It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Identifying evil people

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by Valhall

Did I miss something where a notable Democrat likened earning $250k a year or more as being " evil?" i've searched and so far I've only come up with Valhall as identifying this as "evil."

Anyhow, I have approached the mark but didn't make it, yet my wife and I will likely top $250k Combined in about 5 years when she's finished nursing school. When that time comes, let's assume we're earning $260k combined. As long as the government reins in spending, I will gladly pay a higher rate on that portion of my income ($10,000) that falls above $250k. Realistically, I won't because my adjusted gross won't be over 250k, but just for the sake of example.

Anyhow, doing so would mean that those earning FAR beyond that will also be paying more in, bringing us closer to Reagan-era tax rates. With the massive growth in our economy since then, I believe that, rather than the 400%+ debt increase of the 1980's, we could start turning the debt around.

The Reagan debt went up around 400%. If the Obama debt continues as it did for the first 4 (or Romney continues it), by 2016 it will have increased about 80% in 8 years.

Stop the spending, increase revenues, without being oppressive, and the debt picture will be a lot better. Incidentally, the increased taxes for someone making $260,000/year would literally be a few hundred dollars.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 07:36 PM
I'll play the catch 22 game.

If you spot got it.
No matter what.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 07:44 PM
Mitt is not evil because he is rich. He is evil because of how he got it. "Harvesting" companies, taking jobs from individuals and towns. Cutting off the benifits that come with those jobs (health insurance, retirement). In some cases gettin access to pension funds if the company was steered into banckrupcy. This kind of thievery is only legal because there is no explicit law saying corporate raiders can't buy up and destroy companies for a quick buck when they otherwise may have continued indefinetly. He is a heartless crook, no different than a pirate making people walk the plank... hand over your job!... hand over your insurance!... now hand over your pension!... here's a pink slip, JUMP!

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 07:44 PM
The original post of this thread is extremely ignorant. I don't know if it was meant to be just COMPLETE satire of the gimmicky , fake battle between the left and the right political stances, or if it was meant to be a valid point, or some degree of both, but this thread failed miserably all across the board.

First of all, the whole thread is based on the belief that the "left", and specifically Obama believe that people who are rich are evil. I don't know if you get your news from Fox News, or what on EARTH (or somewhere else maybe) you get your information from, but this is just downright ignorant.

The whole idea that Obama is PUNISHING the rich, is even more stupid of an idea, if at all possible.

Here is the deal that you don't seem to get. America is a land of opportunity. If you are born American, congratulations, because financially speaking, you have an opportunity that not all people on this planet have as a birthright. Many people come from ALL OVER THE WORLD to be U.S. Citizens, both legal and illegal.

The idea behind the tax raise for individuals that earn more than $250,000 a year, is that you can AFFORD to pay a small amount more.

The tax raise isn't a punishment, it is a privilege. If you are American, and lucky enough to be wealthy, you should be HAPPY you can afford to contribute more BACK to this country than people who can't.

You know, it is amazing, isn't it? So many wealthy people LOVE getting attention and admiration for contributing to charities, and donating....of course, these are all tax write offs, and they get admiration and whatnot, approval from their peers. But the idea of paying a small amount more back to the government, and they all run for the hills. It is sickening.

Anyway, I don't know why the original poster thought he/she was cute, or funny by saying "Obama thinks you are evil if you are rich, HAR HAR", but it doesn't make sense, and it isn't funny.

If you want to use satire, or humor to make a propaganda biased point, try to be more subtle, and, well, more funny. Blatant stupid comments like "Obama hates rich people" is on the same level of people who say "Obama is like hitler" or whatever else people are spouting these days.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 07:51 PM
reply to post by Valhall

Why don't we really identify some real EVIL people ...... Not by name, but by what they are !


Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), (aka SOCIOPATH) is described by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR), as an Axis II personality disorder characterized by "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."[1]

The World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems', tenth edition (ICD-10), defines a conceptually similar disorder to antisocial personality disorder called (F60.2) Dissocial personality disorder.[2]

Though the diagnostic criteria for ASPD were based in part on Hervey Cleckley's pioneering work on psychopathy, ASPD is not synonymous with psychopathy and the diagnostic criteria are different.[3]



Narcissism is a term with a wide range of meanings, depending on whether it is used to describe a central concept of psychoanalytic theory, a mental illness, a social or cultural problem, or simply a personality trait. Except in the sense of primary narcissism or healthy self-love, "narcissism" usually is used to describe some kind of problem in a person or group's relationships with self and others. In everyday speech, "narcissism" often means egoism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others. In psychology, the term is used to describe both normal self-love and unhealthy self-absorption due to a disturbance in the sense of self.


These two groups of people are very evil.

Here is how you can IDENTIFY these types of people:

1. Two Faced, putting friends and family down behind their backs.
2. Tendency to blame their lack of success and failures on others.
3. Acts different in public than in private.
4. Irresponsible and unreliable
5. Arrogant, acts superior to people close to them.
6. Lives in a fantasy world which may include porn, flirting, affairs, and dreams of unlimited success and fame.
7. Addicted to this fantasy oriented behavior.
8. Will lie and distort facts and change events to suit their own agenda.
9. Be irresponsible with money
10. Emotionally distant and unavailable unless they want something.
11. Lack sympathy for others, especially those they exploit.
12. Be very controlling and unable to relax.
13. Regularly provoke people and blame them for the fight.
14. Have trouble admitting their mistakes.
15. Use, Abuse (Physically, Emotionally, Mentally, Socially), and con people.
16. Lie, Cheat, Steal and other forms of illegal behavior to get what they want.

I would say that these types of people are more EVIL than the RICH you took the time to account for their wealth. Money / Wealth can be fleeting, but EVIL people like these two classes I've shown you will remain when the money / wealth is gone.

edit on 10/6/2012 by Labrynth2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 07:52 PM
reply to post by Valhall

You left out one name Rothschild

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:09 PM
I don't think labeling people as good or evil really does anything but deepen ideological divisions and justifies being dismissive or outright hostile. I don't like being labeled, so I imagine others don't enjoy it either. I think the words "in my view, unwise" or "likely to cause suffering in my opinion," would be more conducive to dialogue and mutual respect than "evil."

I'm about as "liberal" as they come (though note that I will not be voting for Obama - he's not liberal enough for me.
) I don't see people who happen to be politically conservative as "evil." I may deeply disagree with some of them, but they are not just a label for me to dismiss, disenfranchise, hate, or attack. They are my countrymen, my neighbors, and above all, my fellow human beings. No matter how much or how profoundly I may disagree with them. (Note that I also profoundly disagree with many who identify themselves as also being liberal.) I love those with whom I disagree just as much as those who share my views. That is one of my core life tenets. If I reject them out of hand and cannot hold compassion or respect for them as fellow human beings, then there is a huge swath of a humanity that I am cutting off from myself. That just isn't consistent with my personal beliefs.

That said, here is why I personally will not be voting for either candidate.

Obama: Signed the NDAA into law. Didn't go far enough in his 2009 executive order to prevent what I consider torture. Had high praise for a book written by Robert Kagan, one of the co-founders of the neoconservative Project For A New American Century (PNAC) think tank, a group which had enormous influence upon much of President George W. Bush's foreign and national security policies, and promulgated the strategic doctrine of American preeminence for the next 100 years at any necessary cost, including the toppling of multiple regimes in the ME.

Romney: His campaign's foreign policy and national security advisers include (but are not limited to): Cofer Black - Former vice president of Blackwater, and GWB's coordinator for counter-terrorism. Michael Chertoff - Co-author of the PATRIOT Act, and the second Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security under GWB. Eliot A. Cohen - a very vocal proponent for war with Iraq and possibly Iran as early as 2001, who said war would be "wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies.)" Also a member of the Project for a New American Century think tank. Ret. Air Force Gen Michael Hayden - Head of the NSA from '99 to '05, he oversaw the warrantless wiretap controversy under GWB. Currently a member of the Chertoff Group, a security consulting group co-founded by the aforementioned M Chertoff. The aforementioned Robert Kagan. And Dov S Zakheim - One of the so-called PNAC "Vulcans" during the GWB administration.

I cannot align my conscience with voting for either man, however I urge everyone to vote (or not vote) their conscience, each according to their own beliefs and ways. And I will not call you "evil" for doing so. I will simply respectfully disagree with and, possibly, lament the results.


posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by Valhall

No he is evil because he put a successful paper mill out of business.That town needed those jobs.America needed those jobs.He is also evil for wanting to attack Iraq,even though he avoided the Vietnam war in France.The term for that is chicken hawk.The guy has changed his view on every issue making himself the king of the flip flop.It makes people wonder if he stands for anything.This is just mainstream media stuff,I could go on.Mo Ti said "that the root of all evil is selfishness".I doubt his bank accounts in the Bahamas and Switzerland have a zero selfishness branch.Satanists have a different motto,"do as thou wilt".If he is one of them,then I guess he feels justified.No Robama for me.Thank's but no thanks.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by MDDoxs

You didn't read my post. It's not my definition. It's the Democrats and Liberals. It's the current administration's. Money and prosperity is evil...I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to inform everyone of the "evil people" to avoid based on those rules.

Thanks for the post and the effort. The problem you face is indoctrination. Children of liberals have liberalism engrained in them like religion - at a very young age. This is especially true with the black population. One of my very best friends is black. We share a similar sense of humor, we've both had similar issues in life, and share a passion for our home sports teams.

But when it comes to the issue of politics, my friend knows he absolutely supports liberals, but he's never quite sure why. Even though it's easily verified, he won't even admit that MLK was a registered republican. He doesn't see that the government programs set forth by "progressives" actually do more to keep the poor in their place than the alternatives. When we talk about how Obama's policies have failed, that you cannot spend your way out of a recession, that in a free market economy the government almost never picks the correct winners when they try, that living off of current entitlements provides no incentive to do for yourself, he usually shuts the conversation down before conceding I am right. Liberals, for the most part, are well-intentioned. This is where the term "bleeding heart liberals" comes from.

As well as my favorite, from Churchill: "Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains".

They have no facts to support their current platform, and this is why Obama had no retort during the first debate. He does seem deep down like a decent enough guy. So when presented with reality he had little to fight for. 2 years of slamming the most unpopular piece of legislation through Congress with nary a fight for jobs. 90 billion in failed green energy investments. At least 130 campaign promises he never even bothered to work for. Even the left-leaning Time magazine wrote an article expressing awe that a President has no desire to work politicians in Congress. They even quoted surrogates of Obama has saying he HATED that part of the job. Dude, that IS the job!!!

So what's left? Bill Maher's tried and true tactics. Start name-calling. Call out physical variances, like "Christy is too fat. Look how fat he is". Which brings the point home - Romney is "too" successful. Made "too" much money in order to look after "one of us". And because rich people are evil and don't care about others (wonder where charity is coming from, the poor?) certainly he's evil, too.

Here's hoping the special interest groups that the left has been scaring into voting democrat will one day wake the f up.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:36 PM
People do evil, that does not make them "evil" and vice versa. The only thing rich people are is greedy. And evil "bribes" them with that carrot on a stick to do its bidding. The system et al does evils bidding.

Remember the beginning of "I Pet Goat II"? The puppet master that directs people to do its bidding is the source of evil. Evil is the source of evil. People that go along aren't evil. They just do evil's bidding to get what they want. And are either in denial or deluded about their role in the game of life.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:40 PM

Originally posted by JulianAlien
reply to post by Valhall

No he is evil because he put a successful paper mill out of business.That town needed those jobs.America needed those jobs.He is also evil for wanting to attack Iraq,even though he avoided the Vietnam war in France.The term for that is chicken hawk.The guy has changed his view on every issue making himself the king of the flip flop.It makes people wonder if he stands for anything.This is just mainstream media stuff,I could go on.Mo Ti said "that the root of all evil is selfishness".I doubt his bank accounts in the Bahamas and Switzerland have a zero selfishness branch.Satanists have a different motto,"do as thou wilt".If he is one of them,then I guess he feels justified.No Robama for me.Thank's but no thanks.

What's Obama's military record? Oh that's right he was too busy living in Indonesia and being a "world traveler" to enlist and serve his country. Vietnam may have been after his time but I see more pictures of him in Arab garb than I do any sort of US Military outfit.

By the way, your little conspiracy that Mitt evaded Vietnam is false. DEBUNKED. His number did come up 4 times. 3 times he was on college, and if you were in college you automatically got a pass, and the 4th time he was serving his church in a foreign country.

Hey - at least this is verifiable. We still have no rock solid proof as to where Barry was born. Haters gotta hate. It's inconceivable to me that ANYONE thinks 4 more years of this mess is just what the doctor ordered.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:43 PM
reply to post by Labrynth2012

Number 3 sure hits home for Obama. I guess he forgot that cameras were on when he went into Jive-talk mode and showed "mad love" to Jeremiah Wright. Obama loves him some Jeremiah. WHEW!

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:55 PM
You bet your ass rich people are selfish and some people are extremely evil. I am talking satanical evil pricks who do ritual sacrifices at bohemian grove, molest babies, plan depopulation in the future via wars and global flu pandemics.

If people think this is funny, please go see a psychiatrist soon or at attempt an excorcism! I am getting sick of all this rich ass kissing as of late.

And yes there are some good folks who made it the hard way, but not that many. If you make it big then you should be man enough to pay your dues or demand the government saves money by ending the wars in the middle east.

Unfortunately conservatives want everything their way all the time.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Sinny

Critising the fact they sated "evil" has a correlation to wealth.

The fact is, there IS a correlation, that's why its the 99% vs the 1%.

Not following. Who is pitting the us vs. them? The people that don't have it of course. I don't but I certainly get that way too many people get way too teed off that they aren't successful and can't understand why.

I was comfortably in the middle-of-the-middle class in the early 2000's, Nice house, pool, two cars, a tiny bit of savings.....then all hell broke loose in my personal and professional life. I lost my job and had to work two jobs - one overnight (40 hours but not considered full time) and another 20 hours. Both were in service (grocery/video). At the same time 60 % of my wages went to child support. Which means I brought home 3-4 dollars an hour working 60 hours a week. So I was in the lowest of low brackets. Probably the bottom 10 percent.

But I never blamed Steve Jobs. Or Donald Trump. Or even Bush for that matter. Economies are cyclical, the Fed artificially kept a good thing going, and there were all kinds of games being played in the housing market. (Liberals were TOTALLY on-board with the "everyone should own their own house" idea, even if said "everyone" couldn't ever keep up with a 30 year mortgage). And to that point where people gave the excuse "the Realtor told me I could afford it" is such a crock, Really? So you are the same sucker that goes into an auto dealership knowing you can't afford a brand new Mustang, knowing they will sell it to you anyway, and knowing eventually they are going to come get their car back? COME ON. Claiming "I was an idiot but they sold it to me anyway" just doesn't fly.

I digress. I came out of that experience making not even enough to buy gas to get to work and fortunately am back to making what I was prior to the collapse. But I don't look at wealthy people as EVIL. Or AGAINST me. There are super-wealthy who just live off of their fortune. But the majority of wealthy are job creators. Hardly evil.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Jobeycool
I cannot understand how people think a country is fine and dandy and blame the rich people not paying thier fair share when 47% don;t pay a dime of income taxes.This is a serious prolem.

I never said anything was fine and dandy, in fact I just pointed out several problems, plus those people pay plenty of other taxes as well. We also have 7 states that simply have no income tax, so it's not like they are just avoiding paying.

but let me ask you, what's more "evil" the person not paying income tax, or predatory bankers?

Is the behavior of wall street excused because some old lady or military vet doesn't pay income tax?

Does the fact that some pay no income tax, make outsourcing our jobs while our country is in severe need of jobs better?

Whose more detestable, the hypocrite who uses tax havens while complaining about people who don't pay a certain tax, or the people who don't pay income tax?

Is citizens united ok now too? is it fine to see our country becoming a plutocracy?

It seems to me you are the one under the impression that everything is fine and dandy.

Think for a second, what are you really defending with your point about the 47% in response to my post. You are defending predatory bankers, you are defending the wall street behaviors that helped crash our economy. You are completely dismissing greed and tax havens as if they are myths.

It's like I said, politicians feed us finely tuned buzz words, and we run with them. you got a nice little buzz word to fling around in 47% and it seems to me it has you pacified. You are nothing more than a deflection.
edit on 6-10-2012 by mahatche because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by mahatche

Thanks for your eloquent post. Sometimes I get too worked up with such flame bait threads and don't have the patience to repeat myself for the millionth time over and over again to people who have no interest at all of learning anything.

I mean really. You post a video and they laugh. You post comments made by the rockefellers and rothschilds and they still laugh at you. People like david icke and alex jones are heros. Too bad most will find out the hard way when it is too late.

edit on 6/10/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by SaturnFX

You lost me there.

Will make it simple then and drop the eye rolling sarcasm.

Money simply allows a person to push forward what is inside of them unlike anyone of medium or low wealth can.
This in turn becomes either a wonderful or horrific action.


Consider Mitt Romney.

He wants to give a across the board massive tax cut. this effecting more the wealthy than those whom are not. the cost according to the budget office will cost an excess of 5 trillion dollars debt.
The only thing we know he plans on cutting is PBS
which accounts for 0.012% of the federal debt.
aka, its like deleting a text file on your 500gb computer to free up space.

Mitt isn't stupid. He knows basic math. So, what his targets are (planned parenthood, pbs, npr) are not for budget balancing measures..its for power grabbing for both him and his party/legacy at the expense of the people.

Is Mittens evil because of money? no...However, his money allows his agenda, which is certainly not saintly, into massive action.

The liberal viewpoint is not that wealth is bad...else neocons would stop moaning about hollywood. What the issue is, is when wealthy people influence politics on the agenda to create a permanent class system...the destroyers of the american dream (which is part to become wealthy)

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:21 PM
Am I the only that finds this entire thread absurd? The premise is a nonsensical invention of the OP. I've never heard anyone make the claim that wealth is correlative to evil. It is a ridiculous OP, not worthy of the site.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by flashtrum

Not following. Who is pitting the us vs. them? The people that don't have it of course. I don't but I certainly get that way too many people get way too teed off that they aren't successful and can't understand why.

Again the idea that people are angry because they aren't rich is a myth. it's a talking point set up as a defense.

I'm perfectly fine with not being rich, and don't hate people for being rich. I don't have to have the latest technology or name brand clothes, my car is from the early 90's, and I don't see the point in having a massive house. Philosophically my view on materialism is aligned with Buddhism, I just don't need it, there is no envy involved. Rich people who get their riches in a legit way and don't screw people over are perfectly fine.

I do have a problem with predatory bankers who ruin peoples lives for the sake of making money. There is no envy or false victim-hood there, those bankers really did do a #ty thing. The wall street execs who played around and helped ruin our economy aren't hated for the amount of money they made, they are hated for their behaviors that effected so many peoples lives in a negative way. Citizens united gives CEOs unlimited spending to buy our government, while the rest of us are limited by law, pointing out the error in that isn't envy, we just don't think healthy nations are bought and sold tot he highest bidders.

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by Labrynth2012

Cool thing about the DSM4 is its a great conform or be cast out system of control very much like religion-
Pharmaceutical + Medical + Research Endowments+ AMA+Insurance companies+WHO+ Licensing and Taxes _Medicare


A multi-trillion dollar industry

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in