Identifying evil people, page 8

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 56 times

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 10:31 AM by Valhall

reply to post by Benchkey

The table does not state the Obamas are worth 11.5 BILLION it states they are worth 11.5 MILLION. And it's from their released information.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 10:33 AM by Valhall

reply to post by tracehd1

It's okay to be pissed off. I know I am.

"cracker" seriously?

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 10:36 AM by Valhall

reply to post by ecossiepossie

Not to mention...the VAST charitable contributions one said "top of the evil list" has made. I believe the same can be said for Warren Buffet if I'm remembering correctly.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 10:44 AM by MindBodyAndSoul

Click here for more information.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 10:52 AM by MindBodyAndSoul

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 11:08 AM by dontreally

reply to post by MDDoxs

She's being sarcastic!

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 11:12 AM by NavyDoc

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by Valhall

I did read your post, either you did not effectively make the point you intended, but from my perspective, you have defined "evil people" as those who have a higher income. Their political affiliation appears to be an after thought.

My opinion remains valid.

edit on 6-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

Let me help:

sar·casm /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Show Spelled[sahr-kaz-uhm] noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 11:15 AM by Levelsquare

reply to post by Valhall

bill gates gives away and donates more money than most of the people on that list are worth

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 11:18 AM by poet1b

reply to post by Valhall

The size of the US government is the result of republican presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush. It was under their admins that government was grown. Why do you blame this on Obama?

Government spending decreased under Obama, until Republicans took Back the House, and returned to their evil ways of taking from the middle class and giving to the super rich.

www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Romney is evil Because he made his money robbing worker pension plans, not because he is rich.

What is evil is spreading a bunch of lies.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 11:22 AM by NavyDoc

Originally posted by pajoly
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.

Just look through this thread, it is implied several times.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 11:24 AM by ColeYounger

It's absolutely frightening how many people can read the OP but not extract the slightest hint of a clue as to what's being said. It must be our zombie culture that's responsible. The mass media\TV\facebook\cellphone invasion has left some people incapable of discernment.

The OP is stating that the democratic 'left' associates wealth with evil.
It's the class war, and it has been in swing for a couple of years now. The 'occupy' movement really got it off the ground. Dozens of occupiers were noted, saying things like:
"If you're rich, you did something illegal or evil along the way."
"Rich people are what's wrong with this country."
"The 1% are exploiting the 99%"
"The wealthy are the ones who are really responsible for poverty."

The left-wing icon Michael Moore, who is worth millions, said "Rich people don't understand that their money is a natural resource. It's NOT really theirs."

Obama and Biden have said repeatedly that "the rich don't pay their fair share."

If you google terms like 'evil rich', you'll get thousands of links.

Get It? RICH = EVIL.
Now, since $250,00 is the starting point for 'evil richness', the OP has devised a sliding scale to measure how evil an evil rich person really is. (There is also a bit of sarcasm in the OP. It's really bizarre how many people don't understand sarcasm.)

The OP isn't saying that Hitler isn't evil. The OP isn't saying that serial killers aren't evil.
The thread wasn't meant to be a debate over the definition of "evil".
The OP is simply saying that the administration, along with the progressive left agenda (or whatever you want to call it) has promoted the idea that rich people are evil. So...where's the starting point? It appears to be $250,000.

Hence the thread..."Identifying evil people"

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 11:44 AM by axslinger

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by Valhall

I did read your post, either you did not effectively make the point you intended, but from my perspective, you have defined "evil people" as those who have a higher income. Their political affiliation appears to be an after thought.

My opinion remains valid.

edit on 6-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

What part of,

"Since it appears that Mitt Romney being a successful business man and having a net worth of 250 million dollars is the major "evil" point about him, I thought I'd take the time to identify a few notable "evil people" based on what is apparently the Democratic/Liberal ideology of when a person starts to "go evil"."

don't you get? My opinion is valid as well and I knew exactly what the OP was referring to. All opinions are valid, it' doesn't mean they have any rationale behind them.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 11:44 AM by Bluemoonsine

Before one can determine/discriminate which is evil/wicked from which is holy/divine, which is truth; it's important to understand the history of it all of which most is lost in collusion of confusion.

This may help clarify some history.

Unfortunately, the 'search for truth' and the search for the 'ideal' has been hijacked by the neo-con zionist led international bankster cabal past and present which is now fully understood amongst the decision makers. Only through the respect of the individual and the nurturance of 'an' individual's innate and intuitive gifts, post conception, can one appreciate the th-pring of one's being.

A new world order (novus ordus seclorum) or new 'secular' order (without God) based on a fiat digital one world currency is a recipe for disaster as it repugnates the gifts of the individual and rather enslaves the masses to the will and supposed benefit of the few. Who would prefer to live amongst an ignorant, uneducated, poisoned, bridled mass of slaves/subjects less they were one themself unto a 'Satan' of which wishes the destruction of man, including those in his hand, feeding off the sufferance and neglect of the very Soul of sustenance? Doesn't require a Doctorate of Divinity to understand this either.

A New World Order based on an international Bill of Rights bereft of 'secret societies' divided and compartmentalized can only ensure any kind of 'Justice' going forward rather than perpetuating a continual divide and conquer, order through chaos, problem>reaction>solution approach to further keep mankind divided and ignorant from their collective gifts/offerings unto one another. The natural approach would be to encourage/nurture all mankind to settle into their own beeing in society. This can only be accomplished in a self-sufficient community setting whereby the children are nurtured, guildes established within varying communities designed to foster, bring about one's natural skillsets 'to' society for the benefit of 'any' society.

Codex Alexandrinus was a worthy attempt at reason that appears to be lost in the dust of time. Whhhwwooooo!

Though still a 'book of words' written by man, though perhaps inspired by what was 'seen', it could never be entirely accurate since the 'word' of man is a construct of man and therefor to be lost in translation/transcription, especially that of the old testament (edited/devised under the order of the King of Israel and codified by a group of 'wise men') which is perhaps inspired in large part by a 'false lord' intermixing truth with fallacy as Satan is so well known for. Even Jesus/Yeshua himself only wrote with symbols in the sand for he did not trust the 'word of man', a human construct written in the second dimension, to describe that Of the Creator which is Of the 5th and >greater>than^ dimension, though the "The Sermon on the Mount" was well recorded throughout history, the rest written 200 years after by those who never knew J.

On the other hand R one, the Conscience is there for the reason, complemented with sapience/sentience to know what is right from what is wrong. How was mankind to ascertain between the two pre-papyrus/pre-word/pre-literacy? Any natural law, all unseen without the 3rd eye, the true "I" upon the pYramid.....can only be seen for what it is in any particular instance one may find themselves in as no written law can/could do justice to any unforeseen circumstance or with respect to the Rule of Law, led by the conscience and most likely dis-covered by a jury of one's peers, based on the facts at hand, uncorrupted by one's prejudices whether by 'instruction' or 'persuasion'. Let the facts be as they are found based on an honest and thorough Discovery session of the facts at hand as they may be found via a process of Natural Law Jurisprudence based on The Golden Rule compl-I-mented with a Hypocratic Oath anyone could believe in.

edit on 7-10-2012 by Bluemoonsine because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 12:04 PM by otherpotato

reply to post by ColeYounger

I believe there's this book that a lot of people quote from to suit their personal agendas that states "the love of money is the root of all evil." Familiar with that book?

So now there are people who are taking the bible's message to heart and calling out those who flaunt their accumulation of money - and it's the liberal left.

Well aint that just the darndest thing!

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 12:32 PM by Valhall

reply to post by poet1b

I do agree with you that the size of the government is Bush's fault as well as Obama's. And contrary to the Republican message right now, I'm not sure one more than the other. I think they are about equal. As far wanting to continue the trend, that's on Obama for now because Bush isn't in office.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 12:42 PM by supermarket2012

Originally posted by ColeYounger
It's absolutely frightening how many people can read the OP but not extract the slightest hint of a clue as to what's being said. It must be our zombie culture that's responsible. The mass media\TV\facebook\cellphone invasion has left some people incapable of discernment.

The OP is stating that the democratic 'left' associates wealth with evil.
It's the class war, and it has been in swing for a couple of years now. The 'occupy' movement really got it off the ground. Dozens of occupiers were noted, saying things like:
"If you're rich, you did something illegal or evil along the way."
"Rich people are what's wrong with this country."
"The 1% are exploiting the 99%"
"The wealthy are the ones who are really responsible for poverty."

The left-wing icon Michael Moore, who is worth millions, said "Rich people don't understand that their money is a natural resource. It's NOT really theirs."

Obama and Biden have said repeatedly that "the rich don't pay their fair share."

If you google terms like 'evil rich', you'll get thousands of links.

Get It? RICH = EVIL.
Now, since $250,00 is the starting point for 'evil richness', the OP has devised a sliding scale to measure how evil an evil rich person really is. (There is also a bit of sarcasm in the OP. It's really bizarre how many people don't understand sarcasm.)

The OP isn't saying that Hitler isn't evil. The OP isn't saying that serial killers aren't evil.
The thread wasn't meant to be a debate over the definition of "evil".
The OP is simply saying that the administration, along with the progressive left agenda (or whatever you want to call it) has promoted the idea that rich people are evil. So...where's the starting point? It appears to be $250,000.

Hence the thread..."Identifying evil people"

Actually, it is absolutely FRIGHTENING that YOU fail to REALIZE that every single person who read the original post realized what he was saying....we just all also realize how stupid of a post it is.

First of all, the occupy movement was just that, the occupy movement. To lump it in with the "left" is absurd. It was a movement started by some college kids, anonymous, and some activists. Sure, some politically left got involved. So did some people who were even in the tea party, believe it or not. LOTS of people got involved......but the occupy movement and the political left are two different things, entirely.

Also, Obama said himself, he doesn't mind paying the extra taxes that those in the $250,000+ yearly income would be paying. It really isn't THAT much more.

The left have nothing against wealthy people. It is just that the right often praises the wealthy, ignores the poor, and tries to eliminate the middle class....all while pretending they are for the middle class, and everyone!

To say that Obama thinks wealthy individuals are evil is ABSURD, and that is ALL everyone is saying. The original post was nonsense, and if you can't realize that, I do feel frightened, lol.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 01:20 PM by goh13

Evil and good are but masks on one’s face, with one look at someone’s face, you can know their history. Or is it just me?

edit on 7-10-2012 by goh13 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 01:52 PM by Skyfloating

Rich Business people built society. Companies built the roads, cards, cities, hospitals, day cares, computers, phones, airplanes you all benefit from. Even prior to their massive philanthropy and charity they created much of the world we live in. They carry the majority of tax money. "Evil" is much more prevalent among the poor. Compare the homicide, rape, infanticide, vandalism, robbery and other crime statistics of the poor with those of the rich. And yet, most people blame the rich for all evils, thanks to cultural mass-indoctrination through Academia and Hollywood.

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 02:06 PM by buster2010

reply to post by Valhall

Since it appears that Mitt Romney being a successful business man and having a net worth of 250 million dollars is the major "evil" point about him,

Him just being wealthy isn't what makes him evil. It's how he made his wealth is what makes him evil. Making money on ruining other peoples lives is not an act of a good person.

edit on 7-10-2012 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-10-2012 @ 02:12 PM by MajorKarma

Originally posted by MDDoxs
I do not agree with your definition of "evil"

Plenty of poor "evil" people in the world, some far worse then the politicians and businessmen you have listed.