One Definition of Capitalism

[Pink Floyd]

Originally Posted by WTF

You guys don't get it. The rich write the tax laws and have gotten nothing but richer and richer and richer.

HMD, pay not attention to these brainless farts. The rich are fucking them in the ass and they are trying to talk the more educated among us that it is a proctologist examine and we should get one too.

No thank you.

There are 2 side to this coin. I see many of the writes offs most people don't know about. The laws are written by lawyers bought by the wealthy. The poor get more than their fair share from politicians seeking to garner votes. One shouldn't look at one side without examing the other side.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Hey, I asked the homeless dude under th bridge if he would hire me to hold his sign for him. He looked at me like he was crazy or something.
I mean isnt that where jobs come from. I just wanted him to provide me a job.

I'll bet Debbie fucks homeless dudes for free. She takes them home, gives them a bath, a home cooked meal and then fucks their brains out. Then she gives them a couple of hundred bucks and sends them on their way.

She's the Mother Teresa of providers.

[nevergaveitathought]

i take exception to the whole quote but the word tryanny especially so , and the words fortunate and unfortunate also are very much words that hold a skewed perspective at the expense of so many alternatives that the quote merely becomes raw meat to the "aggrieved".

the word liberty should never be held captive to such nonsense. liberty is tyrannical? it is not so and by definition can never be so.

liberty allows the lowest to rise, it is the one arrangement that can reverse any given set of elements in a fair and justifiable manner.

liberty is the one arrangement that will create the most for the greatest number.

liberty has accounted for all the progress of mankind

liberty has made the poor rich in terms of things. with liberty the poor are only poor in relationship to the rich, not in absolute terms.

sans liberty and you have rulers who remain rich and a stagnancy and an equality of squalor for everyone else. without liberty there is no interacting assemblage of parts such that progress can be had.

under liberty no one can become rich without a contribution to the whole, without liberty no one contributes or does so willingly.

is there such a thing as unfettered liberty? no one means unrestrained liberty who calls for liberty, save many times the left. and the quote has at its unspoken base some imagined unfettered liberty which is its entire fallacy.

envy and sloth are at the root of this quote

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

i take exception to the whole quote but the word tryanny especially so , and the words fortunate and unfortunate also are very much words that hold a skewed perspective at the expense of so many alternatives that the quote merely becomes raw meat to the "aggrieved".

the word liberty should never be held captive to such nonsense. liberty is tyrannical? it is not so and by definition can never be so.

liberty allows the lowest to rise, it is the one arrangement that can reverse any given set of elements in a fair and justifiable manner.

liberty is the one arrangement that will create the most for the greatest number.

liberty has accounted for all the progress of mankind

liberty has made the poor rich in terms of things. with liberty the poor are only poor in relationship to the rich, not in absolute terms.

sans liberty and you have rulers who remain rich and a stagnancy and an equality of squalor for everyone else. without liberty there is no interacting assemblage of parts such that progress can be had.

under liberty no one can become rich without a contribution to the whole, without liberty no one contributes.

is there such a thing as unfettered liberty? no one means unrestrained liberty who calls for liberty, save many times the left. and the quote has at its unspoken base some imagined unfettered liberty which is its entire fallacy.

envy and sloth are at the root of this quote

Liberty rocks!

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Patrick Henry

[WTF]

Originally Posted by FlectiNonFrangi

There are 2 side to this coin. I see many of the writes offs most people don't know about. The laws are written by lawyers bought by the wealthy. The poor get more than their fair share from politicians seeking to garner votes. One shouldn't look at one side without examing the other side.

Yes the wealthy buy politicians who then promise the poor the moon while actually delivering to the wealthy. Please try and be more specific as to what the wealthy/politicians are giving the poor. More poor is not really giving back now is it? Look at this country's Gini coefficient.


One side has all the wealth and the other side has all the votes. Of course they have to give them something!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Liberty rocks!

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Patrick Henry

News flash, Patrick Henry is dead.

I do not care for your form of liberty joe blow. The transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy is not my idea of liberty.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

i take exception to the whole quote but the word tryanny especially so , and the words fortunate and unfortunate also are very much words that hold a skewed perspective at the expense of so many alternatives that the quote merely becomes raw meat to the "aggrieved".

the word liberty should never be held captive to such nonsense. liberty is tyrannical? it is not so and by definition can never be so.

liberty allows the lowest to rise, it is the one arrangement that can reverse any given set of elements in a fair and justifiable manner.

liberty is the one arrangement that will create the most for the greatest number.

liberty has accounted for all the progress of mankind

liberty has made the poor rich in terms of things. with liberty the poor are only poor in relationship to the rich, not in absolute terms.

sans liberty and you have rulers who remain rich and a stagnancy and an equality of squalor for everyone else. without liberty there is no interacting assemblage of parts such that progress can be had.

under liberty no one can become rich without a contribution to the whole, without liberty no one contributes or does so willingly.

is there such a thing as unfettered liberty? no one means unrestrained liberty who calls for liberty, save many times the left. and the quote has at its unspoken base some imagined unfettered liberty which is its entire fallacy.

envy and sloth are at the root of this quote

giveitathought, just once.

One man's liberty is another man's tryanny

Even that shallow thought is to deep for you Tea Wacks...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I'll bet Debbie fucks homeless dudes for free. She takes them home, gives them a bath, a home cooked meal and then fucks their brains out. Then she gives them a couple of hundred bucks and sends them on their way.

She's the Mother Teresa of providers.

It sure wouldn't take much to fuck your brains out.

And I bet you try and talk ladies out of their posted rates.

joe blow is the Ebenezer Scrooge of Johns.

Pay no attention to these dickless fucks Debbie. In fact let me respond to their classless BS.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

giveitathought, just once.

One man's liberty is another man's tryanny

Even that shallow thought is to deep for you Tea Wacks...

you make the same mistake the person quoted does only with less eloquence

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

you make the same mistake the person quoted does only with less eloquence

And you quote us both, what does that make you?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

One man's liberty is another man's tryanny ..

Only if the "other man" believes the free man's liberty is restricting his freedom.

Class warfare is designed to deflect the attention of the have-nots from the shortcomings of those who desire to remain in power who are actually responsible for the short-comings of the haven-nots, and to project the anger of the have-nots toward those who have in order to avoid the responsibility of those in power for their inability to uplift the have-nots as they promised them in order to gain power and remain there in the future. Every failing leader has to have a "devil" to which to focus the attention of the disenchanted so they can remain in power and benefit from the spoils of being in a position of power.

Blaming the rich for the inability of the poor to pay their bills is trite, overused, and amateur. It's born from lack of a knowledge of history. It is only a temporary fix.

Proof:
"The unemployment rates for teenagers (23.7 percent), blacks (13.4 percent), and Hispanics (9.9 percent) were little changed."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Who will hire these people?
Rich white people and corporations.

The question is: Do they want a job or a handout?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by FlectiNonFrangi

The laws are written by lawyers bought by the wealthy.

Obaminable is not really a lawyer any more. But he is bought by the wealthy.

Their warranty is about to expire.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Only if the "other man" believes the free man's liberty is restricting his freedom.

Class warfare is .

Blaming the rich for the inability of the poor to pay their bills is trite, overused, and amateur. It's born from lack of a knowledge of history. It is only a temporary fix.

?

Class warfare is a two way street. Taking the SS and Medicare surplus and spending it on the Defense Industry is robbing the middle class and poor the savings. But that is what we have done because people like you fight for tax breaks for the wealthy, then have the balls to bitch about the deficit. You Tea Nuts need a basic math class. Bill Clinton can help you out there. Get over Monica and you might learn something.


http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook...nd-3923736.php

The first reason for this is that, in an important sense, complete independence is a myth. None of us is ever totally independent. All of us need other people in our lives for a wide variety of reasons.
But the reason that's most important in regard to the political debate is that, to the extent we are independent at all, very few of us are either dependent or independent. That way of thinking greatly distorts our lives. A realistic way to view a human life is that most of us go through some stages of greater dependence and other stages of relative independence.
That means we need our parents to raise us so that later we can function as adults. In public policy, it means that many people go through stages where they need a helping hand to get them through some crisis or special need. But most of those people then go on to do well on their own later. They want to make it on their own and not to be dependent on others' aid.
Of all the veterans who were enabled to get a college education via the GI Bill, how many became permanently dependent on government handouts? How many went on to lead successful and productive lives?
I don't think any of us would think highly of a hospital that, if you were admitted with a severe infection, refused to give you antibiotics - reasoning that if we helped you too much, you'd end up feeling entitled and would not want to make it on your own any more.
All this came up in bioethics because some ethical theories seemed to tell us that being a completely rational adult who could make decisions all on your own was the morally ideal state. Anything less was to be a sort of defective being. We have spent years coming to understand that such an ethical theory mangles the realities of human life.
I'd suggest that some political statements about independence and entitlement/victimhood may mangle the realities of human existence just as badly.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.

Proof:
"The unemployment rates for teenagers (23.7 percent), blacks (13.4 percent), and Hispanics (9.9 percent) were little changed."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Who will hire these people?
Rich white people and corporations.

The question is: Do they want a job or a handout?

The question is:

Do you only think rich white people can hire teens, Blacks and Hispanics?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by FlectiNonFrangi

There are 2 side to this coin. I see many of the write offs most people don't know about. The laws are written by lawyers bought by the wealthy. The poor get more than their fair share from politicians seeking to garner votes. One shouldn't look at one side without examing the other side.

If the wealthy have the tax laws rigged to their advantage, why do the top ten percent pay seventy percent of the income taxes? The lower fifty percent only pay two percent of the income taxes.

If the rich have paid lawyers to rig the tax laws, they should get their money back.

It seems to me, that the so called poor, make out like bandits, when it comes to paying, or not paying, taxes. This is particularly true, given the fact, the so called poor are the recipients of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us.

[LovingKayla]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I'll bet Debbie fucks homeless dudes for free. She takes them home, gives them a bath, a home cooked meal and then fucks their brains out. Then she gives them a couple of hundred bucks and sends them on their way.
:

Well duh. They are entitled to some pussy too. Ohhh I get it, they are only entitled if someone ELSE pays for it. Got it. And might I say, F U.

If you think someone is entitled to something they don't have, you can start a charity and work to provide it for them. This is America after all.