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.

 

NBC's Ann Curry Rants: It's 'Fundamentally Unfair' Some Have More Money Than Others

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by xuenchen
 





So, in your opinion, would all this have been better if the thread was never started ?


Im very happy you made the thread. I give an assist in on your Score Sheet. Nice pass
edit- or was it a Turn Over?

And of course I watched the 38 second clip. I also read the transcript. That is how I know you took her out of context and left out the words 'work for money'.

She never says its unfair that "some have more money than others' like your ludicrous headline infers.
edit on 29-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)


By the way,

You never did answer my other question:

Also, if a rich person can pay and extra bribe, fee, service charge or whatever it would be called to get through a "situation" faster, that also means Somebody Accepts the "extra fee".

Is that any different than paying extra "taxes" and "accepting" "free" services ?




posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I wonder. . . .
If I were wealthy enough to have a vehicle and a driver to take me from place to place, would that be considered unfair?

I earned, I have enough to afford that luxury.

If people are upset because I have the abilit to afford said luxury, then isn't it more telling of them and not of me?




How about driving ME around,beezzer.................

Ive EARNED it.........




posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Originally posted by Germanicus




You seem to think anyone that wants things to be more 'even' is a commie. A commie that should join a 'Marxist' group.


Seem to? My issue is the people who want GOVERNMENT to 'make things even' or redistribute wealth. Having the 'rich' pay the same penalties for the same crimes,etc..is constitutional. And yes, most I know that call for Government's hand at redistribution of wealth are the modern day Marxists, and carrying the bucket for Marxist philosophies.

There were other Statist Socialists other than Marx too, but Marxism met the Statist part more squarely.



I wonder how much Marx you have read. I have read alot,but Im no Marxist. Im a National Socialist that isfor Autarky,hence my support for Ron Paul.


Whenever I hear the sentence "How much Marx have you read?" . I think DOUCHEBAG. sorry. I've read enough, more than the average person. In fact I've read more about economics than the average person but I'm not going to get into a pissing contest of notable authors to show my online 'prowess'.

You're arguing just to argue. Ron Paul fighting the IMF is not comparable to certain posters who call for Statist policies and redistribution of wealth. I told you, I wasn't addressing the OP but other posters.

Can we stop now? I noticed you changed your Avatar since being on this thread and maybe you're really concerned with this too much and looking for attention? I dunno. But you're reading way too much into things and putting words in people's mouths to feel like you're part of the debate or something.

Can we just quit because I'm very bored with this argument.
edit on 29-4-2012 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by beezzer
I wonder. . . .
If I were wealthy enough to have a vehicle and a driver to take me from place to place, would that be considered unfair?

I earned, I have enough to afford that luxury.

If people are upset because I have the abilit to afford said luxury, then isn't it more telling of them and not of me?




How about driving ME around,beezzer.................

Ive EARNED it.........





Your car is ready sir.

Where would you like to go today?


edit on 29-4-2012 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I wonder. . . .
If I were wealthy enough to have a vehicle and a driver to take me from place to place, would that be considered unfair?

I earned, I have enough to afford that luxury.

If people are upset because I have the abilit to afford said luxury, then isn't it more telling of them and not of me?


No, what's unfair is if you have THIRTY vehicles and a driver when 29 of those vehicles could put food on someone else's table.

To be clear, though, it's not about what you purchase, because purchasing items and hiring drivers puts the money back into circulation. The problem is the billions and billions and billions just sitting in the bank accounts of a few, making it so that people cannot earn or buy anything with that money. Sure, people can borrow against that money, but upon payment of the loan those stagnating accounts just keep growing.
edit on 4/29/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Germanicus


In one breath you defend the 'rich',in the next you want them to give all their money away?
And you are calling her a hypocrite?


Yawn.......

I am saying,and I REALLY don't know why you don't get it, is this.

If you have a soap box,DON'T talk about the discrepancy,DO something about it !

Show the world,that your just not another pandering, social media dog, trying to score sympathetic points,for a cause she obviously DOESN'T believe in !

Pax showed you this,I have shown you this,unfortunately,YOU don't understand it.

A hypocrite is someone who doesn't stand by their talk/actions. I do.

I cant spell it out,any simpler for you.


edit on 29-4-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)


Yawn back at you.

I dont know who Pax is and missed his post. I thought I was debating with you,and destroying you I might add.

Maybe you should let Pax do your debating for you. And there is no need to YELL. Please dont get upset by my logic. Please dont get cranky. If you would lke to agree to disagree thats fine. Get some rest.

And again,she is doing something about it by making it an issue. For you to suggest that she must give all her money away before she does the job she is paid to do by her liberal employer then I dont know what to say really. It seems you are some kind of commie.

She is saying that Airport Security should be the same for all. I agree. I find it very strange that you disagree, especially since you claim to have a 'social conscience'. Maybe you should give away all your money before you post again on ATS.

Edit- Ahh,yes I agree,Pax is far more eloquent. You are right about that. But I disagree with what Pax is saying.
edit on 29-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 
But that is MINE.

You want to dictate what I do with somethin in MY posession.

Instead of money, say my wfe canned food.

I have cases of food. More than I could eat. But it is mine. It was created by me, for me.

Why would we even dscuss what someone should do with their own personal posessions?



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Germanicus
I thought I was debating with you,and destroying you I might add.







You don't know HOW to debate. Sorry.

Again,this woman brings nothing to the table. She is RANTING,like you are.

She is empathizing,about something,she doesn't have to face on a daily,like millions of Americans are.She brings NO solutions to the table. All she is doing is saying,what EVERYONE knows. Being the "MASTER DEBATER",that you are,I would think you could comprehend this. Obviously,you cant........




posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Yes,its very differentto paying taxes.

See if I were you I would have said the rich get to pay for "First Class' and do indeed get special treatment. That would have been better than your taxes thing.

But of course its different. The rich should not be able to bypass security. This is essentailly one law for the rich,another for the poor. That is wrong.

It is also dangerous,are we to assume that terrorists are poor? Most are well funded.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Yes,its very differentto paying taxes.

See if I were you I would have said the rich get to pay for "First Class' and do indeed get special treatment. That would have been better than your taxes thing.

But of course its different. The rich should not be able to bypass security. This is essentailly one law for the rich,another for the poor. That is wrong.

It is also dangerous,are we to assume that terrorists are poor? Most are well funded.


Thanks for answering.

Let's take a closer look at the TSA "Precheck" program.

It's not the "bribe" deal as Ms. Curry would have us think.

And, once a passable identity is established, any con artist could break through by assuming somebody's ID.


Hate the full-body scans, pat-downs and slow going at TSA airport security screening checkpoints? For $100, you can now bypass the hassle.

The Transportation Security Administration is rolling out expedited screening at big airports called "Precheck." It has special lanes for background-checked travelers, who can keep their shoes, belt and jacket on, leave laptops and liquids in carry-on bags and walk through a metal detector rather than a full-body scan. The process, now at two airlines and nine airports, is much like how screenings worked before the Sept. 11 attacks.

To qualify, frequent fliers must meet undisclosed TSA criteria and get invited in by the airlines. There is also a backdoor in. Approved travelers who are in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's "Global Entry" program can transfer into Precheck using their Global Entry number.


$100 to Fly Through the Airport

Sounds like a new flaw has been created by the TSA itself.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Germanicus
I thought I was debating with you,and destroying you I might add.







You don't know HOW to debate. Sorry.

Again,this woman brings nothing to the table. She is RANTING,like you are.

She is empathizing,about something,she doesn't have to face on a daily,like millions of Americans are.She brings NO solutions to the table. All she is doing is saying,what EVERYONE knows. Being the "MASTER DEBATER",that you are,I would think you could comprehend this. Obviously,you cant........



Her solution is that we should all have the same rules regardless of our wealth.

Im sorry that you cannot see that. Or that you refuse to. Im sorry you have to lower yourself to insults and YELLING to make your flawed points. Its telling you know. Quite telling.
edit on 29-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


No worries,sorry I missed your question.

And I agree,the TSA is very flawed.

Many people dont have the extra $100 dollars though. But to some $100 is nothing.
edit on 29-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Germanicus

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Germanicus
I thought I was debating with you,and destroying you I might add.







You don't know HOW to debate. Sorry.

Again,this woman brings nothing to the table. She is RANTING,like you are.

She is empathizing,about something,she doesn't have to face on a daily,like millions of Americans are.She brings NO solutions to the table. All she is doing is saying,what EVERYONE knows. Being the "MASTER DEBATER",that you are,I would think you could comprehend this. Obviously,you cant........



Her solution is that we should all have the same rules regardless of our wealth.

Im sorry that you cannot see that. Or that you refuse to. Im sorry you have to lower yourself to insults and YELLING to make your flawed points. Its telling you know. Quite telling.
edit on 29-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)


First,Im not insulting you. You claimed you are "destroying" me with regurgitated,rehashed BS,that I have heard already. That,to me,is insulting. I would actually like to get an answer,that isn't the same thing,post after post.


Originally posted by Germanicus
Her solution is that we should all have the same rules regardless of our wealth.


Really? How is she going to go about doing that? Whats her solution again ?

Who's going to write the rules?

Where does she stand,in this "new" and "improved" rule book ?

What should be done,to those who are making as much money as she is ? Is she advocating redistribution of wealth?

Where are her answers to these questions?

Clearly,she is just talking about the haves,and the have nots. I have heard that story, ad nauseum....by people who dont really care,and dont do anything to actually fix this problem.

Again,she has NO real answers.


edit on 29-4-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Her solution is to have the same rule for everyone.

I know people like you think its clever to rip on the poor and claim they are 'jealous'. Or if someone has a 'social conscience' that is rich they should give away their money. Or you shout about 'wealth redistribution' or communism/socialism.

Guess what. Its not clever at all.

You expect too much from this person. Her job is to talk about social issues such as these. Now not only do you want her to give away all her money but you want her to write laws?


Its a good thing she is making this an issue. Only by talking about these things can we force law makers to respect the wishes of the public. I commend her.

Edit- sorry that took a while,I had to make a sandwich. I will let you have the last word. I agree to disagree and this is starting to bore me. I hope we can debate again sometime soon.
edit on 29-4-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
It all comes down to justifying theft.

If I have more;
Rocks
Dead birds
Money
Candy
Collections of celebrity drool
Shiny things (ooh!)

Than someone else, and that someone else wants it, then they will justify them taking it by stating how "unfair", "unjust" it is that I have more.

The final answer is, no.

It's mine to do with as I see fit. Use fancy words, use fancy poliical talk, use "social" reasoning.

But it's all about theft, in the end.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 


Unfortunately, I disagree with you,on the premise to commend her. Case in point. I have three wonderful children. Not only,do I take care of my children,on my own,I find the time to actively support children,who are less fortunate. There are children that have NO mothers,or Fathers. A couple weekends every month,and many phone calls weekly,I find the time to help. In a world,where there are so many children,that have nothing,I give. I don't even have enough,for my family,at times,but its called sacrifice. I don't lament on how bad these kids have it,but I do something about it. If I had 1/10 of the time,this woman has,on a soapbox,I could do SO much more. THAT IS MY POINT. Anyone can talk about the ills of the World. Everyone can talk,in theory,on how to fix the problems. But ACTIVELY doing something,will always trump,doing nothing. You might not want to see it that way,or even want to understand it,in real time,but its the truth. If I only "talked" about helping kids,not one of the kids,I help now,would benefit,from it.Talk is CHEEP.

A little food for thought.

Now,I got to get some sleep.




Peace.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by jiggerj
 
But that is MINE.

You want to dictate what I do with somethin in MY posession.

Instead of money, say my wfe canned food.

I have cases of food. More than I could eat. But it is mine. It was created by me, for me.

Why would we even dscuss what someone should do with their own personal posessions?



But $$money$$ is not yours. It only represents what WILL be yours when you use the money to buy it.

You live in an economic system of ten dollars and consisting of three people: Butcher, baker, and candlestick maker.

As the butcher, you sell ten dollars worth of meat to the baker. Now, you have ten dollars. You hold onto some of the money and buy 8 dollars worth of candles.

The candlestick maker needed to buy ten dollars worth of bakery goods, but he only has eight. Realizing there's a recession coming he tightens his belt and only buys $5.00 worth of bakery goods.

Now the baker is screwed. He can only buy five dollars worth of meat from you. You now have $7.00

You don't need anymore candles, so you buy $2.00 worth of bread from the baker.

The candlestick maker needs to buy meat, but he only has Three freakin dollars!

Now you have $8.00, and you're not spending it. The baker blows his last two bucks on meat, and you have all the money.

The baker goes out of business, the candlestick maker goes out of business, and the economy crashes.
All you had to do was keep buying stuff in order to keep the economy going.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by jiggerj
 
But that is MINE.

You want to dictate what I do with somethin in MY posession.

Instead of money, say my wfe canned food.

I have cases of food. More than I could eat. But it is mine. It was created by me, for me.

Why would we even dscuss what someone should do with their own personal posessions?



Food is not the currency of the economy. Eating your own food won't stop anyone from buying food of their own, but holding onto the money does.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
It all comes down to justifying theft.

If I have more;
Rocks
Dead birds
Money
Candy
Collections of celebrity drool
Shiny things (ooh!)

Than someone else, and that someone else wants it, then they will justify them taking it by stating how "unfair", "unjust" it is that I have more.

The final answer is, no.

It's mine to do with as I see fit. Use fancy words, use fancy poliical talk, use "social" reasoning.

But it's all about theft, in the end.


Again, everything on your list is yours, except the money. The money is OURS, meaning every citizen within an economy. If you want to say that we are justifying theft, then what do you call it when you refuse to spend the money so that it won't circulate within the economy. Aren't you withholding money form the economy. Aren't you taking money away from people so that they can't earn or spend it? Isn't THAT theft?
edit on 4/29/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/29/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Nope. You're describing a closed loop system. But introducing elements just to satisfy your interpretation.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join