Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: The Fact Is, The Rich Don't Have Enough Money
26 views
Skip to first unread message
Rudy Canoza
Jan 17, 2014, 12:22:00 PM1/17/14
to
On 1/17/2014 9:14 AM, Baxter wrote:
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:
>
>>
>> "Grayling High School" wrote in message...
>>> Re: The Fact Is, The Rich Don't Have Enough Money
>>> They never have. That's why we need to pay the taxes
>>> while they pay nothing.
>>
>> You are silly and WRONG.
>> The "rich" pay the majority of income taxes paid, as it is.
>>
>> "The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income
>> and paid 59.07 percent of taxes,
>>
>> and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income
>> and paid 70.62 percent of taxes."
>>
>> http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-ta
>> xes
>>
> Yet some how that top 5% owns 2/3 of all the stock while the bottom 50% own
> ~ 0.5%
So?
> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:
>
>>
>> "Grayling High School" wrote in message...
>>> Re: The Fact Is, The Rich Don't Have Enough Money
>>> They never have. That's why we need to pay the taxes
>>> while they pay nothing.
>>
>> You are silly and WRONG.
>> The "rich" pay the majority of income taxes paid, as it is.
>>
>> "The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income
>> and paid 59.07 percent of taxes,
>>
>> and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income
>> and paid 70.62 percent of taxes."
>>
>> http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-ta
>> xes
>>
> Yet some how that top 5% owns 2/3 of all the stock while the bottom 50% own
> ~ 0.5%
So?
Eddie Haskell
Jan 17, 2014, 12:56:12 PM1/17/14
to
"Rudy Canoza" <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in message
news:b06ae$52d9678a$414e828e$19...@EVERESTKC.NET...
making the rich richer while he blubbers about "income disparity" as if he
had nothing to do with it while his retarded sycophants drool.
-Eddie Haskell
Message has been deleted
Rudy Canoza
Jan 18, 2014, 1:16:07 PM1/18/14
to
On 1/18/2014 7:38 AM, Baxter wrote:
> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> :
>>> owns just 7% (which includes their homes.)
>>
>> Because, while you were being a jealous li'l petulant prick,
>
> You rightards can never make up your minds - first you want people to be
> jealous of the rich so they will work harder,
No, no one advocates the poor be jealous of the rich. Good people want
the poor to take responsibility for their own lot in life, and if they
want more than they have, work harder to obtain it. Jealousy of the
rich is when poor do-nothing malcontents want what the rich have and are
unwilling to do what it takes to get it ethically and lawfully. Being
jealous means they want it and want the rich *not* to have it. That's a
mortal sin.
> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> :
>
>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:14:33 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Yet some how that top 5% owns 2/3 of all the stock while the bottom
>>> 50% own ~ 0.5%
>>>
>>> Some how the top 5% owns nearly 80% of the wealth while the bottom 80%
>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:14:33 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Yet some how that top 5% owns 2/3 of all the stock while the bottom
>>> 50% own ~ 0.5%
>>>
>>> owns just 7% (which includes their homes.)
>>
>> Because, while you were being a jealous li'l petulant prick,
>
> You rightards can never make up your minds - first you want people to be
> jealous of the rich so they will work harder,
No, no one advocates the poor be jealous of the rich. Good people want
the poor to take responsibility for their own lot in life, and if they
want more than they have, work harder to obtain it. Jealousy of the
rich is when poor do-nothing malcontents want what the rich have and are
unwilling to do what it takes to get it ethically and lawfully. Being
jealous means they want it and want the rich *not* to have it. That's a
mortal sin.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 18, 2014, 1:17:05 PM1/18/14
to
On 1/18/2014 7:40 AM, Baxter wrote:
> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> news:tukkd9143qcjj2duj...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:23:42 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:
>>>
>>>> "Baxter" <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote in message...
>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:23:42 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:
>>>
>>>> two or more incomes"
>>>>
>>>> So, do you really think the bottom quintile with only one earner,
>>>> should have equal wealth as the families where two are motivated
>>>> to be out there and working?
>>>>
>>> Do you think the Idle rich should have 10,000 time the wealth of the
>>> bottom half which includes people working two and three jobs trying to
>>> make ends meet?
>>>
>>> Incentive/motivation is one thing, but the disparity has grown too
>>> great.
>>
>> Ain't yer money, bitch. Never gonna be.
>>
>> Though - if you try to take it anyway, please have your next-of-kin
>> post the video of your demise.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM
You're a cunt. Everyone who posts a link to Youtube as a way of making
an argument in Usenet is a stupid, clueless, unimaginative cunt. Fuck off.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 18, 2014, 1:25:04 PM1/18/14
to
On 1/18/2014 9:12 AM, bill clinton wrote:
> Again,
> So, what do you consider your fair share of what someone
> else has worked for?
He can't answer. None of them can. I have pointed that out numerous
times, in threads like "NO ethical justification for redistribution of
wealth" in this and related newsgroups. I also started a thread in all
these groups entitled "How much income inequality is 'too much'? And
how is that decided?" Not a single leftist attempted to answer - I
mean, they all ran away in fear, screaming.
Here's the problem for left-wing fuckwits: they simply attempt to
*define*, 100% arbitrarily, any degree of income inequality as morally
wrong. But they have no coherent reason for saying that. It's nothing
but childish jealousy.
> So, what do you consider your fair share of what someone
> else has worked for?
He can't answer. None of them can. I have pointed that out numerous
times, in threads like "NO ethical justification for redistribution of
wealth" in this and related newsgroups. I also started a thread in all
these groups entitled "How much income inequality is 'too much'? And
how is that decided?" Not a single leftist attempted to answer - I
mean, they all ran away in fear, screaming.
Here's the problem for left-wing fuckwits: they simply attempt to
*define*, 100% arbitrarily, any degree of income inequality as morally
wrong. But they have no coherent reason for saying that. It's nothing
but childish jealousy.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 18, 2014, 1:35:27 PM1/18/14
to
On 1/18/2014 10:17 AM, Frank wrote:
>> And, why is it greed to want to keep the money you have
>> earned, but not greed to want to take what someone else has
>> made?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Classmate of mine, is the richest guy I know. When not in school, he
> was working to support his mother and father. Probably did not see much
> income until he was in his thirties with his own business. At age 75
> he's the first one in the office and the last to leave. Does he deserve
> his ~$200 million net worth? I think so. He worked hard for it and
> gave value to his customers. He continues to do so at an age when most
> are enjoying their golden years.
I have a classmate not quite that old - early 60s - who is very much
like yours. He's worth probably $1.5 billion. He has not been the CEO
of his firm for a long time, but he still is deeply involved in his
software and financial services firm. He's a very smart man, and is
absolutely the visionary for the company. He works extremely hard, and
he sacrificed a lot along the way. He pays his employees fairly, and he
listens to them. At some point back in the 1990s, his firm bought ad
time on a right-wing talk show, because the show's listeners fit part of
the target demographic for the firm's core products. The firm's
engineering and product development offices are, of course, located in
the Silicon Valley, a bastion of fashionable liberalism. A lot of the
firm's employees objected strenuously to advertising on the radio
program, so my friend stopped advertising there. He takes his
employees' beliefs and feelings seriously, even if he doesn't capitulate
to them altogether.
He's a responsible rich man, and he earned his wealth entirely ethically
and lawfully. He deserves his billions. I'm not envious of him, in the
sense of wanting what he has without working for it, as Bugster and the
other leftists are. I don't want his material wealth /per se/; what I
wish I had had was his vision and his drive and his ability, whether
innate or acquired, to evaluate risk and make smart bets. I just didn't
have that. The seething bitter jealous poor don't have that, and they
also don't have his work ethic.
>> earned, but not greed to want to take what someone else has
>> made?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Classmate of mine, is the richest guy I know. When not in school, he
> was working to support his mother and father. Probably did not see much
> income until he was in his thirties with his own business. At age 75
> he's the first one in the office and the last to leave. Does he deserve
> his ~$200 million net worth? I think so. He worked hard for it and
> gave value to his customers. He continues to do so at an age when most
> are enjoying their golden years.
I have a classmate not quite that old - early 60s - who is very much
like yours. He's worth probably $1.5 billion. He has not been the CEO
of his firm for a long time, but he still is deeply involved in his
software and financial services firm. He's a very smart man, and is
absolutely the visionary for the company. He works extremely hard, and
he sacrificed a lot along the way. He pays his employees fairly, and he
listens to them. At some point back in the 1990s, his firm bought ad
time on a right-wing talk show, because the show's listeners fit part of
the target demographic for the firm's core products. The firm's
engineering and product development offices are, of course, located in
the Silicon Valley, a bastion of fashionable liberalism. A lot of the
firm's employees objected strenuously to advertising on the radio
program, so my friend stopped advertising there. He takes his
employees' beliefs and feelings seriously, even if he doesn't capitulate
to them altogether.
He's a responsible rich man, and he earned his wealth entirely ethically
and lawfully. He deserves his billions. I'm not envious of him, in the
sense of wanting what he has without working for it, as Bugster and the
other leftists are. I don't want his material wealth /per se/; what I
wish I had had was his vision and his drive and his ability, whether
innate or acquired, to evaluate risk and make smart bets. I just didn't
have that. The seething bitter jealous poor don't have that, and they
also don't have his work ethic.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 18, 2014, 1:39:14 PM1/18/14
to
On 1/18/2014 9:03 AM, Filthy McNasty wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:19:11 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/17/2014 9:01 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>
>>> "Grayling High School" <tracey1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>
> I suck large cocks. Small ones, too.
Good for you, cocksucker.
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:19:11 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/17/2014 9:01 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>
>>> "Grayling High School" <tracey1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>>>> Re: The Fact Is, The Rich Don't Have Enough Money They never have.
>>>> That's why we need to pay the taxes while they pay nothing.
>>>
>>> You are silly and WRONG. The "rich" pay the majority of income taxes
>>> paid, as it is.
>>>
>>> "The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income and paid 59.07 percent
>>> of taxes,
>>> and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income and paid 70.62
>>> percent of taxes."
>>>
>>> http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes
>>
>> Exactly right.
>>>> That's why we need to pay the taxes while they pay nothing.
>>>
>>> You are silly and WRONG. The "rich" pay the majority of income taxes
>>> paid, as it is.
>>>
>>> "The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income and paid 59.07 percent
>>> of taxes,
>>> and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income and paid 70.62
>>> percent of taxes."
>>>
>>> http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes
>>
>
> I suck large cocks. Small ones, too.
Good for you, cocksucker.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 18, 2014, 1:49:07 PM1/18/14
to
On 1/18/2014 10:39 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
> "bill clinton" <hil...@cankles.com> wrote in news:lbecmp$73l$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> BBugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
> law passed that says some activity is "legal", doesn't make it right, and
> doesn't mean he earned his money.
You didn't answer his questions - unsurprising, because you can't.
Every time someone asks questions that you can't answer - your inability
to answer them indicates the total ethical and intellectual bankruptcy
of your position - you start dancing and trying to throw out your own
questions, *all* of which are incoherent and demonstrate your ethical
and intellectual bankruptcy.
Here are the facts:
1. You can't demonstrate that "the rich" acquired their wealth
unethically. You merely *assume* that great concentrations of
wealth are unethical /per se/. That's a bullshit assumption.
2. Given that great concentrations of wealth are not unethical
/per se/, you have given no valid ethical rationale for seizing
wealth to redistribute to deadbeats.
3. You have no coherent stopping rule - no valid statement of how
much inequality of wealth is "too much." Unless you are going to
force absolute equality of wealth, you can't sensibly and coherently
say where the line should be drawn.
You're just *FUCKED*, Bugster. You're stuck. You can't get started,
and you can't move.
> "bill clinton" <hil...@cankles.com> wrote in news:lbecmp$73l$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> BBugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
>>> post the video of your demise.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM
>>
>> Again,
>> So, what do you consider your fair share of what someone
>> else has worked for?
>> And, why is it greed to want to keep the money you have
>> earned, but not greed to want to take what someone else has
>> made?
>>
> Do you take the money he stole from a thief? Just because a rich man got a
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM
>>
>> Again,
>> So, what do you consider your fair share of what someone
>> else has worked for?
>> And, why is it greed to want to keep the money you have
>> earned, but not greed to want to take what someone else has
>> made?
>>
> law passed that says some activity is "legal", doesn't make it right, and
> doesn't mean he earned his money.
You didn't answer his questions - unsurprising, because you can't.
Every time someone asks questions that you can't answer - your inability
to answer them indicates the total ethical and intellectual bankruptcy
of your position - you start dancing and trying to throw out your own
questions, *all* of which are incoherent and demonstrate your ethical
and intellectual bankruptcy.
Here are the facts:
1. You can't demonstrate that "the rich" acquired their wealth
unethically. You merely *assume* that great concentrations of
wealth are unethical /per se/. That's a bullshit assumption.
2. Given that great concentrations of wealth are not unethical
/per se/, you have given no valid ethical rationale for seizing
wealth to redistribute to deadbeats.
3. You have no coherent stopping rule - no valid statement of how
much inequality of wealth is "too much." Unless you are going to
force absolute equality of wealth, you can't sensibly and coherently
say where the line should be drawn.
You're just *FUCKED*, Bugster. You're stuck. You can't get started,
and you can't move.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 18, 2014, 6:34:35 PM1/18/14
to
On 1/18/2014 10:56 AM, Filthy McNasty wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:39:14 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
Keep that out of here, rectum-sweat. No one cares what kind of dicks
you like to suck.
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:39:14 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/2014 9:03 AM, Filthy McNasty wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:19:11 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/17/2014 9:01 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Grayling High School" <tracey1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>>>>>> Re: The Fact Is, The Rich Don't Have Enough Money They never have.
>>>>>> That's why we need to pay the taxes while they pay nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are silly and WRONG. The "rich" pay the majority of income taxes
>>>>> paid, as it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income and paid 59.07 percent
>>>>> of taxes,
>>>>> and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income and paid 70.62
>>>>> percent of taxes."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes
>>>
>> Exactly right.
>
> I suck dog dicks too. Chihuahuas, are my favorite.
>
>> On 1/18/2014 9:03 AM, Filthy McNasty wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:19:11 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/17/2014 9:01 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Grayling High School" <tracey1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>>>>>> Re: The Fact Is, The Rich Don't Have Enough Money They never have.
>>>>>> That's why we need to pay the taxes while they pay nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are silly and WRONG. The "rich" pay the majority of income taxes
>>>>> paid, as it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income and paid 59.07 percent
>>>>> of taxes,
>>>>> and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income and paid 70.62
>>>>> percent of taxes."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes
>>>
>> Exactly right.
>
Keep that out of here, rectum-sweat. No one cares what kind of dicks
you like to suck.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 18, 2014, 6:40:15 PM1/18/14
to
On 1/18/2014 1:18 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:lbejhg$h3h$1...@dont-email.me:
>>> them for it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> they were
>>>> earning it.
>>>
>>> Show where Paris Hilton earned even a portion of her wealth.
>>
>> You are so pissed off jealous.
>>
> IOW,
In other words, because she didn't hold a gun to anyone's head to
acquire her wealth, it is presumed she earned it ethically.
Show that she didn't. Come on, Bugster - show how she earned it
unethically.
Here's a hint for you: if Bill Gates were to approach me and say,
"You're a great guy who has worked hard and always done the right thing.
I'm going to give you $500 million, net of gift taxes. Here's your
check", then I earned that money honestly and ethically. No question
about it. And of course, Gates earned his honestly and ethically, too -
not in dispute - so there is no ethical issue of me obtaining "tainted"
money.
Fact: large concentrations of wealth are not unethical /per se/.
That's just a fact. You must accommodate yourself to that fact.
> Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:lbejhg$h3h$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 1/18/2014 7:38 AM, Baxter wrote:
>> On 1/18/2014 7:38 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:14:33 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yet some how that top 5% owns 2/3 of all the stock while the bottom
>>>>> 50% own ~ 0.5%
>>>>>
>>>>> Some how the top 5% owns nearly 80% of the wealth while the bottom
>>>>> 80% owns just 7% (which includes their homes.)
>>>>
>>>> Because, while you were being a jealous li'l petulant prick,
>>>
>>> You rightards can never make up your minds - first you want people to
>>> be jealous of the rich so they will work harder, then you castigate
>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 17:14:33 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yet some how that top 5% owns 2/3 of all the stock while the bottom
>>>>> 50% own ~ 0.5%
>>>>>
>>>>> Some how the top 5% owns nearly 80% of the wealth while the bottom
>>>>> 80% owns just 7% (which includes their homes.)
>>>>
>>>> Because, while you were being a jealous li'l petulant prick,
>>>
>>> You rightards can never make up your minds - first you want people to
>>> them for it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> they were
>>>> earning it.
>>>
>>> Show where Paris Hilton earned even a portion of her wealth.
>>
>> You are so pissed off jealous.
>>
> IOW,
In other words, because she didn't hold a gun to anyone's head to
acquire her wealth, it is presumed she earned it ethically.
Show that she didn't. Come on, Bugster - show how she earned it
unethically.
Here's a hint for you: if Bill Gates were to approach me and say,
"You're a great guy who has worked hard and always done the right thing.
I'm going to give you $500 million, net of gift taxes. Here's your
check", then I earned that money honestly and ethically. No question
about it. And of course, Gates earned his honestly and ethically, too -
not in dispute - so there is no ethical issue of me obtaining "tainted"
money.
Fact: large concentrations of wealth are not unethical /per se/.
That's just a fact. You must accommodate yourself to that fact.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 19, 2014, 12:04:10 PM1/19/14
to
On 1/19/2014 1:01 AM, Filthy McNasty wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:34:35 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
>
> I also like gangrenous horse dicks shoved up my rectum.
That's nice. Keep it out of here, cuntflaps.
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:34:35 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/2014 10:56 AM, Filthy McNasty wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:39:14 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2014 9:03 AM, Filthy McNasty wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:19:11 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/17/2014 9:01 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Grayling High School" <tracey1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>>>>>>>> Re: The Fact Is, The Rich Don't Have Enough Money They never have.
>>>>>>>> That's why we need to pay the taxes while they pay nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are silly and WRONG. The "rich" pay the majority of income taxes
>>>>>>> paid, as it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income and paid 59.07 percent
>>>>>>> of taxes,
>>>>>>> and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income and paid 70.62
>>>>>>> percent of taxes."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly right.
>>>
>>> I suck dog dicks too. Chihuahuas, are my favorite.
>>
>> Piss off, anal cyst.
>
>> On 1/18/2014 10:56 AM, Filthy McNasty wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:39:14 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/18/2014 9:03 AM, Filthy McNasty wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:19:11 -0800, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/17/2014 9:01 AM, a425couple wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Grayling High School" <tracey1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message...
>>>>>>>> Re: The Fact Is, The Rich Don't Have Enough Money They never have.
>>>>>>>> That's why we need to pay the taxes while they pay nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are silly and WRONG. The "rich" pay the majority of income taxes
>>>>>>> paid, as it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income and paid 59.07 percent
>>>>>>> of taxes,
>>>>>>> and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income and paid 70.62
>>>>>>> percent of taxes."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly right.
>>>
>>> I suck dog dicks too. Chihuahuas, are my favorite.
>>
>
> I also like gangrenous horse dicks shoved up my rectum.
That's nice. Keep it out of here, cuntflaps.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 19, 2014, 2:13:03 PM1/19/14
to
On 1/19/2014 10:32 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
> news:hgnmd9t3p3gi9776t...@4ax.com:
>>
>> Ain't his money, either.
>>
> IOW, you can only parrot your ideology
How is it "ideology" to point out that it isn't his money, Bugster? It
*ISN'T* his money.
The pompous asshole narrator, with the tedious obligatory ominous music
in the background, says that the people responding in the poll think the
distribution should be more "equitable". As usual, they can define that
term. They think it is "obvious" that closer to equal shares is
"fairer", but they can't say *WHY* it's fairer.
In other words, the stupid unthinking hyperemotional leftists *STILL*
can't answer my question: if you're going start in with wealth
redistribution at all, then how do you decide where to stop, if you're
not going to force it all the way to *absolutely* equal shares?
Bugster can't answer. Mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, can't answer.
Yaeowerghoofuz (Roselles, another cunt) can't answer. jeffy m the
disgraced *disbarred* ex-lawyer can't answer. Not one fucking gutless
shit-4-braincell leftist can answer, which is why *NO ONE* has even tried.
This silly bit of bullshit is not a case for wealth redistribution.
Everything about it reflects abject ignorance about how wealth is
created and accumulated.
> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
> news:hgnmd9t3p3gi9776t...@4ax.com:
>
>> Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>
>> Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>
>>> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
>>>> Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>>>>> two or more incomes"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, do you really think the bottom quintile with only one earner,
>>>>>> should have equal wealth as the families where two are motivated
>>>>>> to be out there and working?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think the Idle rich should have 10,000 time the wealth of the
>>>>> bottom half which includes people working two and three jobs trying
> to
>>>>> make ends meet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Incentive/motivation is one thing, but the disparity has grown too
>>>>> great.
>>>>
>>>> Ain't yer money, bitch. Never gonna be.
>>>>
>>>> Though - if you try to take it anyway, please have your next-of-kin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, do you really think the bottom quintile with only one earner,
>>>>>> should have equal wealth as the families where two are motivated
>>>>>> to be out there and working?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think the Idle rich should have 10,000 time the wealth of the
>>>>> bottom half which includes people working two and three jobs trying
> to
>>>>> make ends meet?
>>>>>
>>>>> Incentive/motivation is one thing, but the disparity has grown too
>>>>> great.
>>>>
>>>> Ain't yer money, bitch. Never gonna be.
>>>>
>>>> Though - if you try to take it anyway, please have your next-of-kin
>>>> post the video of your demise.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM
>>
>> Yawn.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM
>>
>>
>> Ain't his money, either.
>>
> IOW, you can only parrot your ideology
How is it "ideology" to point out that it isn't his money, Bugster? It
*ISN'T* his money.
The pompous asshole narrator, with the tedious obligatory ominous music
in the background, says that the people responding in the poll think the
distribution should be more "equitable". As usual, they can define that
term. They think it is "obvious" that closer to equal shares is
"fairer", but they can't say *WHY* it's fairer.
In other words, the stupid unthinking hyperemotional leftists *STILL*
can't answer my question: if you're going start in with wealth
redistribution at all, then how do you decide where to stop, if you're
not going to force it all the way to *absolutely* equal shares?
Bugster can't answer. Mackerel cunt, Sheila Bryant, can't answer.
Yaeowerghoofuz (Roselles, another cunt) can't answer. jeffy m the
disgraced *disbarred* ex-lawyer can't answer. Not one fucking gutless
shit-4-braincell leftist can answer, which is why *NO ONE* has even tried.
This silly bit of bullshit is not a case for wealth redistribution.
Everything about it reflects abject ignorance about how wealth is
created and accumulated.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 19, 2014, 2:23:58 PM1/19/14
to
On 1/19/2014 10:33 AM, Baxter wrote:
> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
> news:97omd9p60009b44h8...@4ax.com:
> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:45 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Show where Paris Hilton earned even a portion of her wealth.
>>
>> Her parents earned it. Nowhere in that chain does the money somehow
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:38:45 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Show where Paris Hilton earned even a portion of her wealth.
>>
>> belong to you - and if it somehow did, you'd have to hate yourself for
>> having it.
>>
> But she didn't.
She acquired it ethically and lawfully.
If I leave $100 million to my son, that's none of your fucking business.
It's none of *anyone's* fucking business.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 19, 2014, 2:24:39 PM1/19/14
to
On 1/19/2014 10:35 AM, Baxter wrote:
> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
> news:hknmd99fu55pt0cg0...@4ax.com:
> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:39:23 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Do you take the money he stole from a thief? Just because a rich man
>>> got a law passed that says some activity is "legal", doesn't make it
>>> right, and doesn't mean he earned his money.
>>
>> Your jealousy has made you deranged, grasshopper.
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:39:23 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Do you take the money he stole from a thief? Just because a rich man
>>> got a law passed that says some activity is "legal", doesn't make it
>>> right, and doesn't mean he earned his money.
>>
>
> If you think it's jealousy,
It's jealousy. There is absolutely no doubt about it.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 19, 2014, 2:26:18 PM1/19/14
to
> news:lbek2l$lbc$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>> Who did you steal your money from "biggest and nicest house on the
>> block?"
>
> Just because I'm richer than you and you're jealous,
You're not richer than he, and you have got the direction of jealousy
backward. He is richer than you, and you are jealous of his wealth.
>>
>> Who did you steal your money from "biggest and nicest house on the
>> block?"
>
> Just because I'm richer than you and you're jealous,
You're not richer than he, and you have got the direction of jealousy
backward. He is richer than you, and you are jealous of his wealth.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 19, 2014, 8:42:30 PM1/19/14
to
On 1/19/2014 3:10 PM, Baxter wrote:
> "bill clinton" <hil...@cankles.com> wrote in news:lbh7cc$8r7$1@dont-
> email.me:
>>> not mean
>>> that I'm "rich" in any meaningful sense. When we talk
>>> about "the
>>> rich" we're talking about the 1% or even the 0.1%.
>>
>> Why are you so worried about what someone else has?
>
> Because a large disparity is anti-democratic and puts us on the road to a
> dictatorship.
This is just a stupid statement by a stupid fool.
"Democracy", colloquially, means people getting to elect their
representatives, rather than monarchs or a self-perpetuating junta
making all the state decisions. That's all it means. Democracy has
nothing to do with the distribution of wealth. There is no
inconsistency in having a perfectly equal distribution of wealth under a
tyrannical dictatorship, and there is no inconsistency in having a
wildly unequal distribution of wealth under a perfect democracy.
Despite multiple opportunities to comment, Bugster *still* can't say
where he would draw the line in reducing inequality. He clearly and
undeniably believes that wealth inequality is wrong /per se/, so he has
absolutely no rational basis for not forcing the wealth distribution
into complete equality. But he knows there is no valid ethical basis
for that.
"Social justice" fuckwits like Rawls sometimes avoid talking about
redistributing the existing stock of wealth. Instead, they talk about
what sort of changes we should allow, and they say that any changes -
including the creation of new wealth - should be manipulated to improve
the welfare of the least well off. But that *still* does not address
the question of how wealth is increased in the first place, and why
anyone would assume it would continue to grow if the people responsible
for the growth don't get to keep the lion's share of it.
Bugster just doesn't have any kind of answer at all. As an absolutist,
he has no coherent rationale for not forcing an absolute redistribution
to perfect equality. He knows he can't do that. He knows we have to
allow some inequality, but he can't say how much.
> "bill clinton" <hil...@cankles.com> wrote in news:lbh7cc$8r7$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> Baxter <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>> Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:lbek2l$lbc$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>> Who did you steal your money from "biggest and nicest
>>>> house on the
>>>> block?"
>>>
>>> Just because I'm richer than you and you're jealous, does
>> Baxter <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>> Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:lbek2l$lbc$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>> Who did you steal your money from "biggest and nicest
>>>> house on the
>>>> block?"
>>>
>>> not mean
>>> that I'm "rich" in any meaningful sense. When we talk
>>> about "the
>>> rich" we're talking about the 1% or even the 0.1%.
>>
>> Why are you so worried about what someone else has?
>
> Because a large disparity is anti-democratic and puts us on the road to a
> dictatorship.
This is just a stupid statement by a stupid fool.
"Democracy", colloquially, means people getting to elect their
representatives, rather than monarchs or a self-perpetuating junta
making all the state decisions. That's all it means. Democracy has
nothing to do with the distribution of wealth. There is no
inconsistency in having a perfectly equal distribution of wealth under a
tyrannical dictatorship, and there is no inconsistency in having a
wildly unequal distribution of wealth under a perfect democracy.
Despite multiple opportunities to comment, Bugster *still* can't say
where he would draw the line in reducing inequality. He clearly and
undeniably believes that wealth inequality is wrong /per se/, so he has
absolutely no rational basis for not forcing the wealth distribution
into complete equality. But he knows there is no valid ethical basis
for that.
"Social justice" fuckwits like Rawls sometimes avoid talking about
redistributing the existing stock of wealth. Instead, they talk about
what sort of changes we should allow, and they say that any changes -
including the creation of new wealth - should be manipulated to improve
the welfare of the least well off. But that *still* does not address
the question of how wealth is increased in the first place, and why
anyone would assume it would continue to grow if the people responsible
for the growth don't get to keep the lion's share of it.
Bugster just doesn't have any kind of answer at all. As an absolutist,
he has no coherent rationale for not forcing an absolute redistribution
to perfect equality. He knows he can't do that. He knows we have to
allow some inequality, but he can't say how much.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 20, 2014, 11:03:42 AM1/20/14
to
On 1/20/2014 7:21 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:f1d0$52dca8af$414e828e$28...@EVERESTKC.NET:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>
>> On 1/19/2014 6:06 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>> Not to mention being the most divisive persident ever!
>>
>>> Do you really beleive those super-rich earned their money?
>>
>> You didn't answer his question. They obtained their money legally and
>> ethically. Why is it "greed" to want to keep the money they legally
>> and ethically obtained?
>>
> What makes you think they obtained their money ethically?
Bugster admits he can't answer the question. Everyone has noticed, of
course, that whenever he is presented with a question he can't answer,
and for which his failure to answer proves the error of his position,
Bugster slops together a diversionary question.
Just answer the question, Bugster. After you try to answer it, *then*
you may pose questions of your own; not before. It is very obvious that
by slopping your diversionary question out there, you are admitting you
can't answer the *better* question put to you.
Seriously: I'll answer your question, after you stop being
sophomorically evasive and answer the good questions put to you.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 20, 2014, 11:04:49 AM1/20/14
to
On 1/20/2014 7:22 AM, Baxter wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:e1ce2$52dca8f0
> $414e828e$28...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 1/19/2014 6:10 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:f4090$52dc7088
>>> $414e828e$20...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>> has how much.
>>>>
>>> And money buys laws, legislators, courts, police, and even votes.
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
> You're insane.
No. You whiffed off - again.
Prove your assertion.
Your position is incoherent, Bugster.
> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:e1ce2$52dca8f0
> $414e828e$28...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 1/19/2014 6:10 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:f4090$52dc7088
>>> $414e828e$20...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>
>>>> On 1/19/2014 3:10 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Because a large disparity is anti-democratic
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't. Democracy has to do with how we are governed, *not* who
>>>> On 1/19/2014 3:10 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Because a large disparity is anti-democratic
>>>>
>>>> has how much.
>>>>
>>> And money buys laws, legislators, courts, police, and even votes.
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
> You're insane.
No. You whiffed off - again.
Prove your assertion.
Your position is incoherent, Bugster.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 21, 2014, 12:38:38 PM1/21/14
to
On 1/21/2014 9:28 AM, Baxter wrote:
> "2,308 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
> news:hfjsd91ocbfn1b182...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:06:34 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> earned,
>
> I didn't ask for it, did I?
You're pretending to be asking for it on behalf of others who you claim,
incorrectly, were dispossessed.
All of your beliefs and claims about redistribution are wrong.
> "2,308 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
> news:hfjsd91ocbfn1b182...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:06:34 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> earned,
>>>
>>> Do you really beleive those super-rich earned their money?
>>
>> I know you deserve none of it.
>>> Do you really beleive those super-rich earned their money?
>>
>
> I didn't ask for it, did I?
You're pretending to be asking for it on behalf of others who you claim,
incorrectly, were dispossessed.
All of your beliefs and claims about redistribution are wrong.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 21, 2014, 1:25:11 PM1/21/14
to
On 1/21/2014 10:16 AM, Baxter wrote:
> "2,308 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
> news:dkjsd95qif3s3uia4...@4ax.com:
> "2,308 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:35:13 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "2,304 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
>>> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>>> news:hknmd99fu55pt0cg0...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:39:23 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you take the money he stole from a thief? Just because a rich man
>>>>> got a law passed that says some activity is "legal", doesn't make it
>>>>> right, and doesn't mean he earned his money.
>>>>
>>>> Your jealousy has made you deranged, grasshopper.
>>>
>>> If you think it's jealousy, you need professional help.
>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:39:23 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you take the money he stole from a thief? Just because a rich man
>>>>> got a law passed that says some activity is "legal", doesn't make it
>>>>> right, and doesn't mean he earned his money.
>>>>
>>>> Your jealousy has made you deranged, grasshopper.
>>>
>>
>> Well, it ~could~ be just malicious hatred of your betters. There are
>> so many...
>
> And you have a jealous hatred of the poor.
He harbors no hatred of the poor. You harbor an irrational and bitterly
jealous hatred of the successful, because you're not one.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 22, 2014, 10:32:25 AM1/22/14
to
On 1/22/2014 7:03 AM, Baxter wrote:
> "2,309 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
> news:i30vd9tr7e5f90r4l...@4ax.com:
>>
>> You just want to take it and give it to somebody who agrees with you.
>> "Progressives" are very generous with other people's money.
>>
> And you want to take it from the poor and give it to the rich
No. That's simply a lie. No money is "taken from" the poor. The rich
earn their money in markets - *free* markets. I see homeless people and
grubby urban teenagers with iPhones. No one forced them to buy those
against their will. They *CHOOSE* to do that. That's not "taking"
money from them - they are quite happily *GIVING* money to big
corporations that provide them with goodies they want, and the
stockholders and top managers of those corporations get rich thereby.
That's how the rich get richer: providing the dregs of society with the
things the dregs wish to have, at a fair price.
> "2,309 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
> news:i30vd9tr7e5f90r4l...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:28:06 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "2,308 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
>>> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>>> news:hfjsd91ocbfn1b182...@4ax.com:
>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:28:06 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "2,308 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
>>> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:06:34 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> earned,
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really beleive those super-rich earned their money?
>>>>
>>>> I know you deserve none of it.
>>>
>>> I didn't ask for it, did I? Why are you trying to change the subject.
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 02:06:34 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> earned,
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really beleive those super-rich earned their money?
>>>>
>>>> I know you deserve none of it.
>>>
>>
>> You just want to take it and give it to somebody who agrees with you.
>> "Progressives" are very generous with other people's money.
>>
> And you want to take it from the poor and give it to the rich
No. That's simply a lie. No money is "taken from" the poor. The rich
earn their money in markets - *free* markets. I see homeless people and
grubby urban teenagers with iPhones. No one forced them to buy those
against their will. They *CHOOSE* to do that. That's not "taking"
money from them - they are quite happily *GIVING* money to big
corporations that provide them with goodies they want, and the
stockholders and top managers of those corporations get rich thereby.
That's how the rich get richer: providing the dregs of society with the
things the dregs wish to have, at a fair price.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 22, 2014, 10:33:33 AM1/22/14
to
On 1/22/2014 7:04 AM, Baxter wrote:
> "2,309 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
> news:370vd915f04ej9orv...@4ax.com:
> "2,309 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:23:59 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "2,308 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
>>> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>>> news:8djsd99kbddlutf25...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> "2,308 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
>>> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:10:34 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "bill clinton" <hil...@cankles.com> wrote in news:lbh7cc$8r7$1@dont-
>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Baxter <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:lbek2l$lbc$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who did you steal your money from "biggest and nicest
>>>>>>>> house on the
>>>>>>>> block?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just because I'm richer than you and you're jealous, does
>>>>>>> not mean
>>>>>>> that I'm "rich" in any meaningful sense. When we talk
>>>>>>> about "the
>>>>>>> rich" we're talking about the 1% or even the 0.1%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are you so worried about what someone else has?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because a large disparity is anti-democratic and puts us on the road
>>>>> to a dictatorship.
>>>>
>>>> You put us on that road at the ballot box the last two elections,
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:10:34 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>>>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "bill clinton" <hil...@cankles.com> wrote in news:lbh7cc$8r7$1@dont-
>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Baxter <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Al Czervik <Caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:lbek2l$lbc$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who did you steal your money from "biggest and nicest
>>>>>>>> house on the
>>>>>>>> block?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just because I'm richer than you and you're jealous, does
>>>>>>> not mean
>>>>>>> that I'm "rich" in any meaningful sense. When we talk
>>>>>>> about "the
>>>>>>> rich" we're talking about the 1% or even the 0.1%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are you so worried about what someone else has?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because a large disparity is anti-democratic and puts us on the road
>>>>> to a dictatorship.
>>>>
> Bax.
>>>>
>>> That's what the Repugs would like everybody to believe - can you tell
> us
>>> why they want us to believe that?
>>
>> Because it's the truth. Undiscovered country for you, innit?
>>
> Not even close.
A large wealth disparity is not "anti-democratic" in and of itself. To
say it is is simply lying. You're lying.
You *still* can't say what's wrong with wealth inequality. You'll never
be able to say.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 22, 2014, 10:36:46 AM1/22/14
to
On 1/22/2014 7:04 AM, Baxter wrote:
> "2,309 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
> news:de0vd9117f5het253...@4ax.com:
> "2,309 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
> <GreatD...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 19:22:34 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sancho Panza <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:0zzDu.106706$JL1....@fx08.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 1/21/2014 12:23 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>> "2,308 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
>>>>>>
>>>> On 1/21/2014 12:23 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>> "2,308 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's what the Repugs would like everybody to believe - can you tell
>>>>> us why they want us to believe that? Then can tell us why you're so
>>>>> gullible?
>>>>>
>>>> Oh, what DID the last two presidential elections put us on the road
>>>> to?
>>
>> http://static.infowars.com/2012/03/i/general/obamadoche.jpg
>>
> Not even close.
>
It's spot-on.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 22, 2014, 11:10:29 AM1/22/14
to
On 1/22/2014 8:03 AM, Al Czervik wrote:
> It's hard to imagine how what he is saying is true when the poor are
> getting record food stamps and unemployment, etc. Except if what the
> poor are really trying to say is that they want jobs then that voice is
> totally being squashed by the Democrats.
"The poor" are just a political tool for leftists; a lot like "the
homeless." They're both just devices for leftists to be able to express
their great "compassion." Leftists have no understanding of the causes
of poverty or homelessness, and they have no understanding or knowledge
of actually poor and/or homeless people. Leftists *DON'T ACTUALLY CARE*
about poor or homeless people. They don't know any, and they try
frantically to stay away from them, just as most people do. And they do
everything in their power to ensure the poor and homeless remain that
way. Leftists are massive hypocrites.
> getting record food stamps and unemployment, etc. Except if what the
> poor are really trying to say is that they want jobs then that voice is
> totally being squashed by the Democrats.
"The poor" are just a political tool for leftists; a lot like "the
homeless." They're both just devices for leftists to be able to express
their great "compassion." Leftists have no understanding of the causes
of poverty or homelessness, and they have no understanding or knowledge
of actually poor and/or homeless people. Leftists *DON'T ACTUALLY CARE*
about poor or homeless people. They don't know any, and they try
frantically to stay away from them, just as most people do. And they do
everything in their power to ensure the poor and homeless remain that
way. Leftists are massive hypocrites.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 22, 2014, 3:09:36 PM1/22/14
to
> news:lboq49$vvj$3...@dont-email.me:
How do you suppose they *are* getting those dole benefits, Bugster? Is
it some benevolent dictator providing them?
>> Except if what the
>> poor are really trying to say is that they want jobs then that voice
>> is totally being squashed by the Democrats.
>>
> Every jobs program or initiative has been squashed by Repugs
Good, because "jobs programs" from Democrats are nothing but disguised
dole handouts.
>
>> On 1/22/2014 7:33 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 1/22/2014 7:33 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Not even close.
>>>
>>> A large wealth disparity is not "anti-democratic" in and of itself.
>>> To say it is is simply lying. You're lying.
>>
>>>
>>> A large wealth disparity is not "anti-democratic" in and of itself.
>>> To say it is is simply lying. You're lying.
>>
>> It's hard to imagine how what he is saying is true when the poor are
>> getting record food stamps and unemployment, etc.
>
> What do food stamps or unemployment have to do with democracy
>> getting record food stamps and unemployment, etc.
>
How do you suppose they *are* getting those dole benefits, Bugster? Is
it some benevolent dictator providing them?
>> Except if what the
>> poor are really trying to say is that they want jobs then that voice
>> is totally being squashed by the Democrats.
>>
Good, because "jobs programs" from Democrats are nothing but disguised
dole handouts.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 23, 2014, 11:59:13 AM1/23/14
to
On 1/19/2014 9:08 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>> Because a large disparity is anti-democratic and puts us on the road
>>
>>>>> to a dictatorship.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> so again, why is it greed to want to keep the money you have
>>>>> Because a large disparity is anti-democratic and puts us on the road
>>
>>>>> to a dictatorship.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>> earned,
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Do you really beleive those super-rich earned their money?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Feel free to tell us how else they got it.
>>>> earned,
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Do you really beleive those super-rich earned their money?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Land rent, lack of a death tax, being a GOP shill tank economist,
All legal and ethical. They earned the money. They are entitled to
keep it.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 23, 2014, 12:15:10 PM1/23/14
to
On 1/17/2014 4:57 AM, Grayling High School wrote:
> They never have. That's why we need to pay the taxes while they
> pay nothing.
>
> John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.
> They never have. That's why we need to pay the taxes while they
> pay nothing.
>
>
> Stossel isn't rich, he's just one of their obedient slaves.
Of course, the moron who started this thread didn't understand what "the
rich don't have enough" meant. Stossel wasn't saying the rich need more
money for themselves - he was saying that the rich don't have enough
money among them for thieving leftists to do all the things they want to do.
Progressives say, if you’re so worried about the deficit, raise
taxes! There are lots of rich people around, squandering money.
On my show, David Callahan of the group Demos put it this way:
“Wealthy Americans who have done so well in the past decade
should help get us out.”
But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will
solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of
income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion.
That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt
would continue to explode.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stossel-tax-the-rich-the-rich-dont-have-enough-really/
I have said the same thing for a long time: if the government took
*ALL* the income from the so-called rich, there *STILL* would be a
deficit, and the deadbeat 47-percenters would *STILL* be poor and
demanding more. That's just a fact.
dca...@krl.org
Jan 23, 2014, 4:38:22 PM1/23/14
to
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:15:10 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
Looking at the index for this group says it all. 28 posts , 26 by Rudy. And you wonder why I pick on Rudy as an out of control cross poster.
Don't think that I read the posts. Rudy is very predictable.
Dan
Looking at the index for this group says it all. 28 posts , 26 by Rudy. And you wonder why I pick on Rudy as an out of control cross poster.
Don't think that I read the posts. Rudy is very predictable.
Dan
John B.
Jan 23, 2014, 6:41:34 PM1/23/14
to
the dross?
--
Cheers,
John B.
dca...@krl.org
Jan 23, 2014, 9:30:53 PM1/23/14
to
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 6:41:34 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>
>
>
> So, if we kill file Rudy and Dan we get rid of a large percentage of
>
> the dross?
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> John B.
If you kill file me, you will be rid of me forever. If you kill file Rudy, you will be rid of him until he chooses another nym.
>
>
>
> So, if we kill file Rudy and Dan we get rid of a large percentage of
>
> the dross?
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> John B.
Dan
Michael A. Terrell
Jan 23, 2014, 10:14:05 PM1/23/14
to
screen
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
Richard
Jan 23, 2014, 11:22:45 PM1/23/14
to
(Shame on you, Dan)
That simple act defeats the comma.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 24, 2014, 1:15:44 AM1/24/14
to
dwieber, a fuckstain that I really enjoy fucking over, I don't use
multiple nyms to escape kill files. I also don't use them as sock
puppets; never have.
John B.
Jan 24, 2014, 6:08:06 AM1/24/14
to
house? Steal his car? Beat the shit out of him? Screw his girlfriend?
Or just sit there at the computer typing, "Gunner is a bad guy"?
--
Cheers,
John B.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 24, 2014, 9:55:48 AM1/24/14
to
was going to be killed no later than the end of the calendar year for
each of the last seven years.
John B.
Jan 24, 2014, 7:09:34 PM1/24/14
to
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 06:55:48 -0800, Rudy Canoza
Well, I was asking you but apparently you can't tell us. So we are
forced to assume that you simply don't have an answer i.e., you don't
know what you are talking about.
Ah well, another turd to flush down the bowl.
--
Cheers,
John B.
forced to assume that you simply don't have an answer i.e., you don't
know what you are talking about.
Ah well, another turd to flush down the bowl.
--
Cheers,
John B.
0 new messages