Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
No ethical reason to redistribute wealth and income
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Rudy Canoza
Jan 7, 2014, 12:26:56 AM1/7/14
to
Leftists blabber as if there is some objective ethical reason to
redistribute wealth and income. There is not. The left only argues
circularly when pressed on the issue.
Stupid leftist: "Income inequality is unjust."
Rational thinker: "Why is it unjust?"
Stupid leftist: "Because it would be more just if everyone had about
the same."
Also, leftists can't say where to draw the line. If they don't force
absolute income equality, why would they stop at a point at which there
is still quite a lot? They can't explain it, of course. It's entirely
arbitrary.
redistribute wealth and income. There is not. The left only argues
circularly when pressed on the issue.
Stupid leftist: "Income inequality is unjust."
Rational thinker: "Why is it unjust?"
Stupid leftist: "Because it would be more just if everyone had about
the same."
Also, leftists can't say where to draw the line. If they don't force
absolute income equality, why would they stop at a point at which there
is still quite a lot? They can't explain it, of course. It's entirely
arbitrary.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 7, 2014, 10:26:32 AM1/7/14
to
[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
On 1/6/2014 10:49 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <28d69$52cb9088$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
> Since ethics are an invention,
Since ethics *is* [it's a singular word, fuckscum] something that is
*objectively* observable and is based on *objective* human rights...
Try again, you reeking HIV-oozing asshole.
On 1/6/2014 10:49 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <28d69$52cb9088$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET>,
Since ethics *is* [it's a singular word, fuckscum] something that is
*objectively* observable and is based on *objective* human rights...
Try again, you reeking HIV-oozing asshole.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 7, 2014, 10:28:58 AM1/7/14
to
[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
On 1/7/2014 6:13 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
> news:28d69$52cb9088$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>
>> Leftists blabber as if there is some objective ethical reason to
>> redistribute wealth and income. There is not.
>
> No, none at all ...
>> Leftists blabber as if there is some objective ethical reason to
>> redistribute wealth and income. There is not.
>
That's right. There are only narrow self-interested reasons for it,
starting with the whiners' wish to blame anyone but themselves for their
own failure.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 7, 2014, 10:42:37 AM1/7/14
to
[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
> "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote in news:lah22p$p5d$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
>> news:28d69$52cb9088$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>
>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
>> news:28d69$52cb9088$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>
>>> Leftists blabber as if there is some objective ethical reason to
>>> redistribute wealth and income. There is not.
>>
>>> redistribute wealth and income. There is not.
>>
>> No, none at all ...
>>
>> http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
>>
>
> Rightards are
You still haven't given an ethical reason to redistribute wealth or
income, Bugster. Oh, right, why is that? Because there isn't any, and
you're not even clever enough to come up with a decent load of bullshit.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Free Malware - Bugster Virusworks www.buggycode.com
> --------------------------------------------------------
M.I.Wakefield
Jan 7, 2014, 11:28:30 AM1/7/14
to
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
news:29773$52cc1d20$414e828e$10...@EVERESTKC.NET...
> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>
> On 1/7/2014 6:13 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
> > news:28d69$52cb9088$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET...
> >
> >> Leftists blabber as if there is some objective ethical reason to
> >> redistribute wealth and income. There is not.
> >
> > No, none at all ...
>
> > news:28d69$52cb9088$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET...
> >
> >> Leftists blabber as if there is some objective ethical reason to
> >> redistribute wealth and income. There is not.
> >
> > No, none at all ...
>
> That's right. There are only narrow self-interested reasons for it,
> starting with the whiners' wish to blame anyone but themselves for their
> own failure.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
> starting with the whiners' wish to blame anyone but themselves for their
> own failure.
[cowardly snip of salient point by sexist, racist, objectivist, hater
restored]
And don't worry CRudy, I've posted this twice, so everyone knows what a vile
little shit you are.
--------------
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life:
The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its
unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled
adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
The other involves wizards, orcs, and a ring.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 7, 2014, 11:35:30 AM1/7/14
to
[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
On 1/7/2014 8:27 AM, M.I.Wakefield, whiny jealous greedy little cunt, lied:
> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
<yawn> *Still* no ethical reason given to justify redistribution. And
you never will give one, cuntflaps, because you don't understand ethics.
Jeff M
Jan 7, 2014, 11:51:31 AM1/7/14
to
On 1/7/2014 10:28 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
[snip]
Having read both books, I'd say that a fourteen-year old, if of the
bookish sort and reasonably intelligent, ought to be able to see through
to the ugly delusions that are the underlying premises of the execrable
"Atlas Shrugged." Still, it is a useful book, in a cautionary sense, at
least, since it does nicely explicate how those people really think.
--
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
[snip]
> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life:
> The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
>
> One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with
> its
> unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled
> adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
>
> The other involves wizards, orcs, and a ring.
Ha! Very funny!
> The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
>
> One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with
> its
> unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled
> adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
>
> The other involves wizards, orcs, and a ring.
Having read both books, I'd say that a fourteen-year old, if of the
bookish sort and reasonably intelligent, ought to be able to see through
to the ugly delusions that are the underlying premises of the execrable
"Atlas Shrugged." Still, it is a useful book, in a cautionary sense, at
least, since it does nicely explicate how those people really think.
--
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
Rudy Canoza
Jan 7, 2014, 12:11:12 PM1/7/14
to
[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
On 1/7/2014 8:51 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/7/2014 10:28 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> [snip]
>> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life:
>> The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
>>
>> One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with
>> its
>> unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled
>> adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
>>
>> The other involves wizards, orcs, and a ring.
>
> Ha! Very
sophomoric.
> On 1/7/2014 10:28 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> [snip]
>> There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life:
>> The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.
>>
>> One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with
>> its
>> unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled
>> adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.
>>
>> The other involves wizards, orcs, and a ring.
>
> Ha! Very
Yes.
Silas
Jan 8, 2014, 4:24:58 PM1/8/14
to
right to take from decendents of slavers and give to poor black families
who be poor for nothing they done wrong. They was done wrong.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Rudy Canoza
Jan 8, 2014, 4:29:51 PM1/8/14
to
On 1/8/2014 1:24 PM, Silas wrote:
> On 1/7/2014 10:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>>
>> On 1/7/2014 6:13 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
>>> news:28d69$52cb9088$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>
>>>> Leftists blabber as if there is some objective ethical reason to
>>>> redistribute wealth and income. There is not.
>>>
>>> No, none at all ...
>>
>> That's right. There are only narrow self-interested reasons for it,
>> starting with the whiners' wish to blame anyone but themselves for their
>> own failure.
>>
> Slavery and Jim Crow laws be the blame for poor black familys.
Bullshit.
> On 1/7/2014 10:28 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>>
>> On 1/7/2014 6:13 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
>>> news:28d69$52cb9088$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>
>>>> Leftists blabber as if there is some objective ethical reason to
>>>> redistribute wealth and income. There is not.
>>>
>>> No, none at all ...
>>
>> That's right. There are only narrow self-interested reasons for it,
>> starting with the whiners' wish to blame anyone but themselves for their
>> own failure.
>>
> Slavery and Jim Crow laws be the blame for poor black familys.
Message has been deleted
Rudy Canoza
Jan 8, 2014, 9:38:04 PM1/8/14
to
[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
> news:laktcd$qis$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>> Again:
>>
>>
>> Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>> - Those super-rich are NOT making their money by working. Much/most
>>> of it
>>> is from Capital Gains where they do nothing. Are you willing to tax
>>> stock
>>> transactions (0.5% on stocks, bonds, commodities, unit trusts, mutual
>>> funds, derivatives, etc)?
>>
>> So you're saying it's fair for me to take 90% of your income if I
>> claim you're not working enough for what you're earning?
>
> You're the only one talking 90%.
Bugster, of course, has often proposed returning to the 90%+ marginal
rates of the 1950s.
123glaz...@gmail.com
Jan 9, 2014, 8:09:27 AM1/9/14
to
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2014, 11:33:24 AM1/9/14
to
[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>
>> Is it fair to steal the rewards of your hard labor to give it to a
>> person who's poor because they refuse to work for a living?
>>
> That's not happening.
> - Those super-rich are NOT making their money by working.
Not by any sort of work *you* know how to do, anyway...
> Much/most of it is from Capital Gains where they do nothing.
until you can show they don't, and therefore they are lawfully and
ethically entitled to the returns. End of story.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Free Malware - Bugster Virusworks www.buggycode.com
> --------------------------------------------------------
code, doesn't earn you any money.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 9, 2014, 11:51:28 AM1/9/14
to
[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>
> I never proposed a 90% tax rate.
Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>
That's a lie.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 10, 2014, 12:10:57 PM1/10/14
to
On 1/10/2014 8:55 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>> "Alec Fraser" <G...@bass.gov> wrote in
>
>
> Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>> news:DSPzu.195182$5K4.1...@fx07.iad:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>>
>>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>
>>>
>>> Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>>
>>> news:lanohg$pod$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You certainly are, and a liar as well.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, let's talk about your immorality in advocating the open
>>>> theft of wealth from the rich simply because they are rich.....
>>>>
>>> There is no immorality in requiring the rich to give up their wealth.
>>> In fact, it is the Christian thing to do.
>>>
>>>
>>> #####
>>> Except, most people aren't Christian, you retard.
>>> And I would bet that most very wealthy Christians that are willing to
>>> give their stuff away.
>>>
>>>
>> That isn't what you rightards have been claiming. Tell us about the
>> "Christian Nation" bullshit. Prayer in schools. Intelligent Design.
>> And the like.
>
> Oh, so now you hate Christianity.
>
> Make up your mind. It's not a Chinese menu where you get to pick and chose.
It's always comical to hear angrily militant atheists like Bugster
suddenly start spouting what they wrongly imagine to be scripture.
Full disclosure: I'm an atheist, but I'm not angry or militant about
it, and I don't mock Christians generally. I do mock some of the
primitives, such as Southern Baptists, and I definitely mock those who
stupidly say the U.S. is "founded on Christian principles." I would
never attempt to quote scripture back at Christian political opponents,
as I don't care if they believe any of it or not.
GOP_Decline_and_Fall
Jan 11, 2014, 1:43:45 PM1/11/14
to
kids to work for theirs
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/10/free-lunch-republican-bills-taxpayers-for-his-food-while-asking-poor-kids-to-work-for-theirs/
A Georgia Republican who suggested school children do cafeteria work
because there�s �no such thing as free lunch� billed thousands of
dollars for his own meals to taxpayers.
In addition to his own taxpayer-funded meals, the station reported,
the congressman also received $4,289 in free meals billed to
third-party groups such as the Georgia Bankers Association and the
Congressional Institute.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 11, 2014, 2:52:08 PM1/11/14
to
On 1/11/2014 10:43 AM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:35:30 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>>
>> On 1/7/2014 8:27 AM, M.I.Wakefield, whiny jealous greedy little cunt, lied:
>>
>>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
>>> news:29773$52cc1d20$414e828e$10...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>
>>>> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>>>>
>>>> On 1/7/2014 6:13 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
>>>>> news:28d69$52cb9088$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leftists blabber as if there is some objective ethical reason to
>>>>>> redistribute wealth and income. There is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, none at all ...
>>>>
>>>> That's right. There are only narrow self-interested reasons for it,
>>>> starting with the whiners' wish to blame anyone but themselves for their
>>>> own failure.
>>>
>>> http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
>>
>> <yawn> *Still* no ethical reason given to justify redistribution. And
>> you never will give one, cuntflaps, because you don't understand ethics.
>>
> �No free lunch� Republican bills taxpayers for his food but
> On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:35:30 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>>
>> On 1/7/2014 8:27 AM, M.I.Wakefield, whiny jealous greedy little cunt, lied:
>>
>>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
>>> news:29773$52cc1d20$414e828e$10...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>
>>>> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>>>>
>>>> On 1/7/2014 6:13 AM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
>>>>> news:28d69$52cb9088$414e828e$25...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leftists blabber as if there is some objective ethical reason to
>>>>>> redistribute wealth and income. There is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, none at all ...
>>>>
>>>> That's right. There are only narrow self-interested reasons for it,
>>>> starting with the whiners' wish to blame anyone but themselves for their
>>>> own failure.
>>>
>>> http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
>>
>> <yawn> *Still* no ethical reason given to justify redistribution. And
>> you never will give one, cuntflaps, because you don't understand ethics.
>>
*STILL* no ethical reason given for redistribution.
You have admitted you can't give one.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 11, 2014, 9:02:07 PM1/11/14
to
On 1/11/2014 12:44 PM, Baxter wrote:
> Klaus Schadenfreude <KlausScha...@gmx.com> wrote in
> news:e503d9lbknvjek7jf...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 17:31:32 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
>>> news:34509$52d16e54$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>
>>>> On 1/10/2014 11:00 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Matt 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go,
>>>>> sell
>>>>> what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in
>>>>> heaven; and come, follow Me."
>>>>
>>>> Sorry - that is not preaching that the rich should be *required* to
>>>> give up their wealth, i.e., that it should be taken from them by
>>>> force. But taking it by force is what you and all the other
>>>> leftists preach, and you don't have any ethical rationale for it.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, you and the other left-wing militantly anti-Christian
>>>> atheists don't get to spout scripture.
>>>>
>>> Matthew 25
>>> 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, �Verily I say unto
>>> you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My
>>> brethren, ye have done it unto Me.�
>>
>> Doesn't say being rich is immoral. NEXT!
>>
>>> 41 �Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, �Depart from
>>> Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his
>>> angels.
>>
>> Doesn't say being rich is immoral. NEXT!
>>
>>> 42 For I hungered, and ye gave Me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave
>>> Me no drink;
>>
>> Doesn't say being rich is immoral. NEXT!
>>
>>> 43 I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in; naked, and ye clothed Me
>>> not; sick and in prison, and ye visited Me not.�
>>
>> Doesn't say being rich is immoral. NEXT!
>>
>> Keep trying, though! It's very entertaining.
>>
> If it's not immoral, why does he tell you to burn in hell?
He doesn't.
> Klaus Schadenfreude <KlausScha...@gmx.com> wrote in
> news:e503d9lbknvjek7jf...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 17:31:32 +0000 (UTC), Baxter
>> <lbax_sp...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com> wrote in
>>> news:34509$52d16e54$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>
>>>> On 1/10/2014 11:00 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Matt 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go,
>>>>> sell
>>>>> what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in
>>>>> heaven; and come, follow Me."
>>>>
>>>> Sorry - that is not preaching that the rich should be *required* to
>>>> give up their wealth, i.e., that it should be taken from them by
>>>> force. But taking it by force is what you and all the other
>>>> leftists preach, and you don't have any ethical rationale for it.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, you and the other left-wing militantly anti-Christian
>>>> atheists don't get to spout scripture.
>>>>
>>> Matthew 25
>>> 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, �Verily I say unto
>>> you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My
>>> brethren, ye have done it unto Me.�
>>
>> Doesn't say being rich is immoral. NEXT!
>>
>>> 41 �Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, �Depart from
>>> Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his
>>> angels.
>>
>> Doesn't say being rich is immoral. NEXT!
>>
>>> 42 For I hungered, and ye gave Me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave
>>> Me no drink;
>>
>> Doesn't say being rich is immoral. NEXT!
>>
>>> 43 I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in; naked, and ye clothed Me
>>> not; sick and in prison, and ye visited Me not.�
>>
>> Doesn't say being rich is immoral. NEXT!
>>
>> Keep trying, though! It's very entertaining.
>>
> If it's not immoral, why does he tell you to burn in hell?
He doesn't.
0 new messages