XXXXXX

968 results
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
...
20

This topic is locked from further discussion.

3425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#351 doubutsuteki

Member since 2004 • 3425 Posts

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"]
dont be a socialist. work for your damn money and keep it.
m3Boarder32

And since when is socialism about giving away money you worked for?

Wait! It was never, you fool.

Then tell me in your own simplified definition of socialism

I don't need my own definition of socialism to explain the fundamentals of it. Socialism has always been about letting working people enjoy the fruits of their labour. The very reason that socialism began to emerge and gain momentum was precisely because socialism was, and is based on the view of capitalism as an unjust economic system where workers are exploited, forced to do wage labour for a price that the capitalist decides, and can decide, merely because he owns factories and a companies - and because it claims that struggle against such an order is justified. Liberals and other right-wing nuts call this a natural right.

But who decides what is right? Those rights favour a minority, and in a capitalist economy, this will always be a minority. Workers produce everything in society, and they make up the vast majority of the people. So a socialist would say that the workers are right - working people have a right to the fruits of their labour! Capitalists, on the other hand, will pay the lowest possible wages to workers, to increase their own profit, to be competitive on the market.

Let's keep it simple: Get a job at a factory, for instance. Let's say you work eight hours a day, making toys. Will your boss pay you what the toys you produced are worth on the market? Sure, the materials you use were probably made by another worker, but deduct that. Do you still get the fruits of your labour? I don't think so. Will your boss give you any power whatsoever over your working situation? Not very likely. Complain, and get kicked. And when you get kicked you have little else to do but to get a new job (if you find one, and are allowed one), only to find yourself in basically the same situation as before.

Survival of the fitest. It's not that difficuilt to be succesful in the US and keep yourself out of the above work situation.

You mean survival of the stupidest, the ones who lick the most ass and work the hardest without ever questioning authority, because they think that the right to private ownership of the means of production - enjoyed by a minority - is god given, or something that those few people have earned, and is even something that is in the interest of all of mankind.

Define "successful".

17 years ago

3425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#352 doubutsuteki

Member since 2004 • 3425 Posts

[QUOTE="im_very_kind"]i you're in a car crash but still able to think and speak, you're still able to get a good job. if not theres disabillity and people who will care for you (for hire, whic the disabillity would pay for) the bottom line is, with all the programs in our society to get people out of "poverty" i think anyone can get out of it. and if they cant, then they fail and arent really worthy of life. cruel? yes. correct? yes. i said making money is A LIFE CHOICE, JUST LIKE THE FOOD YOU EAT.

No money, no food. Sure, if you have the money you can buy whatever food you want, meat, apples, oranges, potatoes, etc. But money has to come from somewhere. Maybe you have a little tree, on which 100 dollar bills grow, but the vast majority of people are, in fact, forced to work, because work - their time, blood, sweat and tears - that's the only thing they can offer on the so called market. Because some people, a tiny minority, happens to own the land, the natural resources, the industries, the companies, and claims that it is their right to do so - in reality a privilege! The vast majority works, and creates everything of value in this world, while a tiny majority do little besides profiting from this. Now, if you belong to that minority, I can understand why you would protect - in the name of ideology, law, order - the so called rights that this minority enjoys. But even they know that what I am saying is right, and that you are wrong - even if they very rarely admit it, simply because these truths are inconvenient and doesn't suit those in power. You, on the other hand, seem to live inside your own bubble.

You might think that everyone can get out of poverty, but in a capitalist system some people will always live in poverty and without a job because ultimately that is what the capitalists want: A reserve worker force, forced to compete with the regular work force, those who have jobs, in order to keep wages down or lower them further. The capitalists use the division of people into the employed and the unemployed to blame all of the problems in society on the latter, taking attention away from the real issue, their ownership, their property, their capital.

Come back when you have more life experience. I'm tired of arguing with pretentious right-wing nuts - be it liberals, libertarians, conservatives, fascists, etc.

17 years ago

1276

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 1276 Posts

Absolutely not. Let the gyspys and hobos alike make something of themselves.

17 years ago

14441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 33

User Lists: 0

#354 steppinrazor88

Member since 2006 • 14441 Posts

Hell no!! i don't want my family giving MY inheritance away to some...poor person!!! if poor ppl want money they can go and get a education and a job....stop complaining!!!

17 years ago

4374

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#355 Squidward117

Member since 2005 • 4374 Posts

Thank GOD this thread is still alive. I wanted to post something of much relevance in it.

17 years ago

3425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#356 doubutsuteki

Member since 2004 • 3425 Posts

Hell no!! i don't want my family giving MY inheritance away to some...poor person!!! if poor ppl want money they can go and get a education and a job....stop complaining!!!steppinrazor88

I love you too. *blush*

17 years ago

411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#357 im_very_kind

Member since 2007 • 411 Posts

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="im_very_kind"]i you're in a car crash but still able to think and speak, you're still able to get a good job. if not theres disabillity and people who will care for you (for hire, whic the disabillity would pay for) the bottom line is, with all the programs in our society to get people out of "poverty" i think anyone can get out of it. and if they cant, then they fail and arent really worthy of life. cruel? yes. correct? yes. i said making money is A LIFE CHOICE, JUST LIKE THE FOOD YOU EAT.

No money, no food. Sure, if you have the money you can buy whatever food you want, meat, apples, oranges, potatoes, etc. But money has to come from somewhere. Maybe you have a little tree, on which 100 dollar bills grow, but the vast majority of people are, in fact, forced to work, because work - their time, blood, sweat and tears - that's the only thing they can offer on the so called market. Because some people, a tiny minority, happens to own the land, the natural resources, the industries, the companies, and claims that it is their right to do so - in reality a privilege! The vast majority works, and creates everything of value in this world, while a tiny majority do little besides profiting from this. Now, if you belong to that minority, I can understand why you would protect - in the name of ideology, law, order - the so called rights that this minority enjoys. But even they know that what I am saying is right, and that you are wrong - even if they very rarely admit it, simply because these truths are inconvenient and doesn't suit those in power. You, on the other hand, seem to live inside your own bubble.

You might think that everyone can get out of poverty, but in a capitalist system some people will always live in poverty and without a job because ultimately that is what the capitalists want: A reserve worker force, forced to compete with the regular work force, those who have jobs, in order to keep wages down or lower them further. The capitalists use the division of people into the employed and the unemployed to blame all of the problems in society on the latter, taking attention away from the real issue, their ownership, their property, their capital.

Come back when you have more life experience. I'm tired of arguing with pretentious right-wing nuts - be it liberals, libertarians, conservatives, fascists, etc.

its called disabillity. it helps pay for people who cant work. and you call me pretentious and having no life experience? hahaha im 21 and live on my own, i knowe plenty of people who cant work, and i know people who rape t he system. you beg your mother for money to buy a new video game. dont you act like you know what you're talking about.

17 years ago

13282

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#358 videogamer456

Member since 2005 • 13282 Posts

Get a job you bums.

But seriously, it is very annoying when homeless people on the streets of NYC come up to me an harass me for money, smokes, or booze. Not because I am one of those people who think "oh, they should go get a job" but because it is really annoying how you cannot walk through Time Square without someone getting in your face trying to promote something or asking for something. It is really annoying. And my family does give about 5-7 thousand dollars to various Jewish organizations yearly.

17 years ago

3425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#359 doubutsuteki

Member since 2004 • 3425 Posts

[QUOTE="im_very_kind"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="im_very_kind"]i you're in a car crash but still able to think and speak, you're still able to get a good job. if not theres disabillity and people who will care for you (for hire, whic the disabillity would pay for) the bottom line is, with all the programs in our society to get people out of "poverty" i think anyone can get out of it. and if they cant, then they fail and arent really worthy of life. cruel? yes. correct? yes. i said making money is A LIFE CHOICE, JUST LIKE THE FOOD YOU EAT.

No money, no food. Sure, if you have the money you can buy whatever food you want, meat, apples, oranges, potatoes, etc. But money has to come from somewhere. Maybe you have a little tree, on which 100 dollar bills grow, but the vast majority of people are, in fact, forced to work, because work - their time, blood, sweat and tears - that's the only thing they can offer on the so called market. Because some people, a tiny minority, happens to own the land, the natural resources, the industries, the companies, and claims that it is their right to do so - in reality a privilege! The vast majority works, and creates everything of value in this world, while a tiny majority do little besides profiting from this. Now, if you belong to that minority, I can understand why you would protect - in the name of ideology, law, order - the so called rights that this minority enjoys. But even they know that what I am saying is right, and that you are wrong - even if they very rarely admit it, simply because these truths are inconvenient and doesn't suit those in power. You, on the other hand, seem to live inside your own bubble.

You might think that everyone can get out of poverty, but in a capitalist system some people will always live in poverty and without a job because ultimately that is what the capitalists want: A reserve worker force, forced to compete with the regular work force, those who have jobs, in order to keep wages down or lower them further. The capitalists use the division of people into the employed and the unemployed to blame all of the problems in society on the latter, taking attention away from the real issue, their ownership, their property, their capital.

Come back when you have more life experience. I'm tired of arguing with pretentious right-wing nuts - be it liberals, libertarians, conservatives, fascists, etc.

its called disabillity. it helps pay for people who cant work. and you call me pretentious and having no life experience? hahaha im 21 and live on my own, i knowe plenty of people who cant work, and i know people who rape t he system. you beg your mother for money to buy a new video game. dont you act like you know what you're talking about.

"its called disabillity. it helps pay for people who cant work." - This simply doesn't make sense. Care to explain?

And for the record: I'm 23, I live on my own, I study, and I have worked and owned a private business.

17 years ago

2136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#360 Owned_Noob

Member since 2006 • 2136 Posts

Not if they don't want to, but it is good to share.leegar88

17 years ago

3930

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#361 NrGcHaRgE021

Member since 2003 • 3930 Posts

[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"]
dont be a socialist. work for your damn money and keep it.
doubutsuteki

And since when is socialism about giving away money you worked for?

Wait! It was never, you fool.

Then tell me in your own simplified definition of socialism

I don't need my own definition of socialism to explain the fundamentals of it. Socialism has always been about letting working people enjoy the fruits of their labour. The very reason that socialism began to emerge and gain momentum was precisely because socialism was, and is based on the view of capitalism as an unjust economic system where workers are exploited, forced to do wage labour for a price that the capitalist decides, and can decide, merely because he owns factories and a companies - and because it claims that struggle against such an order is justified. Liberals and other right-wing nuts call this a natural right.

But who decides what is right? Those rights favour a minority, and in a capitalist economy, this will always be a minority. Workers produce everything in society, and they make up the vast majority of the people. So a socialist would say that the workers are right - working people have a right to the fruits of their labour! Capitalists, on the other hand, will pay the lowest possible wages to workers, to increase their own profit, to be competitive on the market.

Let's keep it simple: Get a job at a factory, for instance. Let's say you work eight hours a day, making toys. Will your boss pay you what the toys you produced are worth on the market? Sure, the materials you use were probably made by another worker, but deduct that. Do you still get the fruits of your labour? I don't think so. Will your boss give you any power whatsoever over your working situation? Not very likely. Complain, and get kicked. And when you get kicked you have little else to do but to get a new job (if you find one, and are allowed one), only to find yourself in basically the same situation as before.

Survival of the fitest. It's not that difficuilt to be succesful in the US and keep yourself out of the above work situation.

You mean survival of the stupidest, the ones who lick the most ass and work the hardest without ever questioning authority, because they think that the right to private ownership of the means of production - enjoyed by a minority - is god given, or something that those few people have earned, and is even something that is in the interest of all of mankind.

Define "successful".

Stupidest? I think not. Why? Because you cant or wont? Most people are willing to do whatever it takes to get to the highest position and stature possible. How is that stupid? Quite the opposite if you ask me.

17 years ago

17441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 17441 Posts

I thought they called that taxes.

17 years ago

2283

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 2283 Posts

No, the people who are rich usually worked hard to be rich. Yet there are exceptions to that. Thats like saying People in California and New York should give their money to people in Kansas just because on average people in CA and NY make more money then people in Kansas.

17 years ago

411

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#364 im_very_kind

Member since 2007 • 411 Posts

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="im_very_kind"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="im_very_kind"]i you're in a car crash but still able to think and speak, you're still able to get a good job. if not theres disabillity and people who will care for you (for hire, whic the disabillity would pay for) the bottom line is, with all the programs in our society to get people out of "poverty" i think anyone can get out of it. and if they cant, then they fail and arent really worthy of life. cruel? yes. correct? yes. i said making money is A LIFE CHOICE, JUST LIKE THE FOOD YOU EAT.

No money, no food. Sure, if you have the money you can buy whatever food you want, meat, apples, oranges, potatoes, etc. But money has to come from somewhere. Maybe you have a little tree, on which 100 dollar bills grow, but the vast majority of people are, in fact, forced to work, because work - their time, blood, sweat and tears - that's the only thing they can offer on the so called market. Because some people, a tiny minority, happens to own the land, the natural resources, the industries, the companies, and claims that it is their right to do so - in reality a privilege! The vast majority works, and creates everything of value in this world, while a tiny majority do little besides profiting from this. Now, if you belong to that minority, I can understand why you would protect - in the name of ideology, law, order - the so called rights that this minority enjoys. But even they know that what I am saying is right, and that you are wrong - even if they very rarely admit it, simply because these truths are inconvenient and doesn't suit those in power. You, on the other hand, seem to live inside your own bubble.

You might think that everyone can get out of poverty, but in a capitalist system some people will always live in poverty and without a job because ultimately that is what the capitalists want: A reserve worker force, forced to compete with the regular work force, those who have jobs, in order to keep wages down or lower them further. The capitalists use the division of people into the employed and the unemployed to blame all of the problems in society on the latter, taking attention away from the real issue, their ownership, their property, their capital.

Come back when you have more life experience. I'm tired of arguing with pretentious right-wing nuts - be it liberals, libertarians, conservatives, fascists, etc.

its called disabillity. it helps pay for people who cant work. and you call me pretentious and having no life experience? hahaha im 21 and live on my own, i knowe plenty of people who cant work, and i know people who rape t he system. you beg your mother for money to buy a new video game. dont you act like you know what you're talking about.

"its called disabillity. it helps pay for people who cant work." - This simply doesn't make sense. Care to explain?

And for the record: I'm 23, I live on my own, I study, and I have worked and owned a private business.

theres programs for disabled people of this country, they get money. thats pretty much it right there.

17 years ago

deactivated-5901ac91d8e33

17092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#365 deactivated-5901ac91d8e33

Member since 2004 • 17092 Posts

No, the people who are rich usually worked hard to be rich. Yet there are exceptions to that. Thats like saying People in California and New York should give their money to people in Kansas just because on average people in CA and NY make more money then people in Kansas.Shadow2k6

no..that's not the same at all...

and now on to the point..

Rich people shouldnt just give their money to poor people....most of the rich shouldnt have that money to begin with...

The best thing that can happend is if the western nations such as Britain, France and Germany introduce socialistic reforms...

17 years ago

82

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 82 Posts

I saw on tv a program about poverty (this was long ago) where they intervjued someone at UN who was involved in this matter and he said that if every swede (I live in sweden, I was watching a swedish tv-programme) would give 200 kr (less than 20 US dollars) every month as welfare to eradicate poverty, the poverty in the entire world would be halved by 2015. Now Sweden is a small country and if everybody in the US and other wealthy countries would do this also, it wouldn't even have to be 1 $ month. And capitalist swine who are too greedy and wants to keep everything to themselves actually makes me mad. And I usuall doesn't bother on these kinds of things. Here's some good reads if you wanna get involved on the subject The Millenium Development GoalsThe millenium development goals easy read facts

17 years ago

3425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#367 doubutsuteki

Member since 2004 • 3425 Posts

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"]
dont be a socialist. work for your damn money and keep it.
NrGcHaRgE021

And since when is socialism about giving away money you worked for?

Wait! It was never, you fool.

Then tell me in your own simplified definition of socialism

I don't need my own definition of socialism to explain the fundamentals of it. Socialism has always been about letting working people enjoy the fruits of their labour. The very reason that socialism began to emerge and gain momentum was precisely because socialism was, and is based on the view of capitalism as an unjust economic system where workers are exploited, forced to do wage labour for a price that the capitalist decides, and can decide, merely because he owns factories and a companies - and because it claims that struggle against such an order is justified. Liberals and other right-wing nuts call this a natural right.

But who decides what is right? Those rights favour a minority, and in a capitalist economy, this will always be a minority. Workers produce everything in society, and they make up the vast majority of the people. So a socialist would say that the workers are right - working people have a right to the fruits of their labour! Capitalists, on the other hand, will pay the lowest possible wages to workers, to increase their own profit, to be competitive on the market.

Let's keep it simple: Get a job at a factory, for instance. Let's say you work eight hours a day, making toys. Will your boss pay you what the toys you produced are worth on the market? Sure, the materials you use were probably made by another worker, but deduct that. Do you still get the fruits of your labour? I don't think so. Will your boss give you any power whatsoever over your working situation? Not very likely. Complain, and get kicked. And when you get kicked you have little else to do but to get a new job (if you find one, and are allowed one), only to find yourself in basically the same situation as before.

Survival of the fitest. It's not that difficuilt to be succesful in the US and keep yourself out of the above work situation.

You mean survival of the stupidest, the ones who lick the most ass and work the hardest without ever questioning authority, because they think that the right to private ownership of the means of production - enjoyed by a minority - is god given, or something that those few people have earned, and is even something that is in the interest of all of mankind.

Define "successful".

Stupidest? I think not. Why? Because you cant or wont? Most people are willing to do whatever it takes to get to the highest position and stature possible. How is that stupid? Quite the opposite if you ask me.

Because everyone will hate people who will walk over dead bodies to advance to a higher position in the hierarchy; people who betray their fellows who are in the same boat as they are and instead join forces with the ruling c.lass - whose property will be expropriated when the revolution comes.

There's a difference between taking from society - fighting for higher wages at your job, getting yourself a good education, a profession, achieving a better material living standard, etc. - and joining forces - ideologically and/or practically - with the blood-sucking capital owning c.lass in their struggle against all the people who also try to achieve these things. However, most people will never own land, industries, companies, etc. Most people will never become CEOs. That's reality. There's no need to moralize.

17 years ago

3425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#368 doubutsuteki

Member since 2004 • 3425 Posts

[QUOTE="im_very_kind"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="im_very_kind"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="im_very_kind"]i you're in a car crash but still able to think and speak, you're still able to get a good job. if not theres disabillity and people who will care for you (for hire, whic the disabillity would pay for) the bottom line is, with all the programs in our society to get people out of "poverty" i think anyone can get out of it. and if they cant, then they fail and arent really worthy of life. cruel? yes. correct? yes. i said making money is A LIFE CHOICE, JUST LIKE THE FOOD YOU EAT.

No money, no food. Sure, if you have the money you can buy whatever food you want, meat, apples, oranges, potatoes, etc. But money has to come from somewhere. Maybe you have a little tree, on which 100 dollar bills grow, but the vast majority of people are, in fact, forced to work, because work - their time, blood, sweat and tears - that's the only thing they can offer on the so called market. Because some people, a tiny minority, happens to own the land, the natural resources, the industries, the companies, and claims that it is their right to do so - in reality a privilege! The vast majority works, and creates everything of value in this world, while a tiny majority do little besides profiting from this. Now, if you belong to that minority, I can understand why you would protect - in the name of ideology, law, order - the so called rights that this minority enjoys. But even they know that what I am saying is right, and that you are wrong - even if they very rarely admit it, simply because these truths are inconvenient and doesn't suit those in power. You, on the other hand, seem to live inside your own bubble.

You might think that everyone can get out of poverty, but in a capitalist system some people will always live in poverty and without a job because ultimately that is what the capitalists want: A reserve worker force, forced to compete with the regular work force, those who have jobs, in order to keep wages down or lower them further. The capitalists use the division of people into the employed and the unemployed to blame all of the problems in society on the latter, taking attention away from the real issue, their ownership, their property, their capital.

Come back when you have more life experience. I'm tired of arguing with pretentious right-wing nuts - be it liberals, libertarians, conservatives, fascists, etc.

its called disabillity. it helps pay for people who cant work. and you call me pretentious and having no life experience? hahaha im 21 and live on my own, i knowe plenty of people who cant work, and i know people who rape t he system. you beg your mother for money to buy a new video game. dont you act like you know what you're talking about.

"its called disabillity. it helps pay for people who cant work." - This simply doesn't make sense. Care to explain?

And for the record: I'm 23, I live on my own, I study, and I have worked and owned a private business.

theres programs for disabled people of this country, they get money. thats pretty much it right there.

And? You want to do away with those programs or keep them? And who pays and who should pay?

You seem to imply that an unemployed person is neccessarily a physically crippled or a mentally ill person.

17 years ago

3930

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#369 NrGcHaRgE021

Member since 2003 • 3930 Posts

[QUOTE="NrGcHaRgE021"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"]
dont be a socialist. work for your damn money and keep it.
doubutsuteki

And since when is socialism about giving away money you worked for?

Wait! It was never, you fool.

Then tell me in your own simplified definition of socialism

I don't need my own definition of socialism to explain the fundamentals of it. Socialism has always been about letting working people enjoy the fruits of their labour. The very reason that socialism began to emerge and gain momentum was precisely because socialism was, and is based on the view of capitalism as an unjust economic system where workers are exploited, forced to do wage labour for a price that the capitalist decides, and can decide, merely because he owns factories and a companies - and because it claims that struggle against such an order is justified. Liberals and other right-wing nuts call this a natural right.

But who decides what is right? Those rights favour a minority, and in a capitalist economy, this will always be a minority. Workers produce everything in society, and they make up the vast majority of the people. So a socialist would say that the workers are right - working people have a right to the fruits of their labour! Capitalists, on the other hand, will pay the lowest possible wages to workers, to increase their own profit, to be competitive on the market.

Let's keep it simple: Get a job at a factory, for instance. Let's say you work eight hours a day, making toys. Will your boss pay you what the toys you produced are worth on the market? Sure, the materials you use were probably made by another worker, but deduct that. Do you still get the fruits of your labour? I don't think so. Will your boss give you any power whatsoever over your working situation? Not very likely. Complain, and get kicked. And when you get kicked you have little else to do but to get a new job (if you find one, and are allowed one), only to find yourself in basically the same situation as before.

Survival of the fitest. It's not that difficuilt to be succesful in the US and keep yourself out of the above work situation.

You mean survival of the stupidest, the ones who lick the most ass and work the hardest without ever questioning authority, because they think that the right to private ownership of the means of production - enjoyed by a minority - is god given, or something that those few people have earned, and is even something that is in the interest of all of mankind.

Define "successful".

Stupidest? I think not. Why? Because you cant or wont? Most people are willing to do whatever it takes to get to the highest position and stature possible. How is that stupid? Quite the opposite if you ask me.

Because everyone will hate people who will walk over dead bodies to advance to a higher position in the hierarchy; people who betray their fellows who are in the same boat as they are and instead join forces with the ruling c.lass - whose property will be expropriated when the revolution comes.

There's a difference between taking from society - fighting for higher wages at your job, getting yourself a good education, a profession, achieving a better material living standard, etc. - and joining forces - ideologically and/or practically - with the blood-sucking capital owning c.lass in their struggle against all the people who also try to achieve these things. However, most people will never own land, industries, companies, etc. Most people will never become CEOs. That's reality. There's no need to moralize.

I know what you're saying and there's for sure people who take extreme advantage of the system, but my Econ. teacher left P&G, where he would be making over a mil a year by now simply because he couldnt take it. He was in a position where he had to fire people who had worked for 20+ years. He got to where he was just by naturally seeing eye to eye with upper management and getting along well. It's not for everyone, but sometimes you have to essentially walk over people. Also, AFAIK, my dad NEVER did that kind of stuff to get to his position of CEO. So not everyone does it, but it's prevalent.

17 years ago

6082

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#370 tycoonmike

Member since 2005 • 6082 Posts

[QUOTE="im_very_kind"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="im_very_kind"]no we wouldnt all be in ivy leage colleges, because most poor people try and rape the system. i win. let me say this one more time EVERYONE HAS EQUAL OPPROTUNITIES. IF YOU FAIL AT LIFE, IT IS YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.IF YOU EAT BURGER KING AND MCDONALDS EVERYDAY, YOU'RE GOING TO GET SICK AND DIE, THATS NOT CAPITALISMS FAULT, THATS YOUR OWN. EATING BAD FOOD IS A LIFE CHOICE, JUST LIKE HOW TO MAKE MONEY. YOU CANT WIN THIS ARGUMENT, SO JUST TAKE YOUR PRIDE AND LEAVE THE TOPIC

This is an old post (after the last one I made), but I think it prudent to respond:

Bold: That's quite a big stereotype you're placing on nine tenths of the world population. And besides, I know plenty of people that are poor and still try to do the best they can. How about all those families off of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition? Almost all of them were very poor.

Triple Highlight: If we all had equal opprotunities, we wouldn't be living in the United States, we would be living in the American Soviet Socialist Republic, the newest branch of the Soviet Union. They who are poor have fewer opprotunities than they who are rich, face it. Money makes this world of ours go round. Take Paris Hilton, for instance. Or perhaps Britney Spears, two of the most scandalous names in recent history. Both of them should have been locked away a long time ago because of their actions, but (un)fortunately they didn't, because of the vast amounts of money that they made. Now I'm not saying all rich men and women are scumbags, since usually they who make the money are somewhat honorable, but their heirs are usually idiots.

Italics: So if I were born with a mental disorder, or a physical defect, it would be "my own damn fault" that I failed at life? If I got into a car crash and was paralyzed from the neck down, while taking all reasonable precautions, it would be my own damn fault if I died (the greatest of failures)? I didn't know I was responsible for my own cellular division whilst inside the womb, nor did I realize I was responsible if I got paralyzed in an accident, whilst taking all reasonable precaution. Face it, it isn't always "our own damn fault" if we fail at life. This is simplistic thinking. Oftentimes there are more variables to life than just one.

Underlined: Conceded

Bold/Underlined: So you're saying that making money is a bad life choice?

Bold/Italics: Not until you realize the error in your thinking. And besides, pride is a sin, so why should I leave, without good reason to do so?

you're taking it way too overboard to try and believe you're right. birth defects have nothing to do with this argument as far as im concerned. im talking about people who have none of these. if you're in a car crash but still able to think and speak, you're still able to get a good job. if not theres disabillity and people who will care for you (for hire, whic the disabillity would pay for) the bottom line is, with all the programs in our society to get people out of "poverty" i think anyone can get out of it. and if they cant, then they fail and arent really worthy of life. cruel? yes. correct? yes. i said making money is A LIFE CHOICE, JUST LIKE THE FOOD YOU EAT.

Italics: Yes, unfortunately, defects have got everything to do with this argument. You make the assumption that all people who "failed" at life are lazy or don't bother. Not all people are lazy. Some people have problems that retard their ability to succeed, such as ADHD (which is not a disease), or some other mental disorder, or perhaps a physical disorder. And some are just plain unlucky. They who try and just can't succeed, because they who are less deserving get the job. This is called affirmative action.

Underlined: I didn't know that a fast food clerk was a good job. So far as I know, all jobs that one wouldn't consider to be dead-end jobs, require something other than the ability to speak and think. Every single job that I can think of requires movement of some sort.

Bold: Yeah? And guess who pays for it? All the taxpayers, who don't want to support these leeches on society. The Social Security Department is payed for by all the taxpayers. I thought you said that all people, no matter what their condition, could get ahead in life? So far as I'm concerned, if you have to rely on the Government to help you, no matter how short a time they must, you've failed at life.

17 years ago

3425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#371 doubutsuteki

Member since 2004 • 3425 Posts

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="NrGcHaRgE021"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"]
dont be a socialist. work for your damn money and keep it.
NrGcHaRgE021

And since when is socialism about giving away money you worked for?

Wait! It was never, you fool.

Then tell me in your own simplified definition of socialism

I don't need my own definition of socialism to explain the fundamentals of it. Socialism has always been about letting working people enjoy the fruits of their labour. The very reason that socialism began to emerge and gain momentum was precisely because socialism was, and is based on the view of capitalism as an unjust economic system where workers are exploited, forced to do wage labour for a price that the capitalist decides, and can decide, merely because he owns factories and a companies - and because it claims that struggle against such an order is justified. Liberals and other right-wing nuts call this a natural right.

But who decides what is right? Those rights favour a minority, and in a capitalist economy, this will always be a minority. Workers produce everything in society, and they make up the vast majority of the people. So a socialist would say that the workers are right - working people have a right to the fruits of their labour! Capitalists, on the other hand, will pay the lowest possible wages to workers, to increase their own profit, to be competitive on the market.

Let's keep it simple: Get a job at a factory, for instance. Let's say you work eight hours a day, making toys. Will your boss pay you what the toys you produced are worth on the market? Sure, the materials you use were probably made by another worker, but deduct that. Do you still get the fruits of your labour? I don't think so. Will your boss give you any power whatsoever over your working situation? Not very likely. Complain, and get kicked. And when you get kicked you have little else to do but to get a new job (if you find one, and are allowed one), only to find yourself in basically the same situation as before.

Survival of the fitest. It's not that difficuilt to be succesful in the US and keep yourself out of the above work situation.

You mean survival of the stupidest, the ones who lick the most ass and work the hardest without ever questioning authority, because they think that the right to private ownership of the means of production - enjoyed by a minority - is god given, or something that those few people have earned, and is even something that is in the interest of all of mankind.

Define "successful".

Stupidest? I think not. Why? Because you cant or wont? Most people are willing to do whatever it takes to get to the highest position and stature possible. How is that stupid? Quite the opposite if you ask me.

Because everyone will hate people who will walk over dead bodies to advance to a higher position in the hierarchy; people who betray their fellows who are in the same boat as they are and instead join forces with the ruling c.lass - whose property will be expropriated when the revolution comes.

There's a difference between taking from society - fighting for higher wages at your job, getting yourself a good education, a profession, achieving a better material living standard, etc. - and joining forces - ideologically and/or practically - with the blood-sucking capital owning c.lass in their struggle against all the people who also try to achieve these things. However, most people will never own land, industries, companies, etc. Most people will never become CEOs. That's reality. There's no need to moralize.

I know what you're saying and there's for sure people who take extreme advantage of the system, but my Econ. teacher left P&G, where he would be making over a mil a year by now simply because he couldnt take it. He was in a position where he had to fire people who had worked for 20+ years. He got to where he was just by naturally seeing eye to eye with upper management and getting along well. It's not for everyone, but sometimes you have to essentially walk over people. Also, AFAIK, my dad NEVER did that kind of stuff to get to his position of CEO. So not everyone does it, but it's prevalent.

And yet you support the system.

Actually, I don't think you understand what I am saying at all. A CEO is an enemy of the workers. This is the kind of ass kissing person I'm talking about; a privileged, overpaid type whose only job is to bring in profits to the capitalists.

17 years ago

3930

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#372 NrGcHaRgE021

Member since 2003 • 3930 Posts

[QUOTE="NrGcHaRgE021"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="NrGcHaRgE021"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"]
dont be a socialist. work for your damn money and keep it.
doubutsuteki

And since when is socialism about giving away money you worked for?

Wait! It was never, you fool.

Then tell me in your own simplified definition of socialism

I don't need my own definition of socialism to explain the fundamentals of it. Socialism has always been about letting working people enjoy the fruits of their labour. The very reason that socialism began to emerge and gain momentum was precisely because socialism was, and is based on the view of capitalism as an unjust economic system where workers are exploited, forced to do wage labour for a price that the capitalist decides, and can decide, merely because he owns factories and a companies - and because it claims that struggle against such an order is justified. Liberals and other right-wing nuts call this a natural right.

But who decides what is right? Those rights favour a minority, and in a capitalist economy, this will always be a minority. Workers produce everything in society, and they make up the vast majority of the people. So a socialist would say that the workers are right - working people have a right to the fruits of their labour! Capitalists, on the other hand, will pay the lowest possible wages to workers, to increase their own profit, to be competitive on the market.

Let's keep it simple: Get a job at a factory, for instance. Let's say you work eight hours a day, making toys. Will your boss pay you what the toys you produced are worth on the market? Sure, the materials you use were probably made by another worker, but deduct that. Do you still get the fruits of your labour? I don't think so. Will your boss give you any power whatsoever over your working situation? Not very likely. Complain, and get kicked. And when you get kicked you have little else to do but to get a new job (if you find one, and are allowed one), only to find yourself in basically the same situation as before.

Survival of the fitest. It's not that difficuilt to be succesful in the US and keep yourself out of the above work situation.

You mean survival of the stupidest, the ones who lick the most ass and work the hardest without ever questioning authority, because they think that the right to private ownership of the means of production - enjoyed by a minority - is god given, or something that those few people have earned, and is even something that is in the interest of all of mankind.

Define "successful".

Stupidest? I think not. Why? Because you cant or wont? Most people are willing to do whatever it takes to get to the highest position and stature possible. How is that stupid? Quite the opposite if you ask me.

Because everyone will hate people who will walk over dead bodies to advance to a higher position in the hierarchy; people who betray their fellows who are in the same boat as they are and instead join forces with the ruling c.lass - whose property will be expropriated when the revolution comes.

There's a difference between taking from society - fighting for higher wages at your job, getting yourself a good education, a profession, achieving a better material living standard, etc. - and joining forces - ideologically and/or practically - with the blood-sucking capital owning c.lass in their struggle against all the people who also try to achieve these things. However, most people will never own land, industries, companies, etc. Most people will never become CEOs. That's reality. There's no need to moralize.

I know what you're saying and there's for sure people who take extreme advantage of the system, but my Econ. teacher left P&G, where he would be making over a mil a year by now simply because he couldnt take it. He was in a position where he had to fire people who had worked for 20+ years. He got to where he was just by naturally seeing eye to eye with upper management and getting along well. It's not for everyone, but sometimes you have to essentially walk over people. Also, AFAIK, my dad NEVER did that kind of stuff to get to his position of CEO. So not everyone does it, but it's prevalent.

And yet you support the system.

Actually, I don't think you understand what I am saying at all. A CEO is an enemy of the workers. This is the kind of ass kissing person I'm talking about; a privileged, overpaid type whose only job is to bring in profits to the capitalists.

As I said, AFAIK, my dad did NONE of that.

17 years ago

3425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#373 doubutsuteki

Member since 2004 • 3425 Posts

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="NrGcHaRgE021"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="NrGcHaRgE021"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"]
dont be a socialist. work for your damn money and keep it.
NrGcHaRgE021

And since when is socialism about giving away money you worked for?

Wait! It was never, you fool.

Then tell me in your own simplified definition of socialism

I don't need my own definition of socialism to explain the fundamentals of it. Socialism has always been about letting working people enjoy the fruits of their labour. The very reason that socialism began to emerge and gain momentum was precisely because socialism was, and is based on the view of capitalism as an unjust economic system where workers are exploited, forced to do wage labour for a price that the capitalist decides, and can decide, merely because he owns factories and a companies - and because it claims that struggle against such an order is justified. Liberals and other right-wing nuts call this a natural right.

But who decides what is right? Those rights favour a minority, and in a capitalist economy, this will always be a minority. Workers produce everything in society, and they make up the vast majority of the people. So a socialist would say that the workers are right - working people have a right to the fruits of their labour! Capitalists, on the other hand, will pay the lowest possible wages to workers, to increase their own profit, to be competitive on the market.

Let's keep it simple: Get a job at a factory, for instance. Let's say you work eight hours a day, making toys. Will your boss pay you what the toys you produced are worth on the market? Sure, the materials you use were probably made by another worker, but deduct that. Do you still get the fruits of your labour? I don't think so. Will your boss give you any power whatsoever over your working situation? Not very likely. Complain, and get kicked. And when you get kicked you have little else to do but to get a new job (if you find one, and are allowed one), only to find yourself in basically the same situation as before.

Survival of the fitest. It's not that difficuilt to be succesful in the US and keep yourself out of the above work situation.

You mean survival of the stupidest, the ones who lick the most ass and work the hardest without ever questioning authority, because they think that the right to private ownership of the means of production - enjoyed by a minority - is god given, or something that those few people have earned, and is even something that is in the interest of all of mankind.

Define "successful".

Stupidest? I think not. Why? Because you cant or wont? Most people are willing to do whatever it takes to get to the highest position and stature possible. How is that stupid? Quite the opposite if you ask me.

Because everyone will hate people who will walk over dead bodies to advance to a higher position in the hierarchy; people who betray their fellows who are in the same boat as they are and instead join forces with the ruling c.lass - whose property will be expropriated when the revolution comes.

There's a difference between taking from society - fighting for higher wages at your job, getting yourself a good education, a profession, achieving a better material living standard, etc. - and joining forces - ideologically and/or practically - with the blood-sucking capital owning c.lass in their struggle against all the people who also try to achieve these things. However, most people will never own land, industries, companies, etc. Most people will never become CEOs. That's reality. There's no need to moralize.

I know what you're saying and there's for sure people who take extreme advantage of the system, but my Econ. teacher left P&G, where he would be making over a mil a year by now simply because he couldnt take it. He was in a position where he had to fire people who had worked for 20+ years. He got to where he was just by naturally seeing eye to eye with upper management and getting along well. It's not for everyone, but sometimes you have to essentially walk over people. Also, AFAIK, my dad NEVER did that kind of stuff to get to his position of CEO. So not everyone does it, but it's prevalent.

And yet you support the system.

Actually, I don't think you understand what I am saying at all. A CEO is an enemy of the workers. This is the kind of ass kissing person I'm talking about; a privileged, overpaid type whose only job is to bring in profits to the capitalists.

As I said, AFAIK, my dad did NONE of that.

Then he can't be a CEO, because that's what a CEO does.

17 years ago

3930

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#374 NrGcHaRgE021

Member since 2003 • 3930 Posts

[QUOTE="NrGcHaRgE021"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="NrGcHaRgE021"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="NrGcHaRgE021"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"][QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="The_Smart_Idiot"]
dont be a socialist. work for your damn money and keep it.
doubutsuteki

And since when is socialism about giving away money you worked for?

Wait! It was never, you fool.

Then tell me in your own simplified definition of socialism

I don't need my own definition of socialism to explain the fundamentals of it. Socialism has always been about letting working people enjoy the fruits of their labour. The very reason that socialism began to emerge and gain momentum was precisely because socialism was, and is based on the view of capitalism as an unjust economic system where workers are exploited, forced to do wage labour for a price that the capitalist decides, and can decide, merely because he owns factories and a companies - and because it claims that struggle against such an order is justified. Liberals and other right-wing nuts call this a natural right.

But who decides what is right? Those rights favour a minority, and in a capitalist economy, this will always be a minority. Workers produce everything in society, and they make up the vast majority of the people. So a socialist would say that the workers are right - working people have a right to the fruits of their labour! Capitalists, on the other hand, will pay the lowest possible wages to workers, to increase their own profit, to be competitive on the market.

Let's keep it simple: Get a job at a factory, for instance. Let's say you work eight hours a day, making toys. Will your boss pay you what the toys you produced are worth on the market? Sure, the materials you use were probably made by another worker, but deduct that. Do you still get the fruits of your labour? I don't think so. Will your boss give you any power whatsoever over your working situation? Not very likely. Complain, and get kicked. And when you get kicked you have little else to do but to get a new job (if you find one, and are allowed one), only to find yourself in basically the same situation as before.

Survival of the fitest. It's not that difficuilt to be succesful in the US and keep yourself out of the above work situation.

You mean survival of the stupidest, the ones who lick the most ass and work the hardest without ever questioning authority, because they think that the right to private ownership of the means of production - enjoyed by a minority - is god given, or something that those few people have earned, and is even something that is in the interest of all of mankind.

Define "successful".

Stupidest? I think not. Why? Because you cant or wont? Most people are willing to do whatever it takes to get to the highest position and stature possible. How is that stupid? Quite the opposite if you ask me.

Because everyone will hate people who will walk over dead bodies to advance to a higher position in the hierarchy; people who betray their fellows who are in the same boat as they are and instead join forces with the ruling c.lass - whose property will be expropriated when the revolution comes.

There's a difference between taking from society - fighting for higher wages at your job, getting yourself a good education, a profession, achieving a better material living standard, etc. - and joining forces - ideologically and/or practically - with the blood-sucking capital owning c.lass in their struggle against all the people who also try to achieve these things. However, most people will never own land, industries, companies, etc. Most people will never become CEOs. That's reality. There's no need to moralize.

I know what you're saying and there's for sure people who take extreme advantage of the system, but my Econ. teacher left P&G, where he would be making over a mil a year by now simply because he couldnt take it. He was in a position where he had to fire people who had worked for 20+ years. He got to where he was just by naturally seeing eye to eye with upper management and getting along well. It's not for everyone, but sometimes you have to essentially walk over people. Also, AFAIK, my dad NEVER did that kind of stuff to get to his position of CEO. So not everyone does it, but it's prevalent.

And yet you support the system.

Actually, I don't think you understand what I am saying at all. A CEO is an enemy of the workers. This is the kind of ass kissing person I'm talking about; a privileged, overpaid type whose only job is to bring in profits to the capitalists.

As I said, AFAIK, my dad did NONE of that.

Then he can't be a CEO, because that's what a CEO does.

Now how the hell would you know?

17 years ago

9526

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#375 m3Boarder32

Member since 2002 • 9526 Posts

No

12 years ago

1664

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#376 the_plan_man

Member since 2011 • 1664 Posts

Absolutely. It's a shame so many don't.

12 years ago

9589

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#377 MissLibrarian

Member since 2008 • 9589 Posts

Fuсk no.

12 years ago

9589

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#378 MissLibrarian

Member since 2008 • 9589 Posts

*sees the door-to-oblivion quote chains*

Lol old thread.

12 years ago

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#379 coolbeans90

Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

This thread is so 5 years ago.

12 years ago

32760

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#380 -DirtySanchez-

Member since 2003 • 32760 Posts

they should be more willing to give but they wont be, i mean just look at someone like bill gates, there is no reason ever for him to need as much money as he has yet he gives so little to charity

12 years ago

Victorious_Fize

6128

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#381 Victorious_Fize

Member since 2011 • 6128 Posts

Yes.

12 years ago

ChampionoChumps

2381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#382 ChampionoChumps

Member since 2008 • 2381 Posts

If your question is should they be forced to by government then no.

12 years ago

5100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#383 Optical_Order

Member since 2008 • 5100 Posts

I like money.

12 years ago

9526

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#384 m3Boarder32

Member since 2002 • 9526 Posts

they should be more willing to give but they wont be, i mean just look at someone like bill gates, there is no reason ever for him to need as much money as he has yet he gives so little to charity -DirtySanchez-

Bill Gates gives lots to charity :|

12 years ago

1664

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#385 the_plan_man

Member since 2011 • 1664 Posts

*sees the door-to-oblivion quote chains*
Lol old thread.
MissLibrarian

Didn't even notice that. :lol: It was weird reading a ton of posts from people I didn't recognize.

12 years ago

2910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#386 Philokalia

Member since 2012 • 2910 Posts

Only to those who truely need it.

But I believe rich people should not be forced to give away their money. They should only ever give it out of their will.

12 years ago

jesuschristmonk

3308

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#387 jesuschristmonk

Member since 2009 • 3308 Posts

No. They got their money fair and square (after the one thread, I won't mention they "earned" their money), unless they were born with it, then they were just lucky enough to have been born rich.

Larger taxes, on the other hand, seem to be right lol.

12 years ago

8511

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#388 dragonball3900

Member since 2005 • 8511 Posts

No, the poor will simply squander the money on things to make them feel good in the short term. Give the money to charities that help to find cures for disease.

12 years ago

16457

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#389 ZumaJones07

Member since 2005 • 16457 Posts

yes, they don't need all that money

12 years ago

14953

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 14953 Posts

No, it is their money and they should spend it the way they wish. I'd like to see them donate a potion though.

12 years ago

17772

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#391 ferrari2001

Member since 2008 • 17772 Posts

They shouldn't be forced to give up their money, however if your rich you really should at the very least give some of your money to the needy.

12 years ago

jesuschristmonk

3308

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#393 jesuschristmonk

Member since 2009 • 3308 Posts

They shouldn't be forced to give up their money, however if your rich you really should at the very least give some of your money to the needy. ferrari2001

So (truthfully), if you won the lottery (JUST SAYING) and got 1 million dollars, would you gladly give that money away to the rest of the world? You won that money out of luck FAIR AND SQUARE. You do NOT NEED to give the money away, but do you think that anyone who ever does should HAVE to? Really, there are some rich people that don't deserve their money, but it'd be more work to target certain people instead of the whole lot. But looking at rich people in general, they got their money fair and square. They shouldn't have to give it up. I'm in no way rich, but I speak out for the rich because if I ever became rich, I don't want to be an a-hole and completely change my ideals just because I becoming rich. And I know I wouldn't want to give away my hard earned money away lol.

12 years ago

6823

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 6823 Posts

I think people in society would be happier (perhaps even so for the wealthy) if wealth gaps aren't so ridiculously wide.

12 years ago

3440

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#395 SpartanMSU

Member since 2009 • 3440 Posts

Yes, rich people are evil.

12 years ago

3894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#396 TopTierHustler

Member since 2012 • 3894 Posts

Poor people do often need a bit of assistance to get by.

12 years ago

7405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 7405 Posts

Why should they?

12 years ago

3440

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#398 SpartanMSU

Member since 2009 • 3440 Posts

yes, they don't need all that moneyZumaJones07

Do you need all of the money you have? Most likely not.

12 years ago

16457

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#399 ZumaJones07

Member since 2005 • 16457 Posts

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]yes, they don't need all that moneySpartanMSU

Do you need all of the money you have? Most likely not.

that's why i pay taxes

12 years ago

3440

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#400 SpartanMSU

Member since 2009 • 3440 Posts

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]
[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]yes, they don't need all that moneyZumaJones07

Do you need all of the money you have? Most likely not.

that's why i pay taxes

What? So you have no money left over after taxes? Yeah...don't think so.

Unless your living a minimalist kind of lifestyle, you have excess money.

12 years ago

968 results
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
...
20

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment