It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrat party collapse

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: tovenar

For the record, YOU brought partisan division into this conversation just now. I didn't differentiate between parties for my analysis.




posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The greediest people I see are the ones stashing money hand over fist into offshore accounts, using the tax cut for stock buybacks, and generally not letting any new wealth filter down to the lower wealth brackets. You call poor people greedy, but there is a HUGE difference between coveting $50 versus coveting $1,000,000.

I have yet to see someone turn down a raise... I have yet to see someone accept a higher price for something they're selling... and yet, I rarely see someone doing that not denigrate those who have more than they do, especially among the non-wealthy.

I believe you are conflating greed with success. If so, I assure you I am not hypocritical enough to declare that success is greed.


Also, keep in mind that income gap in this country has never been higher. It should be beyond obvious who the most greedy people are in our country, and I consider Donald Trump one of them. I'm still not sure why you don't because your response doesn't really sell your conclusion.

And that paragraph proves my point. You, yourself, have just demonstrated greed. You are greedy because you desire money so badly you fail to even consider that someone else might have money because they worked for it.

I'm not a rich man... as a matter of fact, at this moment in time, I am a very poor man. But I have had money, and during that time I was able to say three little words that I doubt your greed has ever allowed you to say: "It is enough."

Is it ever enough?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I have yet to see someone turn down a raise... I have yet to see someone accept a higher price for something they're selling... and yet, I rarely see someone doing that not denigrate those who have more than they do, especially among the non-wealthy.

I believe you are conflating greed with success. If so, I assure you I am not hypocritical enough to declare that success is greed.

No. YOU are conflating greed with success. Raises are what you get for continued service at a company. Now I will agree with you that price hiking is a very good sign of greed.


And that paragraph proves my point. You, yourself, have just demonstrated greed. You are greedy because you desire money so badly you fail to even consider that someone else might have money because they worked for it.

I never said I wanted more money. Don't put words in my mouth.


I'm not a rich man... as a matter of fact, at this moment in time, I am a very poor man. But I have had money, and during that time I was able to say three little words that I doubt your greed has ever allowed you to say: "It is enough."

Is it ever enough?

TheRedneck

You literally know nothing about me. I don't live outside of my means and don't want to be rich. Stop trying to tell me how I live based on my opinions. It's dishonest and shameful of you.

Thanks to your words here, I'm now convinced you wouldn't be able to recognize greed when you saw it. Seeing as how you seem to think people not wanting to be poor or destitute and live paycheck-to-paycheck is "greedy".
edit on 25-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

did you take a class in how to be the victim, or is this just your natural state?



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Do you ever talk about the topic or is troll your default state?



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


No. YOU are conflating greed with success. Raises are what you get for continued service at a company. Now I will agree with you that price hiking is a very good sign of greed.

And if that company does not give you the raises you expect, they are then greedy, right?

Raises are an indication that one's value to their company has increased. While it is true that such may and often does include experience gained while working, it is a false assumption that unqualified experience will always lead to greater value. Greed is demanding more for the same, which is what you just did.


I never said I wanted more money. Don't put words in my mouth.

That is what the complaint about wealth disparity boils down to for the vast majority of people: someone has much more than I do, and it's not fair to me! The very fact that you accuse those who have experienced success of greed simply because they are successful says more about you than your chosen words ever could.

That is not an attack; it is an observation.


You literally know nothing about me. I don't live outside of my means and don't want to be rich. Stop trying to tell me how I live based on my opinions. It's dishonest and shameful of you.

I know you from your words. That is the only way anyone on the Internet knows anyone else, as actions are often hidden behind a wall of anonymity. The height of insincerity is to try and pretend that one's history of statements has no bearing on what one believes.

If, as you say (and I reject), you truly do not wish to be "rich," then the only logical conclusion is you want others to be poor. That, too, is greed; such would elevate you financially relative to the rest of society, to the detriment of others no less. I do not believe that is a true statement, however, and that it is simply your way to attempt to protect yourself from other greedy people who you feel may target you for appearing to be "greedy" due to your relative success.

After all, one aspect of human nature is to assume that others share the same traits we ourselves hold.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And your post is on topic? Let's talk taco's for lunch.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
And if that company does not give you the raises you expect, they are then greedy, right?

Never said that. There could be many reasons why someone doesn't get a raise.


Raises are an indication that one's value to their company has increased. While it is true that such may and often does include experience gained while working, it is a false assumption that unqualified experience will always lead to greater value. Greed is demanding more for the same, which is what you just did.

The point I was making is that accepting a raise isn't indicative of greed.


That is what the complaint about wealth disparity boils down to for the vast majority of people: someone has much more than I do, and it's not fair to me! The very fact that you accuse those who have experienced success of greed simply because they are successful says more about you than your chosen words ever could.

That is not an attack; it is an observation.

Believe it or not, it is possible to care about people other than yourself. Wealth disparity is making our poor situation worse and it isn't greedy to not want to be poor, NOR is it greedy for others to want to help poor people level the playing field.


I know you from your words. That is the only way anyone on the Internet knows anyone else, as actions are often hidden behind a wall of anonymity. The height of insincerity is to try and pretend that one's history of statements has no bearing on what one believes.

# that. You know my opinions. That's it. I rarely ever give personal anecdotes relating my situation to my opinion without being asked, but people like you REALLY love to tell me what I think and how I behave.


If, as you say (and I reject), you truly do not wish to be "rich," then the only logical conclusion is you want others to be poor. That, too, is greed; such would elevate you financially relative to the rest of society, to the detriment of others no less. I do not believe that is a true statement, however, and that it is simply your way to attempt to protect yourself from other greedy people who you feel may target you for appearing to be "greedy" due to your relative success.

After all, one aspect of human nature is to assume that others share the same traits we ourselves hold.

TheRedneck

Your logic is insane. None of that paragraph made a lick of sense.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


There could be many reasons why someone doesn't get a raise.

Yes, there could be... and I will admit to a bit of assumption in your meaning concerning this.


The point I was making is that accepting a raise isn't indicative of greed.

No, it is not. However, demanding a raise without regard to an honest evaluation of value typically is an indication of greed.


Believe it or not, it is possible to care about people other than yourself. Wealth disparity is making our poor situation worse and it isn't greedy to not want to be poor, NOR is it greedy for others to want to help poor people level the playing field.

You seem to believe economics is a zero-sum game. It is not; however, that is straying form the topic.

It is not greedy to want to help the poor... and most successful businessmen do so via charities. What is greedy is to want to help the poor using someone else's resources. I highly respect anyone who gives to others in an attempt to help them; I highly despise anyone who tries to do so by giving the resources of others because they assume greed. That in itself is an indicator of greed.


You know my opinions. That's it. I rarely ever give personal anecdotes relating my situation to my opinion without being asked, but people like you REALLY love to tell me what I think and how I behave.

Are you stating that the opinions expressed by yourself all these years on this forum are contrary to what your true opinions are? If so, I call BS.

What are we, if not products of our opinions?


Your logic is insane. None of that paragraph made a lick of sense.

Another aspect of human nature I have noticed quite often is the inability to apply logic to oneself.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
No, it is not. However, demanding a raise without regard to an honest evaluation of value typically is an indication of greed.

That isn't what you said originally though.


You seem to believe economics is a zero-sum game. It is not; however, that is straying form the topic.

It is not greedy to want to help the poor... and most successful businessmen do so via charities. What is greedy is to want to help the poor using someone else's resources. I highly respect anyone who gives to others in an attempt to help them; I highly despise anyone who tries to do so by giving the resources of others because they assume greed. That in itself is an indicator of greed.

Social programs aren't greed. They are support systems to help people struggling. Paying taxes is your Constitutional duty too.

It's really bizarre that you guys believe this falsehood. It's not even a classical liberal position. It's a position invented by the Koch brothers in the middle of the 20th century.


Are you stating that the opinions expressed by yourself all these years on this forum are contrary to what your true opinions are? If so, I call BS.

What are we, if not products of our opinions?

I'm saying it is highly insulting to assume my behaviors and beliefs if I haven't directly told you them yet. Every time you conservatives do this # you use some bastardized version of liberal philosophy to misrepresent my intentions and goals.


Another aspect of human nature I have noticed quite often is the inability to apply logic to oneself.

TheRedneck

Agreed. I'm looking at you as you say that.
edit on 25-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Paying taxes is your Constitutional duty too.



Is it? where does it say that specifically? I see that it only applies to protection via military as well as interstate commerce.

So how did the USA get along without taxation we see in these days before it existed?

I expect that you will broaden the explanation to include things outside of the actual laws as written. When was the last time that someone made a post on the actual constitution and what it covers and what it does not? I think the time is due. Just to remind folks such as yourself.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: amazing
Here's an honest question though. Why do you think Trump has your best interests at heart? His a greedy billionaire.

I never thought Hillary or most of the democrats had my best interests at heart either. I just don't trust Trump any more than I did Hillary.

That's a legitimate concern, right?



If you think so, then yes it is a legitimate concern for you. For me, it's not.


Okay...the spoiled rich kid who got out of serving in the military and doesn't have any manners isn't going over so well with me.



Well it obviously worked for Bill Clinton in the recent past. Actually other than the "rich" part which is an argument Bill Clinton was vastly more "connected" than Trump and he also avoided Vietnam through his connections.

Apples and oranges? No, because you cannot say, "well these two guys did pretty much the same thing but I am going to bring my ire down on just one of them." Or maybe YOU can? I don't know, so many people are mixed up these days - I am surprised we don't have an inner city crack dealer for our executive at this point. Seems that people admire that more than they ever should.


But two wrongs don't make a right or just because Bill did it doesn't mean we should excuse it in Trump. We have better candidates, better people out there. Why do we have to settle? I think we should call BS on whoever is spouting it no matter if it's a dem or a republican.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Fools

originally posted by: amazing
Here's an honest question though. Why do you think Trump has your best interests at heart? His a greedy billionaire.

I never thought Hillary or most of the democrats had my best interests at heart either. I just don't trust Trump any more than I did Hillary.

That's a legitimate concern, right?



If you think so, then yes it is a legitimate concern for you. For me, it's not.


Okay...the spoiled rich kid who got out of serving in the military and doesn't have any manners isn't going over so well with me.



Well it obviously worked for Bill Clinton in the recent past. Actually other than the "rich" part which is an argument Bill Clinton was vastly more "connected" than Trump and he also avoided Vietnam through his connections.

Apples and oranges? No, because you cannot say, "well these two guys did pretty much the same thing but I am going to bring my ire down on just one of them." Or maybe YOU can? I don't know, so many people are mixed up these days - I am surprised we don't have an inner city crack dealer for our executive at this point. Seems that people admire that more than they ever should.


But two wrongs don't make a right or just because Bill did it doesn't mean we should excuse it in Trump. We have better candidates, better people out there. Why do we have to settle? I think we should call BS on whoever is spouting it no matter if it's a dem or a republican.



But here is the thing, Trump never raped anyone. Bill Clitporn did. Bill Clinton is a horrible man, as is his wife a horrible woman. They have caused terrible pain and suiffering to many people. I am not excusing Trump. Trump does not need an excuse. As far as getting out of Vietnam, well as ex military myself, I think if I had a way out I'd do it as well. So in that I excuse Trump and Clinton and CURSE LBJ.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


That isn't what you said originally though.

I'm sorry; I'm just not in the mood to discuss semantics.

Perhaps another time.


Social programs aren't greed. They are support systems to help people struggling.

I never said they are. I said attempting to force others to help the poor is one form of greed.


It's really bizarre that you guys believe this falsehood.

I quite understand that you cannot fathom actual deeply-held beliefs, such as the belief that no one should reign supreme over others. In that vein, I can at least understand your statement.


I'm saying it is highly insulting to assume my behaviors and beliefs if I haven't directly told you them yet. Every time you conservatives do this # you use some bastardized version of liberal philosophy to misrepresent my intentions and goals.

You appear to have placed yourself in a position to assure offense, then. People are judged every day as to their belief systems and morals, based on their actions and statements. That's just how life is. I believe the proper response to this certainty of life would be to examine those statements before making them, but I can see we disagree.


Agreed. I'm looking at you as you say that.

Considering the statement you replied to was concerning introspective examination, I fail to see how "looking at you" is applicable to it. Your introspection by definition would be looking at yourself; my introspection would by definition be looking at myself.

You appear to be somewhat confused.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Paying taxes is your Constitutional duty too.



Is it? where does it say that specifically? I see that it only applies to protection via military as well as interstate commerce.

Taxing and Spending Clause

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



So how did the USA get along without taxation we see in these days before it existed?

The US has always had taxation.


I expect that you will broaden the explanation to include things outside of the actual laws as written. When was the last time that someone made a post on the actual constitution and what it covers and what it does not? I think the time is due. Just to remind folks such as yourself.

I just quoted the Constitution since you didn't read it before replying to this post.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I never said they are. I said attempting to force others to help the poor is one form of greed.

That's absurd.


I quite understand that you cannot fathom actual deeply-held beliefs, such as the belief that no one should reign supreme over others. In that vein, I can at least understand your statement.

Here you go inventing my opinions again. Did it ever occur to you that my liberal beliefs are deeply held? Also, no one rules over anyone in our country. We don't have kings. Your arrogance is showing again.


You appear to have placed yourself in a position to assure offense, then. People are judged every day as to their belief systems and morals, based on their actions and statements. That's just how life is. I believe the proper response to this certainty of life would be to examine those statements before making them, but I can see we disagree.

Maybe if I bothered to actually tell you them instead of you using them as a deflecting point unproked from the topic you'd be right. Instead you are just defending a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, if your love with the Koch Brothers' beliefs is so deeply held then admit it. Don't attack me with ad hominems because I talked about the history of your beliefs. Because what I see from you right now is just you putting up mental shields to avoid discussing my opinion.


Considering the statement you replied to was concerning introspective examination, I fail to see how "looking at you" is applicable to it. Your introspection by definition would be looking at yourself; my introspection would by definition be looking at myself.

You appear to be somewhat confused.

TheRedneck

Ok, Mr. "I'm too tired for Semantics", I'm calling you out for the same # you are trying to call me out for.
edit on 25-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It seems that you think common defense includes more than it does you quoted;



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Do you even know what those powers mean? what they meant to collect? What debts they would assume at that time. You are completely ignorant.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Here you go inventing my opinions again. Did it ever occur to you that my liberal beliefs are deeply held?

Of course; where have I indicated otherwise? Stating an inconsistency does not preclude admitting to deep convictions. The fact that the two indicate a logical fallacy is irrelevant to that.


Also, no one rules over anyone in our country. We don't have kings.

One could assume this this is changing, considering the tactics used by the progressives. Freedom to speak is being challenged regularly by groups such as ANTIFA, using literal violence against speakers they disagree with, and apparently doing so under protection of the authorities who should be protecting free speech. As we debate, a man is watching a lifelong reputation systematically destroyed over mere allegations which appear to lack any evidence whatsoever. Taxes are collected legally, then distributed in ways which appear illegal to many... such as a slush fund set up to pay off sexual allegations against Congressmen.

Denial of sovereignty rarely happens immediately... it rather creeps into a society under the guise of protection from the evils of the unknown.


Maybe if I bothered to actually tell you them instead of you using them as a deflecting point unproked from the topic you'd be right.

You do tell me them to some extent, in every post you make. Unless you are lying in all those posts; I prefer not to accuse you of that, even though you seem intent on trying to prove such.


Furthermore, if your love with the Koch Brothers' beliefs is so deeply held then admit it.

Frankly, I know little to nothing of the Koch Brothers. My philosophy grew out of the 70s in a rural setting, long before anyone had ever heard the name. Sorry to disappoint you.


Don't attack me with ad hominems because I talked about the history of your beliefs.

Ad hominems? I do not see where I have attacked you personally. I have made observations based on your posts, which appear to have somehow angered you.


Ok, Mr. "I'm too tired for Semantics", I'm calling you out for the same # you are trying to call me out for.

I see you are not familiar with the terms "introspective" or "semantics." Might I suggest a dictionary? There are several good ones online,

Let me know when you are familiar with the terms and we can continue intelligently.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join