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.

 

Time for a mass redistribution of wealth

page: 29
28
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   

beezzer
Again, do you want a one world government, or just get the wealthy Americans?

I'm trying to figure out the end-game here.


No, you want to change topics because the re-wording / dishonor argument cuts too close to the bone.

No problem... I don't want to beat a man when he's down.

End game, restore democracy. Get money out of politics. Make examples out of those who would try to buy elections, buy laws, cripple the economy and hold the country ransom for $7 trillion dollars.

The punishment has to be severe.

If you want to debate the punishment, fine. If you want to say no crime was committed, that's fine too.

But don't say I'm looking to steal money just because I want to.

That's dishonest, and it destroys all respect for you.

Man up.




posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


The problem with what you want is that you are asking the very people who were empowered to give the bailouts to act to tear down the ones who got the bailouts.

Then, you have the cognitive dissonance to rail about how the ones who got the bailouts are actually controlling the mechanism of power so that they pulled the strings enabling them to receive the bailouts.

Ummm, so if the ones who got the bailouts basically cashed out the government by forcing it to give them the money ... why on earth do you think the very same government is suddenly going to turn on them?

And even better, if what was done is wrong, then what makes it better to suddenly completely abrogate property rights and go on a witch hunt looking for wrong doing based on your notions of criminal greed? Where do you even stop with that and what constitutes criminal greed?

Not only that, but you also admit that you suffer from the same kind of pathological greed you see everywhere you look, particularly in the people who have more stuff than you.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


LOL

I'm not the one who wants wealth redistribution.

You do.

Change the laws, redefine words, do whatever you want to enable you to take away wealth from one account to put it in another.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


The problem with what you want is that you are asking the very people who were empowered to give the bailouts to act to tear down the ones who got the bailouts.

Ummm, so if the ones who got the bailouts basically cashed out the government by forcing it to give them the money ... why on earth do you think the very same government is suddenly going to turn on them?

And even better, if what was done is wrong, then what makes it better to suddenly completely abrogate property rights and go on a witch hunt looking for wrong doing based on your notions of criminal greed? Where do you even stop with that and what constitutes criminal greed?



Okay, so you have accepted that it's corrupt.

If you want to say it's not possible to go after such a colossal system of corruption, that's valid. If you want to say the punishment, if found guilty, should not include draining their assets that's fine, though I disagree.

But, sadly, I agree with you. They are too big. And for that reason, as stated in the original OP, I simply vote for any legislation that takes their money to help those suffering.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


LOL

I'm not the one who wants wealth redistribution.

You do.

Change the laws, redefine words, do whatever you want to enable you to take away wealth from one account to put it in another.


Notice how you never actually respond to a question, but when you state the same question over and over, I have no problems answering directly? It's because I'm actually interested in a discussion.

You're into mis-direct, re-direct, re-word... The coward's way of debate. The guy who has no argument, so he changes words to create an argument he can fight.

You're weak, Beezzer and I'm calling you out on your tactics.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


There should be a limit. How much money do these people need?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

spiritualzombie

Antigod
When did I ever say they should be above the law? Not once.


What do you call it when you don't think the bailout should be investigated, that an entire economy could be held on a 7 trillion dollar ransom and these guys take a huge cut just for themselves.

They are above being investigated, arrested, above court... above your scrutiny.

They are allowed to sway law, control legislation, control the country, reward themselves, taking trillions from tax payers for their own greed addiction.

You most definitely do believe they are above the law.


I never commented on any of those things. The 1% wealthiest as a rule won't have anything to do with that, you're looking at one in tens of thousands. The 1% are business leaders and highly skilled professionals for the most part.

SInce I'm from the UK, my interest in the US bailout is near zero. We bailed out one bank by buying a mass of shares in it (RBS).



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by Antigod
 


40 years ago, I think it is fair to say that most of the people who earned their own fortunes came by it fairly honestly, but not at this time.

Wall street bankers made hundreds of millions through sheer fraud. If you took the time to do some research, this is what you would find.

They steal billions, and get fined hundreds of millions, and no restitution to the victims. That is a very nice profit for their criminal enterprises.

And what about all the money made from illegal drugs, and the laundering of that money?

Ever read about how Rockefeller earned his massive fortune? He was essentially a mob boss. Then a large number of the super rich, like Mitt Romney made their money by robbing pension plans. He should have gone to jail for those dirty practices, and not been running for president.

Sorry, but those who worship of the wealthy are blind to the reality.


Most of them make their money through legit business. Your envy is making you blind to reality.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

spiritualzombie

ketsuko
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


The problem with what you want is that you are asking the very people who were empowered to give the bailouts to act to tear down the ones who got the bailouts.

Ummm, so if the ones who got the bailouts basically cashed out the government by forcing it to give them the money ... why on earth do you think the very same government is suddenly going to turn on them?

And even better, if what was done is wrong, then what makes it better to suddenly completely abrogate property rights and go on a witch hunt looking for wrong doing based on your notions of criminal greed? Where do you even stop with that and what constitutes criminal greed?



Okay, so you have accepted that it's corrupt.

If you want to say it's not possible to go after such a colossal system of corruption, that's valid. If you want to say the punishment, if found guilty, should not include draining their assets that's fine, though I disagree.

But, sadly, I agree with you. They are too big. And for that reason, as stated in the original OP, I simply vote for any legislation that takes their money to help those suffering.


So, you vote for theft.

You do realize that often, those theft policies you vote for do far more harm to people like us than they ever do to the ones you hate?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

rjbaggins
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


There should be a limit. How much money do these people need?


Enlighten us. How much money does a person need in your opinion?

There was a poster on here not so long ago who tried to tell me that anyone who was making over the US average income had no excuse not to be able to save and live comfortably.

So, please enlighten us with your idea of what a person needs.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by Antigod
 


It was beezzer who claimed the wealthy should not be punished for their crimes.

Then you backed him.

Beezzer is known for creating straw man argument which he attributes to another poster.

I understand what is being written by Spiritualzombie.


Please find the post where I did that and post it. Hint, it doesn't exist. My posts have been essays on economics for the most part.

Seriously, quote it or apologise.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

spiritualzombie

beezzer
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


LOL

I'm not the one who wants wealth redistribution.

You do.

Change the laws, redefine words, do whatever you want to enable you to take away wealth from one account to put it in another.


Notice how you never actually respond to a question, but when you state the same question over and over, I have no problems answering directly? It's because I'm actually interested in a discussion.

You're into mis-direct, re-direct, re-word... The coward's way of debate. The guy who has no argument, so he changes words to create an argument he can fight.

You're weak, Beezzer and I'm calling you out on your tactics.


Okay, I've debated for years on forums on various subjects. Zombie, you'veasically switched subjects when confronted with facts you don't like, accused Beezer of being okay with paedophilia and me of supporting corrupt whoever, when I've not said a word on the subject. This has devolved into ad homin attacks on he two of us on your part.

Seriously the mods need to attend to this thread to remove some of your psots.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

beezzer
According to you, it is now treason to have more than you.



Antigod
Actually you do come across as Beezer suggests.


This is not at all what I said, but you backed him.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


Your thread title is

"Time for a mass redistribution of wealth"

All throughout this thread you have advocated killing, scaring the wealthy.

You're hatred for the wealthy is apparent.

Your whole premise is flawed as well. You want to change the laws, but who changes the laws? Politicians.

Just in America? Then the wealthy change nationalities.

Globally? HA! One world government issues there.


I posted this on the first page

If we are going to get anywhere, we need to change the way we think. The way we place value on things.

Not just a few of us, but society(s) as a whole.

It can be done, but it'll take time.

And by the time we can (as a culture and society) reflect and appreciate the real valuable things in life, then the 1% will have become meaningless.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

spiritualzombie

beezzer
According to you, it is now treason to have more than you.



Antigod
Actually you do come across as Beezer suggests.


This is not at all what I said, but you backed him.



That you seemed to come across as wanting to kill the rich, as I recall .And you do seem extreemly resentful and angry and okaying all sorts of nasties in your posts.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Antigod
 


When spiritualzombie posted this


Something needs to happen to make the 1% wake up to the damage and corruption and start distancing themselves from the .0001% intent on controlling the country through corrupt practices.

Losing all their money would scare the F out of them. Especially if they started seeing it happen.


I think his feelings on the subject became quite apparent.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Exactly, the only way this ever gets fixed is for people to start learning what is really valuable and putting emphasis on it in their lives. This can only start with yourself and then move outward to those around you immediately. It cannot be forced through law. If every social problem could be fixed through the law, there would be no murder, no rape, no theft ... we all know how true that is.

And, seriously, the first step is for some people here to look in the mirror and start by fixing what they see. If you are not able to be content with what you have and find worth and a good degree of happiness there, then you aren't ready to tell anyone else what is or is not enough or too much.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


The answer would be to elect completely different people.

Then clean up the rank and file in positions of power who stay from one admin to the next.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Antigod

spiritualzombie

beezzer
According to you, it is now treason to have more than you.


beezzer
And I call it how I see it.


No, you re-word it as you see fit. You don't argue with the truth because you can't, so you change the truth to be something you can argue with.

Shame on you.


Actually you do come across as Beezer suggests.


Here is the quote where you back Beezzer after he made his claims that it would be wrong to put the rich on trial.

There is nothing about economics here. Most of you posts are personal attacks and personal opinions without any factual basis to back up your claims.

So now it is time for you to apologize.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

poet1b

Antigod

spiritualzombie

beezzer
According to you, it is now treason to have more than you.


beezzer
And I call it how I see it.


No, you re-word it as you see fit. You don't argue with the truth because you can't, so you change the truth to be something you can argue with.

Shame on you.


Actually you do come across as Beezer suggests.


Here is the quote where you back Beezzer after he made his claims that it would be wrong to put the rich on trial.

There is nothing about economics here. Most of you posts are personal attacks and personal opinions without any factual basis to back up your claims.

So now it is time for you to apologize.



And it would be okay to put the rich on trial, simply because they were rich?




top topics



 
28
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join