Identifying evil people

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". Now, according to their tax plan and Obama and Biden's own campaign statements, people "go evil" when a married couple makes $250,000 in one year. (I'd like to note that while I don't give a flying flamingo who you boink or who you love the Gay/Lesbian community needs to really re-think their battle for getting recognized with legitimate marriages. Marriage is evil in the eyes of the current administration. The marriage penalty is coming back. If you're married you "go evil" at a combined income of $250,000 in one year. If you are not married you each can make up to $200,000 per year before you "go evil"...so I'm just saying. You're selling your soul to the devil if you get married...by about $150,000/year!)

So, normalizing the data to where $250,000 net worth is unity and then measuring everyone richer against that first indicator that "you've gone evil", here's the breakdown on some notable names. Please use this list any time you want to ensure you don't vote for or support by purchasing products these evil people. You can thank me later.

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.

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.

reply to post by Valhall


If I measure myself to this scale, I'm nearing Sainthood!!

All of them are evil in one form or another.

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.

reply to post by BobM88


So is Biden. lol After a lifetime of making good money he's only worth $275,000. I make far less money than Biden (and a good chunk of my professional career was as a single parent with two children - receiving no child support), and I'm much younger and have far fewer years working and when you take my 401k...I'm worth more than him.

I am officially more evil than Joe Biden. Who knew you had to be totally financially irresponsible over an entire lifetime in order to retain sainthood!

reply to post by MDDoxs


I haven't defined anything. I just applied the measuring stick.

Obviously its not the money that makes you evil, its what you do to get the money.

US presidents are just puppets and they will do the bidding of their masters, which is the military industrial complex and the corporations. So are those people evil? Absolutely. They have the mindset of wanting to destroy entire nations for profit and power.

Sorry, I know you wanted to hear that Romney is different. Perhaps someone else will tell you that.

reply to post by Valhall


1. Where did you get the idea that financial success makes one "evil" according to the left??? DO you have a link? IF that were true, then, as you have pointed out, Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney - heck, most of Hollywood, sports and the music world would be considered "evil" by the left. But since most of them ARE the left, it doesn't make sense that they would consider themselves and their friends "evil".

2. Where did you get that marriage is "evil" in the eyes of the current administration? Again, many of them are married, so it doesn't make sense that they would consider themselves and their friends "evil".

Unless this is just a bunch of hyperbole, suggesting that the left thinks it's "evil" to be wealthy and only asks "evil" people to pay their fair share of taxes.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by MDDoxs

 

I haven't defined anything. I just applied the measuring stick. You're denseness remains intact.

Your quote

If you are not married you each can make up to $200,000 per year before you "go evil"...so I'm just saying. You're selling your soul to the devil if you get married...by about $150,000/year!)

You have defined those who make over 250K annually as evil....and you made a list to justify your conclusion. Unfortunately your conclusions are not well founded.

As a side note, personal attacks do not support your argument. Your welcome

reply to post by MDDoxs


OMG! Go back to school. Read the thing in context. I based on the Administration's tax code and the campaign statements...

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". Now, according to their tax plan and Obama and Biden's own campaign statements, people "go evil" when a married couple makes $250,000 in one year. (I'd like to note that while I don't give a flying flamingo who you boink or who you love the Gay/Lesbian community needs to really re-think their battle for getting recognized with legitimate marriages. Marriage is evil in the eyes of the current administration. The marriage penalty is coming back. If you're married you "go evil" at a combined income of $250,000 in one year. If you are not married you each can make up to $200,000 per year before you "go evil"...so I'm just saying. You're selling your soul to the devil if you get married...by about $150,000/year!)

reply to post by Valhall

Originally posted by Valhall
It's not my definition. It's the Democrats and Liberals.

Can you back this up at all?

..I didn't make the rules,

Unless you can provide something to back up your allegations, then I believe you did.

reply to post by Bodhi911


Agreed!

And, if I might add to that insight;

"Evil" is as Evil Does. It's not that a person possesses a certain measure of wealth, it what that person Did to acheive that wealth (Bain), and what they are willing to Do to keep, and grow that wealth (Cut off funding to programs which benefit those whose socio-economic circumstances bar them from more expensive options, ie., de-funding PBS)

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Based off where they want to whack your peepee on the tax code and based on Biden's statements and Obama's statements in the stump speeches. The new tax code clearly indicates (and the tax cut that "O'Biden" just smiled and cheered about coming) kicks in at $250,000 for a married couple. That means, in their eyes, that those who are not paying their fair share, are...couples at $250,000. They have openly spoke of the tax cut ending as their solution to making those who aren't pulling "their fair share" get on board.

Now, the "evilness" factor comes in from the rhetoric right here on this board. (And in other areas where promotors of the liberal economic agenda are speaking and writing). Romney is bad because he's rich. That's the main issue...he's just a bad rich man. So rich is bad (i.e. evil) and it apparently kicks in at $250,000 combined income annually.

It's that simple. I just applied the rhetoric to a list of notable names.

reply to post by Bhadhidar


Yeah. And each of us have the choice to do something good or something bad for other people every day. In my experience, there has to be like 99% of people who wants to do good. But the systems we have in society rewards greedy and unemotional people, so those guys rise to the top and will do anything to keep their position in the stupid pyramids we have there.

But humanity will evolve or die. Its that simple. And I see a lot of change now! Its exciting.

reply to post by Valhall


This is the definition you have inferred from democrat platform, as my fellow member requested above, are you able to provide a source for this?

I know you are angry, but do not let your emotions take control of you. Your insults are not helping your point, but continue on if it makes you feel better.

regards

Excuse me im feeling to puke now..........................who died and made these guys the the champions of illiteracy?
The parameters are already in the OP.....
I got a chuckle out of the OP till i read the answers......really ,some anal people are really well, anal................

You really can't have it both ways. Either the "rich" (as defined by the rhetoric of the candidates, their tax codes and their supporters) defines whose been being "bad" and needs to be brought in line, or you admit that you reject that idea.

So all the middle class with a combined income of $250,000 a year are bad and need to get on board and then all those people above them need to be whipped into shape. God knows we can't have them running around continuing this evil behavior. Obamas included, by the way. Wonder if Obama would be willing to reduce his evilness by doing what Bloomberg did and just take a buck a month for salary?

I also wonder if Romney would. So I wonder that for both of them. There's point where redistribution of wealth has to kick in according to Obama and I think according to that philosophy he is being morally deficit in taking his salary when he's serving as a civil servant and his net worth is as high as it is. Does wealth redistribution not apply to him?

Click here for more information.