Unfortunate repercussions if OWEbama gets re-elected

[canceled.2021.1]

Yes, they do. The point is other people paid for them and you use them. It's a form of sharing. That's how civilization works.

Let's run this moral dilemma by you. If I break into your house and steal $1000 but give it all to the poor is that stealing?

Now I know what you will say, "but we as a society agree to it", to which I would argue that we all did not agree to it.

And let's change the scenario a little. What if a majority of your citizens voted to allo me to take $1000 from you to give to the poor of my choice. Is that morally acceptable to you?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Have they given a reason?

I would think that the answer is obvious. I know that having just very recently become a permanent employee at my company, complete with wonderful benefits, the possibility of getting laid off if Obama is re-elected is very real and will just be one more reason I will forever hate liberals/democrats.

 

[apple0154]

So let me get this straight. I am forgoing income and that makes me greedy in your estimation.

Exactly. The reason you would do so is due to greed which you told us. You would rather have less yourself then see someone have more. Addiction is a mental illness and your "logic" is proof of that.

You were so anxious to spout off your deranged ideology you isn't even take five seconds to make sure if it made any sense.

Eh, talking about anxious to spout off your sentence does not make any sense. Perhaps wipe off your chin and check your grammer.

If you understood human nature and economics, you wouldn't be a liberal

I understand greed very well, thank-you. As I said I avoid those folks like the plague.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Exactly. The reason you would do so is due to greed which you told us. You would rather have less yourself then see someone have more. Addiction is a mental illness and your "logic" is proof of that.



Eh, talking about anxious to spout off your sentence does not make any sense. Perhaps wipe off your chin and check your grammer.



I understand greed very well, thank-you. As I said I avoid those folks like the plague.

So making money is greedy and not making money is greedy?



And let me guess, you aren't greedy right?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I would think that the answer is obvious. I know that having just very recently become a permanent employee at my company, complete with wonderful benefits, the possibility of getting laid off if Obama is re-elected is very real and will just be one more reason I will forever hate liberals/democrats.

I hear ya, but liberals don't understand human nature and think they can mold it with proper "reeducation"

 

[apple0154]

Let's run this moral dilemma by you. If I break into your house and steal $1000 but give it all to the poor is that stealing?

Now I know what you will say, "but we as a society agree to it", to which I would argue that we all did not agree to it.

And let's change the scenario a little. What if a majority of your citizens voted to allo me to take $1000 from you to give to the poor of my choice. Is that morally acceptable to you?

The typical Conservation believes family is all important, the foundation of civilization. Yet, when it comes to extrapolating that, to applying the general principals to society as a whole, they take the opposite view. It's so weird.

No one is taking money from someone who needs it. In other words one person does not do without by making sure another has sufficient. One person is not singled out so your examples do not make sense. They have no bearing on what I posted.

 

[apple0154]

I would think that the answer is obvious. I know that having just very recently become a permanent employee at my company, complete with wonderful benefits, the possibility of getting laid off if Obama is re-elected is very real and will just be one more reason I will forever hate liberals/democrats.

Awww, don't worry. You're smarter than everyone else, remember. You'll find another job.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The typical Conservation believes family is all important, the foundation of civilization. Yet, when it comes to extrapolating that, to applying the general principals to society as a whole, they take the opposite view. It's so weird.

No one is taking money from someone who needs it. In other words one person does not do without by making sure another has sufficient. One person is not singled out so your examples do not make sense. They have no bearing on what I posted.

Your first post is refuted by facts. Survey after survey shows that conservatives are more generous with thier money than you so called compassionate liberals. You aren't compassionate you are lazy.

Who determines who needs what? You get to be that arbiter? So you are upset that one person is being singled out but you don't have a problem singling out the 1% right? You don't see the inconsistency there?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Awww, don't worry. You're smarter than everyone else, remember. You'll find another job.

strange, I believe you were just chastising factsrstubborn for the belief that he would rather have less so that someone else couldn't have more, and now you're mocking me for wanting more so that others can have more? don't you think that's hypocritical of you?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

strange, I believe you were just chastising factsrstubborn for the belief that he would rather have less so that someone else couldn't have more, and now you're mocking me for wanting more so that others can have more? don't you think that's hypocritical of you?

No he won't think that. Libtardiots have no principles. It is always party first. Think about it. They claim to love diversity. Love the poor yet what is thier first lines of attack on those who have the temerity to disagree with them

You have a GED
you live in a double wide
You are gay

It is funny that they would make fun of double wides, they are actually one of the most environmentally friendly things to live in.

 

[apple0154]

So making money is greedy and not making money is greedy?

You're more confused, messed up, than I thought.

And let me guess, you aren't greedy right?

Right. Neither I nor my wife. On a number of occasions we have been told we're generous people and I wouldn't consider ourselves wealthy. Comfortable? Yes. Fortunate? Definitely!

You see, some people are never satisfied. Others have been poor in the past and they fear that to the point they grab all they can. In our case we have both experienced hard times and now that those days are behind us we can empathize with others who are going through it.

As I mentioned before I was fortunate enough to have property that rapidly and greatly increased in value. When I sold I had a "friend" who said I must be upset having to pay a tax on a portion of the gains and I replied, "Why?" I was paying a tax on money I didn't even work for. I did nothing to earn that money. At what could I possibly be upset? Only greed would cause me to be upset.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You're more confused, messed up, than I thought.



Right. Neither I nor my wife. On a number of occasions we have been told we're generous people and I wouldn't consider ourselves wealthy. Comfortable? Yes. Fortunate? Definitely!

You see, some people are never satisfied. Others have been poor in the past and they fear that to the point they grab all they can. In our case we have both experienced hard times and now that those days are behind us we can empathize with others who are going through it.

As I mentioned before I was fortunate enough to have property that rapidly and greatly increased in value. When I sold I had a "friend" who said I must be upset having to pay a tax on a portion of the gains and I replied, "Why?" I was paying a tax on money I didn't even work for. I did nothing to earn that money. At what could I possibly be upset? Only greed would cause me to be upset.

So if you had a choice of having your wife do without something or giving the money to a poor person, what would you do?

Did you ever have your family go without so that someone else could have it?

My guess is that the answer to both is a FUCK NO.

This is what you don't understand. I think it is morally imperative to help our fellow man and I do so in numerous ways. But I also believe in freedom so if someone chooses not to want to help someone they should be able to.

You bitch whine and moan that others shouldn't force thier morality on you when it comes to abortion, yet you have no problem forcing your morality on others through the force of government. You don't see the hypocrisy there?

 

[apple0154]

I hear ya, but liberals don't understand human nature and think they can mold it with proper "reeducation"

Of course it can be molded. It's been molded into the belief one should acquire all they can and helping people should be minimized.

While some children naturally share others have to be taught.

 

[apple0154]

Your first post is refuted by facts. Survey after survey shows that conservatives are more generous with thier money than you so called compassionate liberals. You aren't compassionate you are lazy.

Me lazy? If Conservatives are so generous and give more money why the objection to taxes and everyone paying the same? If everyone paid the same that means Liberals would pay more and Conservaties would pay less, according to your statement. You should be on board with more taxes and you'd save money.

Who determines who needs what? You get to be that arbiter? So you are upset that one person is being singled out but you don't have a problem singling out the 1% right? You don't see the inconsistency there?

The government determines because the government sees the big picture. I've been over this before. Do you know who needs help? Do you even know if someone on your tblock needs help never mind someone on the other side of the country?

The only ones being singled out are the ones who can offer help. You don't make any sense. If you want to buy eggs you wouldn't go to Neiman Marcus because they couldn't help you.

 

[apple0154]

strange, I believe you were just chastising factsrstubborn for the belief that he would rather have less so that someone else couldn't have more, and now you're mocking me for wanting more so that others can have more? don't you think that's hypocritical of you?

Who are the others gettng more? Are you doing a version of the old trickle down theory?

 

[apple0154]

No he won't think that. Libtardiots have no principles. It is always party first. Think about it. They claim to love diversity. Love the poor yet what is thier first lines of attack on those who have the temerity to disagree with them

You have a GED
you live in a double wide
You are gay

It is funny that they would make fun of double wides, they are actually one of the most environmentally friendly things to live in.

I've never mocked double wides. My wife's uncle has one in Florida. Vaulted ceiling. Skylight in the kitchen. Jacuzzi in the master bedroom. A Cadillac convertible parked on the beige tiled driveway. Looks like a fine way of life to me.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Who are the others gettng more? Are you doing a version of the old trickle down theory?

the 'others' getting more would be the beneficiaries of the taxes that uncle sam takes from me for my work, by your theory. but how am I to help those less fortunate if you implement economic policies that cause me to lose the job that does that?

 

[apple0154]

So if you had a choice of having your wife do without something or giving the money to a poor person, what would you do?

Did you ever have your family go without so that someone else could have it?

My guess is that the answer to both is a FUCK NO.

I have never sugggested one should go without so someone else can have it. I don't know where you got that idea from?

This is what you don't understand. I think it is morally imperative to help our fellow man and I do so in numerous ways. But I also believe in freedom so if someone chooses not to want to help someone they should be able to.

Why? Why should you help and others not? And who are the others who don't want to help? Only those who can afford to do so are asked so those who object must do so out of greed and not out of need. Why would you support the right to greed while watching your neighbor in need? Is that your definition of morality?

You bitch whine and moan that others shouldn't force thier morality on you when it comes to abortion, yet you have no problem forcing your morality on others through the force of government. You don't see the hypocrisy there?

No, I don't. What does your neighbor having an abortion have to do with you?

It's human nature to want to better ones self, to make a comfortable life. By helping your neighbor it will keep their spirit alive, their enthusiasm, their mental well-being. That, in turn, will result in them being less stressed, more determined to get a job instead of falling into depression. That, in turn, helps you. They will be more energetic. They will look after their home. They will try harder to meet their mortgage payments because they will have hope. At least their family will be fed. They can concentrate on getting a job.

Everyone benefits. Their children will do better in school.

While it can be considered moral to help it's also logical. That's the point. There are concrete rewards.

 

[apple0154]

the 'others' getting more would be the beneficiaries of the taxes that uncle sam takes from me for my work, by your theory. but how am I to help those less fortunate if you implement economic policies that cause me to lose the job that does that?

I hear a lot about economic policies but never see/hear an actual policy. What, specifically, is so damaging to business?

 

[Haiku]

I think it needs to be said that the 1% are the ones that don't make jobs they just gamble and make profits. Their money doesn't come from the result of 'work' or production...they just 'harvest' value. They sit on top and pay no taxes or damned little. The business' they're involved with benefit from what we provide in tax benefits while they rake in billions..ie the big oil companys for instance. It's insane. Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 -- now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined.

155 million Americans.