Why are so many rich people liberal and hypocrits

155 posts / 0 new

Rich people are just like poor people in regards to concience and soul. Some rich people support Obama because their concience demands it. If you make a habit out of defying your concience you will never sleep at night. You will become ill and feel like crap on a daily basis. I've known this since I was a teenager. Your wealth doesn't dictate your concience. On the other hand rich people with a lack of a concience will support anyone and anything that pertains to them aquiring and keeping more wealth.

Poor people with a concience will still give you the shirt off of their back if you are in need. Whereas some poor people with a lack of concience will watch you bleed in the street and walk on by.

Only a very narrow minded person thinks that every action we take in life is based on the monetary consequences of that action. You can be the wealthiest person in the world and be very liberal in your ideology. Why does Warren Buffet continue to make the case of trying to be legally obliged to have less money at the end of the day? Because he has a concience whereas many of his fellow oligarchs do not.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

B_W, " On the other hand rich people with a lack of a concience will support anyone and anything that pertains to them aquiring and keeping more wealth."

That is why they voted for Obama.

B_W, "Because he has a concience whereas many of his fellow oligarchs do not."

Bullshit, he is an elitist. Like I said, he would give up a third of his wealth to cost others half of theirs to retain or increase his elitist status. The rich dems don't care anymore for the middleclass or working poor that the rich repubs, even with their lying rhetoric.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

There was a period called Fordism, when Henry paid his employees enough to be consumers of his product. He started the 8 hour work day so he could operate 3 shifts a day, pumping out low profit margin product in quantity. The products for rich are very high profit margin, so high that a Rolls dealer only has to sell one a quarter, Maybachs even less. Edison was also a capitalist in the same era. He passed on assembly line watches after he designed the system. He thought there was no market, who would need a watch, or want one. Watches were for conductors on the trains. Roosters were all that people needed to awake.

Conservative hypocrisy is with immigrants. They're agin' it unless it cost them their gardeners and nannies, and maids

Liberals want a consumer class to buy their products. Conservatives don't care, they have new consumers in China, and India.

Conservatives like to execute people, even if they're innocent, especially in TX, Liberals don't believe in executing innocent people. I think TX still has the gallows, and would sell tickets if the could.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ford also sent people around to make sure his workers were living a moral lifestyle-first hint of drug testing? Ford also introduced the mind numbing soul killing work of the assembly line.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 12:06 pm

I worked an assembly line working a punch press. It was not mind numbing, but we had a union that set quotas. With a coordinated line, and like minded workmates, we could hit our quota about an hour and a half before quitting time. When a senior employee came on line against his will, he did the pieces at the maximum ergonomic motion [slow]. We put him on the last press, and he barely finished. We were finished with our parts, and went outside and toked a little. Nice guys, around the same decade of life. I enjoyed it, but then I've never had a bad job in my life, some I wouldn't want to work too long, but I learned something from every one. Even the $1.10 an hour job I had in highschool. Minimum was 1.25, then 1.35, but we were nonprofit and exempt from minimum wage. My punch press was 6.00 hr. Gas was 27.9. I think I got a pizza and a quart of beer for 2.09 after work, second shift, folks in bed, Tom Snyder on TV.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote camaroman:

B_W, " On the other hand rich people with a lack of a concience will support anyone and anything that pertains to them aquiring and keeping more wealth."

That is why they voted for Obama.

B_W, "Because he has a concience whereas many of his fellow oligarchs do not."

Bullshit, he is an elitist. Like I said, he would give up a third of his wealth to cost others half of theirs to retain or increase his elitist status. The rich dems don't care anymore for the middleclass or working poor that the rich repubs, even with their lying rhetoric.

The problem is that you are not a liberal thinker. There's no way in hell you can understand how full of shit you really are. You claim wealth equals elitist status which equals not caring for anyone. You make that claim because that's the only way your mind will allow you to see it. You and others like you are mentally handicapped. It's not your fault but it is what it is. It doesn't make you a bad person. Those of you who think you know everything really irritate those of us who do. LOL

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Rich people come in many flavors-just like everyone else.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 12:06 pm

Well, it's not a conscious decision that they make. But which is more costly: advocating that you be taxed another couple of thousand dollars a year, or actually being taxed that money? If you think that advocacy and charity help the poor equally, then it's obvious which one they'd choose.

It's hard to convince liberals that this is what they do because this is not some conscious decision making process; they're not assholes on purpose, but out of ignorance.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

Too stupid to spell three initials Cumoronman? Not a surprise that white trash run out of whiny things to say. Don't blame me for pointing them out goober.

Quote cumoronman:And most of them are f---ing HYPOCRITS!!!

If most of them you mean GOPerverts, ok, so you still have nothing to back it up except lies and cries. Neocons are not your friends no matter what they promise you. Gullibles travels.

Quote cumoronman:are either paraniod or have a serious case of diarrhea of the mind.

What is a paraniod? A Texas robot? Paranoid is a delusion you scream volumes of. Afraid of the poor, try to cheat workers and shit in the well. Yup, you may want to check out dementia, sometimes medication can help. I'm cautious of any Neocon liars and this country busts someone for pot every 34 seconds or so, not me in 40 years, but over 800,000 eating up taxes from texas and you worry about foodstamps for granny taking your life savings? How much can you save flipping burgers? More lame ass ad hominem. Why didn't I see that coming? Face it boy, your lousy jobette flipping hamburgers is not Obama's fault, you made the choice to quit school. Now go get my fries. Oh yea, ad hominem is not counting grits.

Quote cumoronman:Ah, yes, sunny California, the most broke , indebt state in the union.

That you just named the most wealthy cities are in? If you had an original thought ever come across your eyebrow, you'd step on it. What a silly GOPervert.

Quote cumoronman:People and businesses are leaving like ants for a new colony.

Too much traffic anyway. Only the GOPerverts are leaving because we're running their asses out. Where are they going ace, Dullass Taxes I hope? Prison State.

Quote cumoronman:Trouble is a lot of them are coming to Texas, dammit.

I knew it. I think the 2nd biggest mistake we made was listening to Hearst and pillaging Mexico. I think Texas would make a good XMas present for Mexico and I know it would make Americans happy. The first mistake was Lincoln stopping the rednecks from succeeding. So you admit Texas are commies eh? You're just a joke, but I have many more libraries to fill your empty rants wish, don worry, be happy. All hat and no cowboy eh? Your post are so dull you should pay me to post on them. But I know you're broke so I'll just use them as practice canvas'. I know you're unworthy, but unlike Neocons, I have a heart. To a point. Let's see some real tough Taxes debate, Try some three syllable words, expand your closed mind boy. Don't be a Booshlicker all your life. You do know Mittney's not a Christian right? You going to vote for a heathern? At least Obama loves Jesus and doesn't abort babies like they do in bible belt Texas spraying poison on the cotton crop. Swig some long neck lone stars and try to get a grip. Relax your muscles, the krats will be gentile...

Busht: Timeline of Treason
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/414
Bushladen and the Terrorists Carlyles Groups
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/398
Busht Hypocrisy & Double Standards
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/412
'Relax Your Muscles as Much as Possible'
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/362
Money Grubbing Dung Worriers
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/sreply/380
Poverty? Dubya Says Blame the Hippies!
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/413

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am

DudedoesCannibas-you need to cut back on your ganja intake rasta. It is making you delusional.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

The late Joe Kennedy once said that he would gladly give away half his money if he could keep the other half. He would still be incredibly rich, but the country would work and the peasant/slave rebellion would not happen. I think the liberal rich appreciate that they are only being asked to pay high rates on their income after they are already rich by any rational standards. If the result of keeping all their money is social disaster and half of America in poverty, they have good reason to fear an economic collapse.

Second, the ugly canard about the "soft rich" from entertainment v. the "hard rich" who make real things is wonderful projection and defensiveness, but it is backward. The problem has been the financialism sponsored by the Right and allowed by enough centerists to all bubble economies of Phony Wealth v. Real Wealth as money making money replaces money invested in real manufacturing and job creation. Our nomination cash hurdles have kept any serious critics of this issue from being able to be "electable." Obama may be tied to Wall St., but he is not owned by them like Romney who is a true believing acolyte. It is about the only thing on which he is consistent despite all the evidence that he is wrong. On Wall St., Romney does not flip or flop, he just bows down in worship.

If "conservatives" really cared about a sound economy and job creation/real wealth financial services, we would not be in this mess. Progressives may be the only fiscal conservatives left, so hearing all about Mr. Soros and how the richest like Buffett and Gates use their money to invest in America instead of getting richer, I want camaroman to enjoy his Texas economy and living with poverty. Conservatives like Reagan wrecked a very fine California economy and ended cheap higher education as part of the deal. Conservative riches and ideology have not done us any good, anywhere.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote cumoronman:DudedoesCannibas-you need to cut back on your ganja intake rasta. It is making you delusional..

I would say that would be my problem if it was a problem. If you actually had something to say, you would simply say it. Now all you do is BS with no references, so now I can't accept anything you say as more than reading fox memo's. As far as your constant mouthfarts Ganja protects the brain dude. It has for thousands of years until Neocons outlawed it. No really it was industrialists and the prison industrial complex including tax paid private for profit cages Koch charges $72k a yr for. I'm totally legal and the prices have been falling for 10 years. It's the booze that causes dementia boy. 75 years of prohibition has dried up many GOPerverts Cannabinoid transmitters and receptors so I suppose that's why you're such sheep, following blindly. Anyone that tosses a quarter at you. Pitifools, I really am ashamed of lapdogs with no spine of their own, like you. Blame the poor and suck up to the rich drooling over tinkle down since Rayguns. You ought to be about dry. Boring dude, come on copy something interesting instead of all this hogwash and accusations your ass can't back up. Come on Taxman from Taxes.

Reply: A Day in the Life of A Dementia Sufferer
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/1741
"Coming up at eleven," local TV newscasters around the country were breathlessly promising: "how pot could save your life!" The disclosure that marijuana's prime active ingredients can shield human beings from brain damage...

Ganja 4 Banned Nerve Gas Used on Yemeni Protesters
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/1685/master/1/
Counter Reefer Maniac accusations that marijuana users support terrorism with the plain fact that these dizzy morons are preventing the use of the "best available protection against nerve gas attack" with their marijuana madness. Among its many properties cannabis provides considerable protection from a number of lethal nerve gas symptoms by defending the brain from injury and suppressing the the seizures, nausea and vomiting associated with chemical warfare agents.

Benefits of Marijuana: Acute radiation syndrome
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/1684
Benefits of Marijuana
Here is a list of common diseases that marijuana has been known to benefit. We have outlined the basic symptoms and the potential benefits marijuana has on each disease.

Cancer - Chemotherapy - Chronic Nausea

Radiation Therapy
- The medical use of ionizing radiation as part of cancer treatment to control malignant cells

Symptoms
- Nausea - Vomiting - Diarrhea - Weight loss - Loss of appetite - Weakness
- Red itchy skin - Sore throat - Hair loss - Recurrent infections - Bleeding - Anemia

Benefits
- Reduced Nausea
- Increased appetite
- Reduced vomiting
- Weight gain
- Sleeping aid

Endocannabinoids
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/1683
Chemicals in marijuana may be useful in fighting MRSA, a kind of staph bacterium that is resistant to certain antibiotics. Researchers in Italy and the U.K. tested five major marijuana chemicals called cannabinoids on different strains of MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). All five showed germ-killing activity against the MRSA strains in lab tests.

Starving Babies and Illegal Food
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/1673
Of the 3 million plus edible plants that grow on earth, no other single plant source can compare with the nutritional value of hempseeds. Both the complete protein and the essential oil contained in hempseeds are in ideal ratios for human nutrition.

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am
Quote DdC:

Too stupid to spell three initials Cumoronman? Not a surprise that white trash run out of whiny things to say. Don't blame me for pointing them out goober.

Quote cumoronman:And most of them are f---ing HYPOCRITS!!!

If most of them you mean GOPerverts, ok, so you still have nothing to back it up except lies and cries. Neocons are not your friends no matter what they promise you. Gullibles travels.

Take a breath. Your posts are making a perfect case for accelerating the war on pot. You are single- handedly killing the chance for any legalization by being the poster boy for the conservative side. Try Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Great place to score.

THISAA's picture
THISAA
Joined:
Dec. 16, 2011 6:49 am

I wish that pot could save, and that all we had to do was "take the skinheads bowling" or sneak some stoked brownies into the country band's snack tray for them to find the tonic of life and come to their senses. While it is true that any substance only helps you bring out stuff you already have within, I am afraid that too many conservatives and banksters have done the ganja and may even like reggae music. It is true that they move on to the more sensationalist powders more often than stay with the weed, and they drink.

But, we are dealing with the debris from a long-term reactionary polemic against the drug of choice of the political enemies of the Right. Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll became a label for and against the "revolution" from Norman Rockwell caricatures to "peace, love and understanding" of a pluralist culture where the ether of black was pressing its musical influence and the rituals of virginity and marriage were fading. The "60's" were when all the tensions of the '50's hit the crisis that stretches into the '70's. Beatnik hipdom met flower child innocence, and a thousand flowers bloomed and faded. Making dope smoking a sign of indolence and "drop out" goofy ignorance helped stigmatize those who use it as not thinking 'straight.'

The purported value of "sobriety" is not biologically confirmed, and indeed there are strong signs that our adaptive history includes the use of positive substances of psycho/active nature which are not toxins. There is also ample evidence of messing with the latter and 'adapting' to it, but the point here is that "substance free" is not what human history has been about or what "natural" or "healthy" means automatically. Particularly when dealing with non-refined natural substances, one finds that some are healthy beyond any risk of danger. Marijuana provides the best pain relief against side effect of anything I have ever used. When it is not enough, a prescribed opiate will be. I have no idea why anyone without that level of pain would take them just to go to sleep.

Well, we can't have that! We have a lot of money invested in busting pot and educating children and other offenders about its dangers. Or, just getting them into jail and drug education to keep the drug war cash cow flowing.

Portraying the Left as a bunch of dopers who want to get away without working or doing anything of value is great for the Right's narrative. No facts are required to fit this portrait. It is a way to turn off the brain and go into reactive mode to anything that fails to confirm the accepted plot. Conservatives are honest, hard-working people who are very charitable but resent those who do not do what it takes to care for themselves. They don't envy the rich or want any advantage, just reward for their hard work and virtues, and to keep "their" money. They also don't find anything wrong with fabulous wealth as long as their own money is not being stolen.

Isn't that a lovely world to live in? You don't hate the poor but you do get tired of the whiners. You are all for "fair play" in a game you have won or believe you are winning. You are not critical of the rules that are working for you. You really are working. Let's concede that instead of trying to identify where the lines of entitlement and fraud replace any honest effort or "work." Let's go straight to the hedge fund manager paycheck and compare it with someone you think does honest work. And, btw, what were the banksters smoking when they believed the mortgage default swapburgers would not go bad?

When the Right begins to compare the Religious Insanity of their Right with smoking dope, we know they are projecting and denying. It takes more than a joint to cure their delusions, and let's also understand that covert use does not allow much public support in many jobs or professions. Being "out" as a pot smoker lags behind honesty in sexual orientation. It would help were we to ask what all this dogma is doing to their hearts, minds and souls? There is not problem over here with the pot, but the wildest nonsense keeps coming from your "preachers" and "teachers."

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Well, if the question is: Can the liberal rich be just as tied to their own wealth as the conservative rich?--I think that answer could certainly be 'yes'. I think it makes perfect sense that any rich person has to gain some intrinsic psyhcological quality, or characteristic, within themselves that, in some ways, represents 'greed'--or they couldn't, or wouldn't, be so rich. Right? So, is the liberal rich more hypocritical about their richness by claiming to hold some moral or social quality other than their elite 'richness'? And, wouldn't that make those money-mongering conservative rich more 'honest' by making no qualms about their own 'richness'? Those questions are actually harder to answer because, of course, that would take you not only just speculating on what's in each's heart and soul with respect to their actions in this world--but, actually, know it. And, how can that be known with certainty? In any absolute sense, unless there is a 'God' (and you beleive in 'God'), that probably can't be known--and probably not with any form of certainty if you don't know each person you are speaking about personally (the un-intimate forums of society--such as most of the media--are perfect stages to disguise the tendencies of either the liberal or conservative hypocrites). And, in any attempt to remove those 'less than honest intentions' that hypocrisy indicates in any (rational) objective sense, that may be why Jesus instructed the rich to get rid of their wealth to 'reach the kingdom of God' and into the 'world of truth' without 'hidden agendas'.

Here's the NIV version of that story of Jesus and the rich man in Luke 18:18-27:

A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"

"All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich man to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"

Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."

Here's some statements by Stephen Mitchell (that Jewish-born-turned-Buddist monk author talking about Jesus) in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus....For Believers and Unbelievers, concerning that story (as his method of writing about these verses, Mitchell takes a section of the words and, then, adds his explanation):

Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone: Literally, "except one: God." This verse goes so much against the grain of the Evangelists' desire to portray Jesus as "sinless" that it must be authentic.

By good Jesus means "absolutely good; perfect." This is a touchingly clear statement of how he thought of himself: as fully human and no more than human, as fully capable of making mistakes. Blake said, "It is not because angels are holier than man or devils that makes them angels, but because they do not expect holiness from one another but from God only."

In order to teach people that they are all sons of God, you have to realize that you are the son of God; but in order to teach people that they are only human, you have to realize that you are only human. What makes someone a Master is not that he never makes mistakes; it's when he makes a mistake, he doesn't cling to it.

.................

sell everything you have: Matthew adds, "If you want to be perfect." This completely misses the point; didn't Jesus just say that even he isn't perfect?

We can't know what quality in the man prompted Jesus to make this radical response. Perhaps, noticing his rich clothing, Jesus intuited that the man's only attachment was to his wealth, and that if he could give it up he would step right into the kingdom of God. (In the Lucan story of Zacchaeus, by contrast, the repentant tax-gatherer has Jesus' approval in giving the poor only half of his ill-gotten wealth.)

"Sell everything" was a teaching for this particular man at this particular moment. If he had immediately said, "Yes, sir, I will," we don't know how Jesus would have responded. I remember a dialogue between Zen Master Seung Sahn and one of his early, hippie disciples, who was very attached to his long blond pony-tail. After a great deal of earnest persuasion, the student finally realized the extent of his attachment. "Okay," he said, "you win, I'll cut it off." At which point Seung Sahn laughed and said, "Now that it's okay to cut it off, you don't need to."

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Even if we avoid the issue of "attachment" and "the love of money" v. having money, the sincerity of liberal rich people who see high marginal income taxes and corporate taxes as good for the long-term stability of the economy, and the society, is not in question. We can pose that the ruthless money grubbers are also sincere in their lusts, but that hardly makes them more "honest" in the sense of being moral. All it does is acknowledge how possessed they are by deluded ideas of economics that will lead to economic collapses and social distress.

Those who complain about Liberals waging class warfare are the ones who defend a class interest while rich Liberals become "traitors to their class." Those who do not reduce their humanity to their wealth may have far greater integrity in their socially responsible approach to the use of their wealth.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

Even if we avoid the issue of "attachment" and "the love of money" v. having money, the sincerity of liberal rich people who see high marginal income taxes and corporate taxes as good for the long-term stability of the economy, and the society, is not in question.

Well, I guess that one of the issues that camaroman is contending with is that, if these liberal rich were so earnest about their social intents, why didn't they enact, and state, those desires before becoming so filthy rich? As part of obtaining his own wealth, George Soros manipulated the markets that almost single-handedly usurped the British pound. Was Soros concerned about what that might do to the 'poor of Britain' at the time?

It could appear that, now, as Bob Dylan put it in his song 'Something's Burning, Baby' from his Empire Burlesque album, such 'liberal' rich could be trying to, somehow, compensate for their actions as Dylan sings: 'Where charity is supposed to cover up for a multitude of sins'.....perhaps, if you could get the 'liberal' AND 'conservative' rich to show more direct and personal accountability for their statements and actions than they do (instead of 'do as I say, not as I do'), you might could get somewhere....

As I've heard some poster say somewhere when this sort of topic were brought up, 'If Soros and Gates want to be so generous, why don't they just give half their money to the government out right?'

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

As I've heard some poster say somewhere when this sort of topic were brought up, 'If Soros and Gates want to be so generous, why don't they just give half their money to the government out right?'

If you are one of many pouring buckets on a 3 story building fire you will be labeled a hero.

If you alone are pouring buckets on a 3 story building fire you will be labeled a fool.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

What's burning there, Bush_Wacker? Government? Who set it on fire? The conservative rich in their service and production corporations--or the liberal rich in their financial market corporations--with both of their 'government collusions'? Or, what are you talking about?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
'If Soros and Gates want to be so generous, why don't they just give half their money to the government out right?
These Conservatives think that Government should be operated as a voluntary charity. Good plan, that.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You are missing the point, Art. If Soros and Gates are as generous with their wealth as the liberals like to claim, why do they need a government regulation to do it with--why don't they just do it, anyway? Even, or especially, through the government that is their supposed object to 'support'. Maybe it would start a fad of the rich just donating their money to government to show such 'support', eh? You don't think that would make a statement?

Of course, the ultimate point here (despite drc2 thinking that's not necessary) is how to factor out hypocrisy in what any of the rich says vs. what any of the rich does.....do you think that factors into 'the Good plan' here, Art? Or, is it as long as you mouth the right words, it really doesn't matter what you do, right? 'Government' will do that for you, will it? There is no limit to the amount of good that I can do with someone else's money.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

What's burning there, Bush_Wacker? Government? Who set it on fire? The conservative rich in their service and production corporations--or the liberal rich in their financial market corporations--with both of their 'government collusions'? Or, what are you talking about?

I'm just saying that a few of the rich paying much more than they are required into the tax system not only makes them look foolish but it isn't going to accomplish much. If however every rich man pays a higher percentage into the tax system nobody looks foolish and you can accomplish much more. In either case, the extra tax burden isn't going to have an impact on their personal financial situation.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
If Soros and Gates are as generous with their wealth as the liberals like to claim,
Liberals who think that Soros and Gates are making this appeal out of generosity are mistaken. The are speaking about fair and just Government. That seems clear to me.
You don't think that would make a statement?
It would send a message. "How do you like my sucker beanie"? These guys didn't get wealthy by being stupid.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I'm just saying that a few of the rich paying much more than they are required into the tax system not only makes them look foolish but it isn't going to accomplish much.

Why does that 'make them look foolish', Bush_Wacker? Is that because even you think giving money to government without ties attached (or, getting something out of it, yourself) is, somehow, 'foolish'? That may be true--but, I don't think that disproves that their actions still could make a point...if man is basically a mimicker, then, again, maybe it could start a fad....especially if they started getting such 'elitist accolades' that their fellow rich would lack by such actions....

If however every rich man pays a higher percentage into the tax system...

That's if they haven't, also, placed self-centered loopholes into that same tax system 'for everyone else'....which we have now no matter whether 'the rich' are conservative or liberal....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

Liberals who think that Soros and Gates are making this appeal out of generosity are mistaken. The are speaking about fair and just Government. That seems clear to me.

Is it 'that clear', Art? What defines a 'fair and just Government' here, Art? Do Soros and Gates--that now don't have to be generous--get to play the biggest part in making that definition because of their money? Just like you claim the 'conservative rich do with government'? I think you are wandering even further from any 'honest intent' here, Art--or are you assuming a 'fair and just Government' has an 'honest intent'--and what would that be, Art?

Quote Art:

It would send a message. "How do you like my sucker beanie"? These guys didn't get wealthy by being stupid.

So, now, it's 'stupid' to give money to the government, is it, Art? Then, what is the point you are trying to make here, Art? Especially with the 'liberal rich' and anything to do with a 'fair and just Government' ......what do you think about my point that any rich person has to gain some intrinsic psychological quality, or characteristic, within themselves that, in some ways, represents 'greed'--or they wouldn't be so rich? After all, was Soros thinking about the 'poor in Britain' when he manipulated the British pound in the financial markets?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Anyone can play on words and phrases Kerry. I'm really not interested in the game. I don't stand up for Soros or Buffet, they can do that themselves. This was all a discussion about rich liberals being hypocrates. I've known plenty of rich people during my lifetime and some of them are very "liberal minded" and others were very "conservative minded". I know the difference and don't want to spend 200 posts of back and forth phylosophy in trying to prove it. In my mind (my opinion) you don't have to live like a pauper in order to be liberal just as you don't have to be rich to be conservative.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Are you saying such 'words' mean nothing real, Bush_Wacker? What a set-up for hypocrites you and Art offer here, Bush_Wacker. You claim to be 'for the poor'--but, then, claim that even the liberal rich 'don't have to be generous'. You claim something to do with a 'fair and just Government'--but, make no attempts to really say what that is--maybe all political reality is 'do as I say, not as I do', eh, Bush_Wacker? No, matter what 'minded' you are....and screw such 'words' having any real 'meaning' even determinable since it's all a 'play on words' in politics and government....even as you have drc2 claiming 'the sincerity of liberal rich people....is not in question.' Well, when it's all a play on words, there doesn't have to be any real 'sincerity' involved, does there?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Is it 'that clear', Art? What defines a 'fair and just Government' here, Art?
The standard for fair and just has long been a progressive system. Guess I'm old fashioned.
Do Soros and Gates--that now don't have to be generous--get to play the biggest part in making that definition because of their money?
Soros and Gates get to do anything they want with theur money.
Just like you claim the 'conservative rich do with government'?
Remind me. What is it I say the conservative rich do with the Government?
So, now, it's 'stupid' to give money to the government, is it, Art?
It certainly is in my book. It is the citizen's duty to pay the taxes that the law prescribes, and not one penny more.
what do you think about my point that any rich person has to gain some intrinsic psychological quality, or characteristic, within themselves that, in some ways, represents 'greed'--or they wouldn't be so rich?
I don't know what this means.
After all, was Soros thinking about the 'poor in Britain' when he manipulated the British pound in the financial markets?
I'm not sure what the UK's currency problems has to do with how he pays his taxes. I don't think Soros invests as a gesture of generosity. As Conservatives are fond of saying , "businesses do business in order to make money". Citizens pay their taxes in order meet their legal obligations.

Gates and Soros don't appear to mix their businesses with their philanthropy. I think that's the right approach. Both are quite generous in their giving to charities.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm pretty sure that Soros and Buffet give generously to charity as well as Bill Gates. If that doesn't qualify as generous then I don't know what does. Nobody requires charitable contribution. You want to duct tape the labels such as liberal or conservative to fiscal actions when it's really not about money at all. Being generous with your time, actions and moral support are much more important. How much moral support does the rich conservative give to the poor? How many rich conservatives have gone public with a call of action in the name of the poor?

Where exactly did I claim that liberals need not be generous? I missed that part. Where did I claim something about 'fair and just Government'? You see, that's what I mean by your word games. As I said I am not going to play so that's the last I have to say about that.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Where exactly did I claim that liberals need not be generous? I missed that part. Where did I claim something about 'fair and just Government'?
I think we are confusing my comments with yours. I claimed that Soros and Gates are not supposed to be paying their taxes out of a sense of generosity. I said that their interest was in fair and just Government, The main point I was making is that the tax system should be confused with philanthropy. They are two different things. One is a ciizen's duty. the other is an expression of character.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

As Bob Dylan sings, 'Where charity is supposed to cover up for a multitude of sins'.

Quote Art:

. What is it I say the conservative rich do with the Government?

Buy off government to support their cause. Is a liberal (or progressive) perspective where the government doesn't get bought off by the liberal rich? And, since it is all a play on words, anyway, have the little people 'do what I say, not what I do'? In this case, if they really want to be 'for the poor', then, they can 'put their money where their mouth is' anytime they want, right? Especially if they claim that to be their way of 'supporting government'....

Quote Art:

It certainly is in my book. It is the citizen's duty to pay the taxes that the law prescribes, and not one penny more.

So, when that option is favored to the rich as they have bought government off, no problem, right? Whether it is the 'liberal rich' or the 'conservative rich' doing it....I mean, since they no longer have to be generous, what is the point of Soros and Gates saying that they wouldn't mind paying more to the government? Is that really for Soros and Gates--or everyone else? I mean, when it's all a play on words, you never really know where the truth lies, do you, Art?

Quote Art:
Quote Kerry:

what do you think about my point that any rich person has to gain some intrinsic psychological quality, or characteristic, within themselves that, in some ways, represents 'greed'--or they wouldn't be so rich?

I don't know what this means.

It's a rather simple assertion that you appear to want to make more complicated, Art. But, the whole point is that a person who gains much more than those around them has to have a stronger intrinsic psychological quality, or characteristic, that would represent 'greed'. It's an observation in fact (as close as observations in fact can come to human behavior--despite whether they are 'liberal' or 'conservative'-minded). Soros did that with the manipulation of the financial markets to cost the British pound--despite what it may or may not do to the 'poor of England'.

Quote Art:

As Conservatives are fond of saying , "businesses do business in order to make money". Citizens pay their taxes in order meet their legal obligations.

That's, of course, the written 'legal obligations' that have already been unduly influenced by the contributions of the wealthy to government--whether they are 'liberal' or 'conservative'....none of this is really for 'the little people', is it, Art? They are just pawns in the process.

Sometimes, I can get on my Charlie Manson look and claim: "The rich man is using the poor man against the middle man'--and, although I'm doing it as in jest, I actually mean what I am saying...

Quote Bush_Wacker:

How many rich conservatives have gone public with a call of action in the name of the poor?

As I said, 'The rich man is using the poor man against the middle man'...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

I said that their interest was in fair and just Government, The main point I was making is that the tax system should be confused with philanthropy. They are two different things. One is a ciizen's duty. the other is an expression of character.

Is that the 'elitist accolades' kind of character--or just an 'any man' kind of character, Art? And, that's an important point because I do think that it will factor into how you define a 'fair and just Government'. And, when it comes to 'being for the poor', what is the rich offering other than this supposed 'philanthropy'--especially considering 'giving more to the government'--Art? Come on, Art. Is a tax law that 'gives more to the poor' anything else other than done by some supposed 'philanthropic' purpose (there is no limit to the amount of good that I can do with someone else's money)? Now, who said something about a 'play on words', Bush_Wacker?....but, that's when you can tolerate in your friends what you condemn in your enemies, right?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote THISAA:Take a breath. Your posts are making a perfect case for accelerating the war on pot.

Your silly lies to divert don't impress anyone. Lame ass Oxy junkies can do that.

Quote THISAA:You are single- handedly killing the chance for any legalization by being the poster boy for the conservative side.

I try harder. If your statement wasn't so stupid I might consider it for a couple seconds. As it is you are plain idiotic if you think after 75 years of censorship now that information is available it will drive people away? Only cowards and Neocons keeping out competition. Stop being so pedestrian in your TV view of life. Get some gumption and prove me wrong, prove what I being is false. Just say no, I want a word for pussies without being too offensive. What is the word how I feel about diversions to avoid debate and lies and silly threats.

Quote THISAA:Try Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Great place to score.

I live on the central coast why would I buy Mexican schwagg? Prove what I say isn't true or fly away little troll. Oh I see you're a poster girl for status quo cowards. Nice, lame and boring. Good, You think I have that much power, good again. Maybe I sell it like Cheney selling the Iraq war certainly doesn't want peace. If you think this isn't already formatted so I just push a button then you're as naive as the ditto car boy. If you have something to say by all means spit it out. If you just have empty threats and innuendo, save it. I post reality and references to back it up. You just say no and ramble on diverting anyway you can because you have no courage. You like cumoronman have one speed and a one track two party world where slaves get to pick their cages. Pitifools. Now if you actually do muster something substantial I might be interested in, post it. Otherwise if you want to speak to me, make an appointment. Dumb asses don't deserve cannabis.

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am

I was thinking similar lines of thought the other day but not about conservatudes smoking Ganja, most I knew hated it. They didn't like the Stones or Beatles either. But for some peculiar reason they liked LSD and Pink Floyd. Mathematicians and Nerds like Atheists generally frown on pot due to it's relaxing attributes and I think Athiests believe Jesus might be contagious and pot sets the stage to invite him in. Sorta like rednecks smoking crank to do piecemill work or double shifts. Where the speed is pretty common among blue colars, pot isn't. It also dispells booze intoxication, similar to why cocaine was snorted in disco's. Drink as much as you want and walk a straight line. Rednecks didn't do much acid either, but the future Wall St geeks might have expanded their minds in ways no one ever dreamed of. Funky Numbers is killing the country. Ganja was outlawed on a lie, twice. Nothing more to be said. Whatever it does or doesn't has been proven years ago. Since then it's just a matter of keeping it from the people. Those who cry too much info are afraid of it and that usually means they would sell out their country and countrymen and women for a profit selling sickening alternatives. Hummmm I wonder if we played Dark Side of the Moon real loud outside of one of the Brokerage Firms if they might start having flashbacks and go nuts selling off stocks, crash the market.

Ancient Temple Hashish Incense! Did Jesus Inhale?
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/topic/1090
Theoriology is Theoriology
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/sreply/376/
Blasphemy and The Tree of Life
http://endingcannabisprohibition.yuku.com/sreply/377/

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am

In considering the contrast between the 'elitist accolades' character vs. the 'any man' character, once again, it appears the our founders of the American experiment in democracy had a better political insight into this than does most of our modern pundits (of either the 'liberal' or 'conservative' persuasion) have. As Thomas Jefferson put it in a letter to Henry Lee dated August 10, 1824 (from my booklet, 'Jefferson--The Man, In His Own Words' edited by Robert C. Baron):

Men by their constitution are naturally divided into two parties: 1.) Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2.) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise despository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves.

The problem that I see facing us now is that both the 'liberal' and the 'conservative' political causes have become 'elitist'--as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum (or the Yin and Yang) of the same Corporatocracy....and whatever they may profess in the light is not the same as how they wish to rule in the shadows....and, as such, 'hypocrisy in government' becomes an equal opportunity option....as each side 'condones in their friends what they condemn in their enemies'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I heard Gates is making money on the charity deals. Same as the Big Pharma give aways. Always a catch. With Gates for every puter he gives away he sells software and gets rid of old inventory he doesn't have to dispose of. Enough about Soros. His interest is also profits. Ganja or Hemp in league big time with Monsanto can't be good for the people. Terminator seeds or cloning. Cannabis doesn't require Monsanto for anything. I'm skeptical over his idealistic concern for the drug war victims. Maybe, so far his influence hasn't done much damage to DEAth or benefits for the people. Big Pharma gives AIDs medicine that comes in a cocktail forcing the patients to buy two more drugs. Their subsidiaries in Big Ag simply create future work treating what they spray.

They get wealthy on us being stupid and that comes from what the TV and censored school books teach us. Like racism is taught generation after generation and although it has been neatly taken out of sight and PC cops are quick to wince if anyone misspeaks, it has not been taken out of mind. Typically most think only of the pedestrian reasons why we have racism. Divide and conquer, nothing personal. The boats from Niger, the pecking order set up as slick as hourly wages and assembly lines. Traffic jams bring Exxon more profits than not having them. Look, there it is for all to see but we are tranquilized into not thinking. Told to not question, just ask or just do what you're told.

Many today accept camera's everywhere, pisstastes, searches and all manner of BOR infringements I can't imagine us not objecting too in the 70's. Now they all can't wait to get their pictures taken in front of the town's new SWAT tank. One trillion dollars in tax money going to house, clothe and feed 2.4 million Americans behind bars, half non violent victims of the fabricated for profit police action drug war. Predominantly to remove Hemp and Ganja from the market shelves and keep a safe homegrown multi remedy weed from we the people. No packaging or fancy marketing gimmicks. No infrastructure like the booze industry. All made with fossil fools and fossil fool heavy users like smelting steel or running a fighter jet or an oil tanker. Just go to the garden and pick it. Or the local Apothecary. Or the hemp-yard for building supplies. It's already selling here and over $200 million has been sold, just not grown or processed here due to a policy of corporatism. Plus a hell of a lot of chicken little's and chickenhawks on both sides of the aisle making a buck on the misery of others. Stop it.

The government of, by and for the people vs the international corporations with no allegiance to the US or its Constitution. Or the Complex Institutions sucking tax money at the expense of maintenance and health care. Corporations supplemented with tax money to research and discover more crud that makes us sick. It really is that simple. Buying and Producing locally, with Hemp as the only thing we haven't tried. Poof there it is. Just grow it, almost anywhere. On hills prone to mudslides then reap the harvest for clothing and lumber and plumbing and food all meaning jobs. By-Pass Wall St., Wallmart and Wallsington. All in one damn plant and you think this is a back burner issue? Fight against crude oil all you want but the people are very selfish when it comes to their own families needs. Without a viable alternative the status weird will continue trolling diversions and degrading anyone speaking against them.

Buying elections is only a prerequisite to buying legislation. All that buying reaps huge rewards and gutting checks and balances makes it easier for the Neocons to rape and pillage. The silence of the corporate media with puppets diverting its nonsense even farther out calling it Liberal. As if BS isn't just BS. Special BS I guess. Two football teams in battle while the NFL cashes in the days recipes. Duh. Don't take anyone's word for it at face value. Think. One and one is two. Hemp or Ganja is or it is not. Prisons take more tax money than the poor or they don't. The poor spend it locally so it creates jobs and profits. The prisons keep it. Even if its a prison town its paid by taxes and the profits leave town. If we gave the poor what it cost to cage them. There would probably be less crime to deal with. If we pay them less than it cost to live. They have to either leave their kids twice to work a double shift or live below basic standards with no chance in an emergency. Cheap labor = Pure Profits on top. Obvious they are not going to give it up. Never have, never will even if they personally find Jesus, they have to answer to a board and shareholders. So we can do this ourselves and i see no reason other than legalities not too. Bad laws are meant to be broken. Time has determined the Ganjawar is a bad law with very little to do with health and safety.

Everything I've said is or it isn't and can be proven as such. I'd be silly to bring lies knowingly. I admit much of it is unheard of stuff. Much is even highly skeptical. Yet 40 years ago I thought the same thing and each year more and more information emerged, with nothing taught. Nothing on TV or rarely in Magazines. News that's fit to print never included Ganja, GanjaRx or Hemp. Hemp canvas and burlap built this country and have been lumped into the CSA as schedule#1 narcotic. That fact has one conclusion, eliminate competition. To be assigned #1 it has to have no value to society as medicine, be highly addictive and a menace. My hemp blue jeans are grown by 32 countries legally but not by American farmers. 90 million pounds of Big Ag poisons sprayed on cotton do abort fetus'.√ They do make people sick.√ They are crude oil based √ and do run off into streams √ and mix with the dirt kids play in.√ They foul the air we breath.√

Those are just reality based observations you can measure. To bury your heads and deny deny deny is a treasonous act at this point. We can not afford to keep bailing out the international corporations profits at the expense of our jobs, outsourced to Bangladesh or Thailand prison labor after rounding up 60.000 alleged drug users. Koch's selling cage space and renting prisoners for competitive cost with disposable labor overseas after NAFTA/GATT drove a stake through the heart of the workers. So prove what I bring isn't what I claim or blow away, back under the rock whence ye came, back to the Dung Worrier cowards. Nothing more ugly than a traitor, nothing more idiotic than a traitor who doesn't even know it. They cheer for the enemy, buys them bullets and rockets with each Wallmart flag purchased. Those polyfiber pants and package wrap you tossed away, just gave Al Qaeda more underwear to blow up. The drug war supplies DEA offices all over the world. Lets deals take place behind closed doors. Doesn't change the drug scene, its easier than ever to score. Prices are cheaper for the hard stuff. Simple pot possession leading the busts, inhaling doesn't matter. Obama possessed. Shouldn't he turn himself in?

Electric Emperor or if you've got the funds, buy the damn book and what i claim won't be so hard to conceive.

Ganjawarnews Template With the internet and past decade of new books Cannabis ignorance is lazy.

Ganjawarnews * Ganjawareness

Ending Cannabis Prohibition

Uses for Hemp youtube collection

Caution: this information may cause brainache in those who haven't excersized their brains in a while or to those always waiting for someone to tell them how to think. It causes flat out heebee geebee's in dung worriers and DEAth Merchant's. Censored school books usually makes scholars cannabis illiterate. It makes pill pusher doctors without a clue, stutter and Neocons shake in their PJ's that someone might find out exactly how full of shit they are. Politicians are basically reduced to Corporate employees lying to keep prohibition profits perpetuating on the prison paraphernalia and thousands of copshops getting bloated budgets saveding our kids from burlap...

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am

I really think that trying to define any "ism" is like trying to define "beautiful". Liberal or Conservative are in the eye of the beholder so to speak. What I think is beautiful you may think is hideous. You can define the word to a point but application of the word is a whole different thing. I truly believe that Warren Buffet wants to make things better for the country in a liberal way. The same way I believe that true conservatives want to make things better for themselves. Of course I could be wrong, I'm only human.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

As Bob Dylan sings, 'Where charity is supposed to cover up for a multitude of sins'.

Art wrote:

. What is it I say the conservative rich do with the Government?

Buy off government to support their cause. Is a liberal (or progressive) perspective where the government doesn't get bought off by the liberal rich? And, since it is all a play on words, anyway, have the little people 'do what I say, not what I do'? In this case, if they really want to be 'for the poor', then, they can 'put their money where their mouth is' anytime they want, right? Especially if they claim that to be their way of 'supporting government'....

Art wrote:

It certainly is in my book. It is the citizen's duty to pay the taxes that the law prescribes, and not one penny more.

So, when that option is favored to the rich as they have bought government off, no problem, right? Whether it is the 'liberal rich' or the 'conservative rich' doing it....I mean, since they no longer have to be generous, what is the point of Soros and Gates saying that they wouldn't mind paying more to the government? Is that really for Soros and Gates--or everyone else? I mean, when it's all a play on words, you never really know where the truth lies, do you, Art?

Art wrote:

Kerry wrote:

what do you think about my point that any rich person has to gain some intrinsic psychological quality, or characteristic, within themselves that, in some ways, represents 'greed'--or they wouldn't be so rich?

I don't know what this means.

It's a rather simple assertion that you appear to want to make more complicated, Art. But, the whole point is that a person who gains much more than those around them has to have a stronger intrinsic psychological quality, or characteristic, that would represent 'greed'. It's an observation in fact (as close as observations in fact can come to human behavior--despite whether they are 'liberal' or 'conservative'-minded). Soros did that with the manipulation of the financial markets to cost the British pound--despite what it may or may not do to the 'poor of England'.

Art wrote:

As Conservatives are fond of saying , "businesses do business in order to make money". Citizens pay their taxes in order meet their legal obligations.

That's, of course, the written 'legal obligations' that have already been unduly influenced by the contributions of the wealthy to government--whether they are 'liberal' or 'conservative'....none of this is really for 'the little people', is it, Art? They are just pawns in the process.

Sometimes, I can get on my Charlie Manson look and claim: "The rich man is using the poor man against the middle man'--and, although I'm doing it as in jest, I actually mean what I am saying...Art wrote: I said that their

Art wrote:

I said that their interest was in fair and just Government, The main point I was making is that the tax system should be confused with philanthropy. They are two different things. One is a ciizen's duty. the other is an expression of character.

Is that the 'elitist accolades' kind of character--or just an 'any man' kind of character, Art? And, that's an important point because I do think that it will factor into how you define a 'fair and just Government'. And, when it comes to 'being for the poor', what is the rich offering other than this supposed 'philanthropy'--especially considering 'giving more to the government'--Art? Come on, Art. Is a tax law that 'gives more to the poor' anything else other than done by some supposed 'philanthropic' purpose (there is no limit to the amount of good that I can do with someone else's money)? Now, who said something about a 'play on words', Bush_Wacker?....but, that's when you can tolerate in your friends what you condemn in your enemies, right? [quote]Perhaps if you broke your stream of consciousness down into simple, intelligable sections, we could make some progress. These ramblings seem to me more trouble to decipher that they are worth.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Actually, DdC, concerning the issue of drug abuse in general, I think that you are right on target to assume that the answer offered by the corporate media (and corporate medical system) is more politicized than fact. But, nowadays, no surprise, eh?

If you want to talk about the claim that, somehow, there is a true rationale to outlawing certain drugs as being dangerous while claiming that the legalized drugs are the only ones that supposedly prove any medicinal or even recreational benefits as having any proof or rational consistency, you really couldn't get much farther off--and, therefore, any more politicized--than our society is today. The two legal recreational drugs--alcohol and tobacco--carry some of the most potentially devastating consequences from their overuse (while it has become politically correct to castigate tobacco, alcohol has dangers just as devastating considering their longterm and short-term consequences--alcohol withdrawal, for instance, is more deadly than heroin withdrawal--and the toxic effects of alcohol overuse can affect every organ in the body--especially the brain, the heart, and the liver--so, if you are going to use alcohol and tobacco as indications of legal recreational drugs, it's hard to make a real rational case against any other drug's legality). And, as far as what is determined to be a good therapeutic vs. a bad therapeutic medicinal drug, the takeover of such statistical studies and analyses by entities with a bias, and, therefore, an agenda, to their results (such as Big Pharma corporations) has me to conclude that anything that they come up with has to be treated with a large grain of salt--again, as more politicized results than objective ones. But, as medical care becomes more institutionalized, such 'statistical results' will gain more 'credence'--and more of a market share....what a predicament....

I'm not sure marijuana is the answer to all our woes--but I am in agreement with you that it doesn't deserve the categorization it has received.

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, Art, thanks for repeating my posts #82 and #83 in your post #89 in a rather stilted manner, but, what's your point? Are you going to be like Ulysses and the next thing you say is only some short and senseless blurb directed against my character?

'Elitist accolade' character vs. 'any man' character....

Quote Art:

Perhaps if you broke your stream of consciousness down into simple, intelligable sections, we could make some progress. These ramblings seem to me more trouble to decipher that they are worth.

Oh, I see. You did have a comment stuck there at the end. How tactful of your presentation--and generous of your position--to accuse me of skewing the argument.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

You can define the word to a point but application of the word is a whole different thing.

You're the one that laid the claim on my argument being all about a 'play on words' (did you notice that 'play on words' with 'on where the truth lies', Bush_Wacker?). What is not a 'play on words'--and what part of your 'liberal rich wanting government to give' is not a 'play on words'--at least and not be just another 'hypocrisy in government' since, as Art put it, they aren't expected to be generous even if they want 'their government concerned about the poor'....

The rich man is using the poor man against the middle man....and using 'government' to do it....both the liberals and the conservatives....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

You can define the word to a point but application of the word is a whole different thing.

You're the one that laid the claim on my argument being all about a 'play on words' (did you notice that 'play on words' with 'on where the truth lies', Bush_Wacker?). What is not a 'play on words'--and what part of your 'liberal rich wanting government to give' is not a 'play on words'--at least and not be just another 'hypocrisy in government' since, as Art put it, they aren't expected to be generous even if they want 'their government concerned about the poor'....

The rich man is using the poor man against the middle man....and using 'government' to do it....both the liberals and the conservatives....

You're right and I apologize. I stepped right into it. Liberalism and Conservatism are in the eye of the beholder. The rich men are also using the middleman against the poor man. The middleman demonizes the poor.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

The middleman demonizes the poor.

Is that any different than the liberal rich demonizing the middle man by claiming such 'concern' (and 'righteous cuase') over the poor, Bush_Wacker? Who's more responsible for the predicament of the poor, the middle man--or the rich? And, who's more able to take advantage of the poor's position--the middle man, or the rich?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

The middleman demonizes the poor.

Is that any different than the liberal rich demonizing the middle man by claiming such 'concern' (and 'righteous cuase') over the poor, Bush_Wacker? Who's more responsible for the predicament of the poor, the middle man--or the rich? And, who's more able to take advantage of the poor's position--the middle man, or the rich?

It is different in my opinion because the liberal rich don't generally demonize the middle man. They demonize their own class for not helping more. The rich and the middleman and the poor are responsible for the predicament of the poor. The rich look down on the middleman and the poor. The middleman looks down on the poor. The poor look down on the poorest among them. The middleman can take advantage of the poor's position using their labor. The rich can take advantage of the poor in many ways including having them fight their wars for them. This will never change. What can change is the demographics of the classes. At least half of the population fits into the poor category and a very small portion of the population fits into the rich category.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

It is different in my opinion because the liberal rich don't generally demonize the middle man. They demonize their own class for not helping more. The rich and the middleman and the poor are responsible for the predicament of the poor.

Well, difficult to pin down any problem there, Bush_Wacker. Apparently, according to you, 'everyone' is 'equally responsible for the predicament of the poor'. So, in this search to not have a 'play on words' miscue the real issues at hand, is that 'everyone' to mean that liberals and conservatives alike--of any economic category--are to be 'responsible for the predicament of the poor'? And, if that's the case, how is 'government' to offer a 'fair and just' solution? More to my point, will it tax the middle class more in relation to the rich (like it already does now)? For, of course, 'the benefit of the poor'. Right in line with our own medical system making medical care 'free of charge' to some--as it inordinately places the burden of paying for that to the taxpaying consumer that, then, has to turn around and pay separately for their own medical care even if that risks bankruptcy. That kind of governmental (and systemic) 'relief for the poor', Bush_Wacker? And, then, when a problem has to be identified in order to propose a solution, 'everyone' is 'equally responsible for the predicament of the poor'......but, when it really comes to the enactment of solutions through government, some people are 'more equal' than others, is that it?.....especially if decided by an 'elitist accolade' form of character skewing government on their behalf....for, of course, 'the best of reasons'.....

I know how the real words of Jesus are so blase' for the 'new order religious paradigm' but I think there is still some real world substance to Jesus' statement in Luke 12:48--'....From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.' That's already the medico-legal requirement for physicians to have 'personal liability' added to their every decision. Why isn't that the case with every person with such political capacities--even the rich who makes decisions (that can just as adversely affect people's lives) in corporations? Personal--not limited--liability....

Quote Bush_Wacker:

The rich look down on the middleman and the poor. The middleman looks down on the poor. The poor look down on the poorest among them.

That sort of reminds me of Kris Kristofferson's words in his song, 'Jesus was a Capricorn':

Some folks hate the whites who hate the blacks who hate the Klan
Most of us hate anything that we don't understand.

'Cause everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on
A fool they can feel better than any time of day
Someone doing something dirty, we're supposed to frown on
If you can't find nobody else, you can help yourself to me

Help yourself, brother...

But, I'm not sure how that solves anything--other than maybe the way the 'liberal rich helping the poor through government' solves anything....

Quote Bush_Wacker:

The rich can take advantage of the poor in many ways including having them fight their wars for them. This will never change. What can change is the demographics of the classes. At least half of the population fits into the poor category and a very small portion of the population fits into the rich category.

OK, I guess that could be your statement in fact on such issues--and I don't actually disagree. But, is there a problem there you want to solve--or is it just a declaration of acquiescence to the 'way things are' that you are making? And, how does that relate to the more sophistic arrangement of the liberal rich through government to 'tax for the poor' (as I suspect they will still have 'loopholes for themselves')? Or, is that more including the middle man in with the plight of the poor instead of the rich (you know, have the conservative rich move the middle man's jobs over to countries whose poor will work for less and, then, have the liberal rich tax the rest of the middle class out of existence 'for the poor'....and both such forms of rich 'using government for their own elitist accolades'....against 'any other man'....). The rich man (both 'liberal' and 'conservative' in their own ways 'with government') is using the poor man against the middle man....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
to accuse me of skewing the argument.....
I don't recall accusing you of skewing your argument. I accused you of making it unintelligable. Are you sure you didn't mean "screwing the argument"?
Are you going to be like Ulysses and the next thing you say is only some short and senseless blurb directed against my character?
Getting a little sensative, are we? I have said nothing about your character. Only about your syntax.
since, as Art put it, they aren't expected to be generous even if they want 'their government concerned about the poor'....
I don't expect generosity or stinginess to be a part of the tax system. Taxes are for funding the Government. Charities are for expressing generosity or stinginess.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

Getting a little sensative, are we? I have said nothing about your character. Only about your syntax.

Is that what this meant:

Perhaps if you broke your stream of consciousness down into simple, intelligable sections, we could make some progress. These ramblings seem to me more trouble to decipher that they are worth.

I am not unintelligible and rambling. It's just a 'syntax' problem is it, Art?

Then, I'll disperse of any syntax and restate it:

'Elitist accolade' character vs. 'any man' character....

Any comments?

I don't expect generosity or stinginess to be a part of the tax system. Taxes are for funding the Government. Charities are for expressing generosity or stinginess.

Is that all, Art? What about Soros and Gates and all those taxes going for the poor? Is that not part of your progressive position? I am just asking a question. I'm wondering how you are any different from the conservatives here. And, speaking of which, that's paying the government only if required and regimented by law, correct? Nothing else......

As far as charity in general, and, as far as I'm concerned, certainly any 'charitable cause through government', is concerned, I'll stick with what Bob Dylan sings, 'Where charity is supposed to cover up for a multitude of sins'. Government shouldn't be playing favorites--whether that's billionaires or blacks. Do you agree?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The Treasury Department has a web site -pay.gov- where anyone who wants to can make a contibution at anytime to pay down the Federal debt. I wonder how many people have actually contributed?

This proves that rich liberals are HYPOCRITS!

http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/why-are-rich-liberals-such-hypocrites/

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 11:30 am

According to Art, that would be stupid....despite what Soros and Gates say....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Elitist - "considered superior byothers or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power,wealth, or position in society: elitist country clubbers who havetheirs and don't care about anybody else."

Accolade - "any award, honor, or laudatory notice: The play receivedaccolades from the press."

'Elitist accolade' character vs. 'any man' character....

Any comments?

None whatsoever.
What about Soros and Gates and all those taxes going for the poor? Is that not part of your progressive position? I am just asking a question. I'm wondering how you are any different from the conservatives here.
Probably in that I vote much differently on public policy than conservatives. I pay my taxes in exactly the same way that Conservatives pay their taxes. No difference.
And, speaking of which, that's paying the government only if required and regimented by law, correct? Nothing else......
Correct.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Why the Web of Life is Dying...

Could you survive with just half of your organs? Think about it. What if you had just half your brain, one kidney, half of your heart, one lung, half a liver and only half of your skin? It would be pretty hard to survive right? Sure, you could survive losing just one kidney or half of your liver, but at some point, losing pieces from all of your organs would be too much and you would die.