CA Declares State of Fiscal Emergency... - Page 10

Papa_Complex · 12-14-2010, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tallywacker

Share the wealth, share the wealth, share the wealth.

That's all I hear. Fucking bums wanting a free ride.

There are two other expressions that apply to it:

- Enlightened self-interest

- Charity

.... but yes, it's "share the wealth" for the most part, in practical terms. Whether that's a good or a bad thing frequently depends upon your mindset.

KSGregman · 12-14-2010, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatard

So, I ask you...if the Democrats to you equal only "share the wealth", and having that happen can only help raise life standards and education for all (thus you indirectly), why would you prefer the Republican alternative, which is ultimately to just make a tiny few millionaires (the richest 1%) and billionaires even richer?

You sound so gullible and foolish, Tard....seriously.

You do realize that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, et al are ALL amongst the "millionaires (the richest 1%)? They are EVERY bit as adept at accumulating and protecting their OWN wealth as any of the Republicans you demonize. Do you SERIOUSLY think that it will be a PENNY of THEIR money ponied up to fund these give aways?

This is, and always has been, the problem with the Left....they live in this outright hypocritical world....selling the dream of a level playing field....of sharing the wealth....the problem, as Margaret Thatcher so eloquently pointed out, is that they will ALWAYS run out of other peoples money to give away. The field is not now, nor will it ever be equal....what they are selling, and you are buying hook line and sinker, is a dream.

tallywacker · 12-14-2010, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avatard

right. I know. You tend to think very much in black and white. That's why i'm trying alternate ways of communicating this.

So, i ask you...if the democrats to you equal only "share the wealth", and having that happen can only help raise life standards and education for all (thus you indirectly), why would you prefer the republican alternative, which is ultimately to just make a tiny few millionaires (the richest 1%) and billionaires even richer?

If democrats only suggest "share the wealth" to you, then this at least keeps the overall distribution of wealth more equitable, and guarantees greater overall prosperity, peace, and quality of life.

Why would you not prefer this?

lol I'm working and going to college. I don't need your charity. I sacrificed my time to the US to earn my education. Your side is there to pull money to help those that don't help themselves because you give them a free ride.

If you need a handout, join the military and earn it. I know too many bums riding the government dollar and haven't done shit in there lives to deserve it.

Avatard · 12-14-2010, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tallywacker

lol

Did you not understand the question, Beavis?

Papa_Complex · 12-14-2010, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSGregman

You sound so gullible and foolish, Tard....seriously.

You do realize that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, et al are ALL amongst the "millionaires (the richest 1%)? They are EVERY bit as adept at accumulating and protecting their OWN wealth as any of the Republicans you demonize. Do you SERIOUSLY think that it will be a PENNY of THEIR money ponied up to fund these give aways?

This is, and always has been, the problem with the Left....they live in this outright hypocritical world....selling the dream of a level playing field....of sharing the wealth....the problem, as Margaret Thatcher so eloquently pointed out, is that they will ALWAYS run out of other peoples money to give away. The field is not now, nor will it ever be equal....what they are selling, and you are buying hook line and sinker, is a dream.

Oddly enough, you can flip that statement just as easily. One of the problems is that there are no longer any politicians who truly fit the description of the word "conservative."

shmike · 12-14-2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatard

Why would you not prefer this?

Because it is a utopian crock of shit.

I'd go all "gray" area on you but Gregman looks like he has it handled.

Avatard · 12-14-2010, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmike

I'd go all "gray" area on you but Gregman looks like he has it handled.

It's always a challenge speaking to those who think only in black and white, while others split hairs.

How am I doing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmike

Because it is a utopian crock of shit.

You're right. That whole "trickle down" thing is far more believable.

Wait, no it isn't.

Trickle down? Or is that the sound of the Republicans pissing on your head and telling you it's raining?

Trip · 12-14-2010, 03:02 PM

Dems want to share the wealth just enough to trap their lowly voting populace in a life of crap. Neither of these two parties are better, I don't know why you still believe in the Dems, Avatard. They are just as bad.

shmike · 12-14-2010, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatard

It's always a challenge speaking to those who think only in black and white, while others split hairs.

How am I doing?

Poorly. Very poorly.

I don't think you can teach others to see peripherally when you suffer from tunnel vision.

tallywacker · 12-14-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmike

Poorly. Very poorly.

I don't think you can teach others to see peripherally when you suffer from tunnel vision.

And that tunnel is 50 miles long.

12-14-2010, 03:02 PM	#98
Trip Hold mah beer! Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: 80 Miles South of Moto Heaven Moto: 08 R1200GS Posts: 23,268	Dems want to share the wealth just enough to trap their lowly voting populace in a life of crap. Neither of these two parties are better, I don't know why you still believe in the Dems, Avatard. They are just as bad.