slavery? Don't own one" sound like a well-reasoned argument?

Should we criminally prosecute women who drink, smoke, or do drugs during pregnancy?

Should the intention to abort a baby be allowed as a defense to the crime of smoking, drinking, or doing drugs during pregnancy?

 

A pregnant woman is driving down the road. She gets hit by another car, which causes her to have a miscarriage. In most states, the other driver can charged with murder. Does that make sense to you?

 

If she were on her way to the clinic to have an abortion, the other driver can still be charged. Does THAT make sense?

 

If the other driver were the very doctor that was going to perform her abortion, he can still be charged with murder. Does THAT make sense?

 

When a woman cries, 'my body, my choice', does she realize that the fetus has different DNA, and is therefore not her body?

 

When a suspect’s DNA is found at a murder scene is it permissible to arrest his mother? Or has she been ruled out as the murderer because she has different DNA?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you read the first line and then quit reading?

 

The rest was a massive derail I didn't want to bother getting into, and actually proves my point that abortion is a complex issue and is not black and white. So, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it does require matching funds. $10 / person per candidate probably wouldn't be enough to produce advertisements, let alone buy the airtime to put them on. People may not like the idea of government-funded campaigns, but its either government-funded (and equal) campaigns or private-funded (and inequal) campaigns.

 

You do realize that this is completely false, right? I just did the math for you, the average campaign donation to Obama, since he refused the federal money to make way more for his campaign, was a meager $7.5 per vote. Mccain had about 5.5 per vote. $10 bucks a person, if they actually fucking donated, would have easily been the highest a candidate had EVER RECEIVED! I think you are grossly misrepresenting the influence of the donation money from big business and grossly underestimating the lack of donations from people. If everyone actually did put 10 bucks to the guy they were going to vote for, we'd have the richest campaigns in the history of the US, by far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe people decide not to donate 10 dollars because they realize it is essentially meaningless as it will take a million 10 dollar donations to match a single 10 million dollar donation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe people decide not to donate 10 dollars because they realize it is essentially meaningless as it will take a million 10 dollar donations to match a single 10 million dollar donation.

 

And this is the idiocy that plagues people. It would, does, and did. Look at the Obama campaign. Your 10 dollar donations do make a fucking huge difference. How many 10 million dollar donations do you think there were last election where there was over a billion donated? How many 10 dollar donations? I bet you'd be surprised.

 

Stop with the "oh my single vote doesn't mean anything" line of reasoning. It's simply not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about votes. 1 vote is equal to 1 vote. I'm not sure what sort of math you have to use to show that one 10 dollar donation is equal to one 10 million dollar donation though.

 

A few huge donations one way or the other can swing things a lot more than a few tiny donations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about votes. 1 vote is equal to 1 vote. I'm not sure what sort of math you have to use to show that one 10 dollar donation is equal to one 10 million dollar donation though.

 

A few huge donations one way or the other can swing things a lot more than a few tiny donations.

 

Look at the contributions for the last election. One 10 million dollar donation is so infrequent and an outlier. Yes, if you look at a single 10 dollar donation and a single 10 million dollar donation, you can say that 10 million is more than 10. Don't be silly.

 

The point is, the influence from people donating 10 dollars (or small numbers) was SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the 10 million dollar donations.

 

In fact, let's dispel this bullshit 10 million dollar myth right now.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00006424

 

Now seriously, knock off the fear/bullshit about a huge donation greatly skewing elections.

 

If you don't want to click, 1.5 million for Obama 350k for Mccain were tops. They fell off quickly from there though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

...

 

...

 

Most poor people care about their children. Unfortunately, they HAVE nothing to give them, leave them, or they give the children the only things they have (i.e. items that have no monetary value yet may somehow be sentimental in some way). That is why they remain at the BOTTOM of society.

 

How can you say that rich people care about their children more than poor people just because they have something to give them?

I dunno lol, I was speculating.

 

I was trying to make a point that wealth is built up over many generations. When a person becomes rich quickly for example, I would imagine the wealth disappears in a few generations.

 

But if the family worked together for many centuries they would accumulate a huge amount of money.

 

Does it make more sense why I said what I said?

 

Imagine a poor family in 1900. The father gets some lame job. Brings home food and tries to give his child a good education. The child used the education to get a better job and tries to give his son an opportunity to go to college. The son goes to college and gets an even better job. Now imagine that the family keeps passing stuff down - i.e. property, cars, tools, furniture, dishes, etc etc

 

Each successive generation gets a much better start until they either become upper middle class or just the upper class.

 

That's just how I see it.

 

When a person gets rich too quickly it might have been due to luck, superior intelligences, or something illegal - cheating the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy is a good form of government. But like all forms of government, it requires safeguards. No system of anything in its purest form works. It always requires caveats. This is why morons crying "abortion is MURDER" are morons.

 

Also at least two of you are totally ignorant of the correlation between sociology and poverty. Go study it before you make judgments, you ignorant fucks.

 

Dude, but you realize that one ways to safeguard democracy is to prevent politicians from bribing people for votes by giving stuff to a certain segments of the population.

 

Why do poor people get so much stuff? It just makes no sense to me. Why is one portion of the population getting all this free shit they don't work for and contribute nothing in return? Why?

 

It makes me jealous/mad.

 

Just because I choose to live a normal life I have to pay more money out of my wallet so that people who choose to live a shitty life can live a slightly less shitty life?

 

And to me it just seems like we are bribing poor people so they don't slaughter people better off than them.

 

It's so fucked up ><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why morons crying "abortion is MURDER" are morons.

... abortion is a complex issue and is not black and white...

 

One of these things is not like the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of these things is not like the other.

They agree with each other. Abortion is not black and white and if you try to make it so, you are a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×