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.
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)
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 ?
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?
You seem to think anyone that wants things to be more 'even' is a commie. A commie that should join a 'Marxist' group.
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.
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.........
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?
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)
Originally posted by Germanicus
I thought I was debating with you,and destroying you I might add.
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.
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.
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........
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)
Originally posted by Germanicus
Her solution is that we should all have the same rules regardless of our wealth.
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?
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?
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.