If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Jay-Z confused by Occupy Wall Street, 'What are you fighting for?'   (nydailynews.com) divider line 434
    More: Amusing, Occupy Wall Street, Jay Z, Russell Simmons, fixed rate mortgage, Zuccotti Park, demonization  
•       •       •

15635 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2012 at 5:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



434 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-10 11:12:42 AM

o5iiawah: So if I come up with a product or service that enriches the lives of millions or even billions of people, who are you to keep me from being compensated for it


You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.

All you did was have an idea. Maybe it was a good idea, and sure, you should be compensated for it. But that comes back around to the point that, what the ever-loving fark do you need with billions of dollars? If you make enough from your idea to have a good life, that should be enough.

and where does the extra money go?

Well, initially it would go to the IRS. Where it goes from there, we can all decide together as a nation. The possibilities are limitless. Tell you what... you pay yourself $250K/year for the next 50 years, and we can take the remaining $987500000 of your cool billion and maybe,

-feed 2 million starving people for a year.

-start a fund to build a space elevator

-improve the worldwide communications network

-offer about 20000 people a $50k no interest business loan to use to get their ideas off the ground (and once they pay it back, holy crap, we could do this one again!)

-start a project to terraform Mars

-fund research to improve alternative energy sources

See? You get to live very comfortably, and the rest of the world benefits too, instead of one useless person having more than they could ever spend or appreciate. It's not that difficult a concept. It was only about 50 years ago that this country had tax brackets that reflected this idea. The world didn't end, innovation wasn't stifled, and some people still had more than others. Hopefully, we can end the current bout of insanity we're going through and get back to being more civilized.
 
2012-09-10 11:51:40 AM
He's not the only one.
 
2012-09-10 12:24:32 PM

ScreamingHangover:

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects and is now rich enough to be part of the 1% to understand what you're doing, the problem ismay be with you, not the other guy...


FTFY. Of course Jay-Z is fundamentally opposed to criticism of the "the American Dream"- individual mobility is a central part of his personal identity - as well it should be, probably. That doesn't mean that the criticism is wrong.

Anyway, I'm pretty proud there are still people willing to go about things without recourse to mainstream pr strategies and corporatized politics more generally. As you may be aware, though I doubt it, American politics and society is morally bankrupt for a reason, and someone had to take a genuine stab at pointing that out. That's not called having "failed", it's called having tried.
 
2012-09-10 12:27:00 PM
Sorry, what's wrong with demonizing rich people?
 
2012-09-10 12:30:56 PM

FloydA: joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.



As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.


It's both actually. And other things. i don't understand why it's so hard for people to accept that different people in OWS were for different things, when the Democratic Party or the Republican Party are allowed to be wholly inconsistent. Oh, right - because they're not powerful.
 
2012-09-10 12:50:31 PM
"Rap and hip hop is the expression of urban youth, representing the voice of the street, instead of corporate music."



Keep it real, Jay
 
2012-09-10 01:11:35 PM

rocky_howard: cman: Electricity is the product of capitalism

Your move, and I believe that is check mate

Hardly since both writing and printing books weren't a product of capitalism and they are the cornerstone of human knowledge.
Ditto for math and language.

BAM!!



Sorry to burst your bubble, but (Chinese predecessor aside) Gutenberg developed the printing press for the explicit purpose of making a buttload of money: it was a business venture (there were even lawsuits between him and his business partners). And the Earliest known examples of math and written language are cuneiform tablets used to maintain accounting records.

The development of math, written language, and the printing press were all about money.
 
2012-09-10 01:20:31 PM

o5iiawah: intelligent comment below: Ah yes the old and tired "I'm rich because I'm better than you" opinion. The perfect excuse for the inflated sense of self worth from a person who will always be a nothing in life but desperately wants to believe they are important.

Its true. Poverty is a state of mind or a way to describe the aggregate financial situation of an individual. Barring a scant percentage who are simply a paycheck from getting their foot over the top rung and being able to sprint away from the lifestyle. A few thousand here or there to an individual who cant budget or blows their money on items that arent assets wont make a lick of difference.

You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"


THIS

Just as one example...if you contribute the maximum ($5,000) to a Roth IRA every year starting in your 20's you'll pretty much certainly be a millionaire when you retire. Hell, it doesn't even need to be $5K...just put in what you can. That on top of whatever you get at work (401K etc.). I realized the importance of this at a young age and got a part time job delivering pizza's pretty much solely for the purpose of funding my Roth IRA. My friends easily spend 5K a year on cigarettes and video games and porn etc. They are still where we started...I am now quite comfortable. Was some of it luck? Sure. You can't avoid luck. But I firmly believe that my decision to obtain a second job and invest rather than blowing what little money I made on stupid shiat is something that separates me from my acquaintances who are still in poverty. I tried to explain what I was doing to them time and time again and they just didn't get it. They can only live in the moment. Some people are just that way...and they will stay in poverty because they keep doing the things that got them there in the first place. It's truly a mental illness.
 
2012-09-10 01:22:45 PM

Z-clipped: o5iiawah: You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"

I don't believe in principle that there should be some kind of legal cap on income, (I do believe that corporate salaries should be capped as a multiple of the bottom salary paid in the company,) but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired. There should be such a thing as "enough", and it's sadly missing in American culture.

When I read about people who have amassed uninherited billion-dollar fortunes, I basically assume that they are mentally ill. I just don't see any point in having that much wealth, unless

a) it's intended to start some kind of family dynasty of useless aristocrats, which I think should be illegal, or

b) it's just for the sake of "having it", in which case, fark you, people in this world are starving. No one person's efforts are truly worth that much more than a farmer's, or a sales clerk's, or a cab driver's or a soldier's.


Your way of thinking is genuinely interesting. It's one that I can not even begin to understand. That's not meant as an insult...it's just...I don't know. Don't even know where to start, really.
 
2012-09-10 01:28:55 PM

Z-clipped: You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.


The guy who manufactures the ipad didn't engineer it, market it for have the wherewithal to identify that there were a large group of people who wanted one. His skill is to assemble it, ususally following some diagram that a higher-paid engineer developed so that just about anyone could put one together.

The guy who drives the product to the customer's doorstep didn't engineer the product, forsee its demand or market it, he's there to deliver it and just as easily as he delivers the ipad, he could deliver a load of oranges or a load of trees to be made into decking.

The guy who designs the advertising for the product is paid well by the guy who designs the product since making the market aware of the product is critical to its success. I'm willing to bet a company like Apple has some very highly paid and talented individuals on staff.

You're one of those "you didn't build that" crowd and thats fine. Let's be honest in saying that an industrialist with a brilliant idea is probably not going to be on the assembly line, packing the product, driving the truck, delivering the product and drawing up marketing sketches to be submitted to media all at once. He hires people to do that for him since his time is spent coming up with ideas that enrich the lives of millions whilst employing thousands or tens of thousands of people, who owe the fact that they have a job to said guy who made the product.

And when it comes to the "infrastructure" required, I'm sure that his company or his idea is going to generate tax revenue which then translates into infrastructure that his business uses.

The fact is, the guy on the line or the guy driving the truck has a certain skillset and chances are that there are millions of others just like him. The fact that he delivers a product does not grant him ownership to the assets of the product.
 
2012-09-10 01:32:01 PM

Z-clipped: o5iiawah: So if I come up with a product or service that enriches the lives of millions or even billions of people, who are you to keep me from being compensated for it

You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.

All you did was have an idea. Maybe it was a good idea, and sure, you should be compensated for it. But that comes back around to the point that, what the ever-loving fark do you need with billions of dollars? If you make enough from your idea to have a good life, that should be enough.

and where does the extra money go?

Well, initially it would go to the IRS. Where it goes from there, we can all decide together as a nation. The possibilities are limitless. Tell you what... you pay yourself $250K/year for the next 50 years, and we can take the remaining $987500000 of your cool billion and maybe,

-feed 2 million starving people for a year.

-start a fund to build a space elevator

-improve the worldwide communications network

-offer about 20000 people a $50k no interest business loan to use to get their ideas off the ground (and once they pay it back, holy crap, we could do this one again!)

-start a project to terraform Mars

-fund research to improve alternative energy sources

See? You get to live very comfortably, and the rest of the world benefits too, instead of ...


My head just assploded.
 
2012-09-10 01:45:03 PM

Silly Jesus: Z-clipped: o5iiawah: You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"

I don't believe in principle that there should be some kind of legal cap on income, (I do believe that corporate salaries should be capped as a multiple of the bottom salary paid in the company,) but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired. There should be such a thing as "enough", and it's sadly missing in American culture.

When I read about people who have amassed uninherited billion-dollar fortunes, I basically assume that they are mentally ill. I just don't see any point in having that much wealth, unless

a) it's intended to start some kind of family dynasty of useless aristocrats, which I think should be illegal, or

b) it's just for the sake of "having it", in which case, fark you, people in this world are starving. No one person's efforts are truly worth that much more than a farmer's, or a sales clerk's, or a cab driver's or a soldier's.

Your way of thinking is genuinely interesting. It's one that I can not even begin to understand. That's not meant as an insult...it's just...I don't know. Don't even know where to start, really.


Limiting it to the last 3 paragraphs, I actually have similar thoughts, but a little different.  I don't get why billionaires work 80 hour weeks.  Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anythgin hands-on?  I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life.  I don't mind that they do, but I think it's crazy.  Maybe it's just some weird competitive thing, and they don't know how to have cool hobbies like Richard Branson.
 
2012-09-10 01:49:43 PM

BMFPitt: Silly Jesus: Z-clipped: o5iiawah: You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"

I don't believe in principle that there should be some kind of legal cap on income, (I do believe that corporate salaries should be capped as a multiple of the bottom salary paid in the company,) but I simply do not believe that anyone.... anyone needs much more than $250K/ year. If you can't be satisfied with the lifestyle that much money affords you, even living in NYC or Paris or Tokyo, there's something seriously wrong with the way your brain is wired. There should be such a thing as "enough", and it's sadly missing in American culture.

When I read about people who have amassed uninherited billion-dollar fortunes, I basically assume that they are mentally ill. I just don't see any point in having that much wealth, unless

a) it's intended to start some kind of family dynasty of useless aristocrats, which I think should be illegal, or

b) it's just for the sake of "having it", in which case, fark you, people in this world are starving. No one person's efforts are truly worth that much more than a farmer's, or a sales clerk's, or a cab driver's or a soldier's.

Your way of thinking is genuinely interesting. It's one that I can not even begin to understand. That's not meant as an insult...it's just...I don't know. Don't even know where to start, really.

Limiting it to the last 3 paragraphs, I actually have similar thoughts, but a little different.  I don't get why billionaires work 80 hour weeks.  Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anythgin hands-on?  I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life.  I don't mind that they do, ...


I agree. The psychological profiles of such people are pretty interesting.
 
2012-09-10 02:28:11 PM

BMFPitt: I don't get why billionaires work 80 hour weeks.  Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anythgin hands-on?  I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life.  I don't mind that they do, but I think it's crazy.


I dont get it either. For the mega rich, they are going to run short in minutes long before they run short on dollars but who am I do dictate how someone else lives?
 
2012-09-10 02:33:42 PM

Silly Jesus: Watch out, what you've just said is the equivalent here of saying that you love Hitler.


*sprays you with anti-troll spray* that is probably one the most idiotic comparisons I have ever heard. If you don't make payments on your car and the bank takes it back, then you love hitler. are you really that farking stupid?  Nevermind... you probably are.
 
2012-09-10 02:36:46 PM

Z-clipped: See? You get to live very comfortably, and the rest of the world benefits too, instead of one useless person having more than they could ever spend or appreciate. It's not that difficult a concept. It was only about 50 years ago that this country had tax brackets that reflected this idea. The world didn't end, innovation wasn't stifled, and some people still had more than others. Hopefully, we can end the current bout of insanity we're going through and get back to being more civilized.


The tax rates of a quarter century ago were set to pay for the war, not to create Utopia. Once the was was paid for, the right-wing extremist JFK cut the rates.

A funny thing happens when you decide to tax someone at 99%, You get 1% of productivity out of them. If Steve Jobs could only have made $250k/yr, he would have only worked one day per year.

When you tax (take via force) from someone, they'll seek to avoid it. They'll hide their money, move to a better state move out of the country or quit working altogether.
 
2012-09-10 02:42:06 PM

ideamaster: Silly Jesus: Watch out, what you've just said is the equivalent here of saying that you love Hitler.

*sprays you with anti-troll spray* that is probably one the most idiotic comparisons I have ever heard. If you don't make payments on your car and the bank takes it back, then you love hitler. are you really that farking stupid?  Nevermind... you probably are.


Just my observation of the general sentiment here.

Not sure where the hate is coming from...I was agreeing with your sentiments.
 
2012-09-10 02:42:24 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: WMittensRomney: Jump, you f@#kers.

Occupy Wall Street didn't "accomplish" anything because you don't undo 30 years of bullshiat built on top of a regressive and conservative system in one day. You don't even have a platform in the beginning - you just know that something is wrong and want to do something about it. That's what happened, on a mass scale.

And on an aside, reintroducing the language of class (99% vs 1%) back into mainstream political dialogue is a pretty big deal.

got it. so what they accomplished was class warfare. anything else?


I could list some, but really, the fact that we're sitting here talking about class politics on the flimsiest of news hooks is enough for me. Maybe not for you, but it is for me.

i188.photobucket.com

Thanks for playing.
 
2012-09-10 03:25:15 PM

Silly Jesus: The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.


Oh, it can. And has.
 
2012-09-10 03:30:58 PM

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),

Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.

I'm pretty sure he has at least a little intelligence, enough to not outright say that American citizens should be killed en masse because he doesn't like them and what they think. It's really obvious that's what he meant, considering his was shiatting himself in self-generated rage every time he mentioned OWS.
Oh, I get it. You figured it out, just like the Storm Front people figured out that socialists are filthy scum that only want to destroy the greatest country on Earth for their Soviet and Cuban overlords. In other words, you just yank it out of your butt, and claim to know what other people are thinking.

Got it.


Listen to Mike Savage for three hours, hear nothing but him biatching and whining about how America isn't how he thinks it should be and attacking his fellow Americans for trying to do something about unfair conditions by spewing venomous bile at them while doing his best not to outright say they should all be executed. Plus all the snippets and clips I've heard at other times which were basically the same thing every time, screaming and rage and hatred.

When a man presents himself as a completely worthless farktard every time he opens his mouth, it's hard not to see him any other way. When Savage starts showing some humanity, maybe I'll think of him as human. Don't see how that's "pulling things out of my ass", but you always seem to dismiss and ignore things in order to try to be a smug dick towards others.
 
2012-09-10 03:38:17 PM

Z-clipped: GeneralJim: Ah, yes, Gandhi... The father of non-violent crapping on police cars and park rape. A true pioneer.

I have to wonder, were you gullible enough to be brainwashed by the media into this stupid sensationalist misrepresentation of the entire Occupy movement, or did you just latch onto it like a pitbull because they were spoon-feeding you the excuse you were already looking for to dismiss Occupy's real message?

I suppose you could also be trolling... I just can't tell if the obnoxious green font is a put on, or if you just really think your comments are special somehow.


Hey, if it happened once or one person did it, then everyone is responsible. That's how humans work, sadly. One shark attacks one person, people think all sharks everywhere are man-eaters. One car breaks down, people think all cars of that make and model are defective. The ability to generalize and assign negativity to an entire group is a sadly overused human power.

Besides, if you're talking about something you don't like, you want to make it look as bad as possible. Take one incident and scream that everyone is doing to, generates a lot more rage and hatred and television ratings.
 
2012-09-10 03:46:32 PM

o5iiawah: Z-clipped: You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.

The guy who manufactures the ipad didn't engineer it, market it for have the wherewithal to identify that there were a large group of people who wanted one. His skill is to assemble it, ususally following some diagram that a higher-paid engineer developed so that just about anyone could put one together.

The guy who drives the product to the customer's doorstep didn't engineer the product, forsee its demand or market it, he's there to deliver it and just as easily as he delivers the ipad, he could deliver a load of oranges or a load of trees to be made into decking.

The guy who designs the advertising for the product is paid well by the guy who designs the product since making the market aware of the product is critical to its success. I'm willing to bet a company like Apple has some very highly paid and talented individuals on staff.

You're one of those "you didn't build that" crowd and thats fine. Let's be honest in saying that an industrialist with a brilliant idea is probably not going to be on the assembly line, packing the product, driving the truck, delivering the product and drawing up marketing sketches to be submitted to media all at once. He hires people to do that for him since his time is spent coming up with ideas that e ...


No man is an island, we're all in it together, and everything we do is interconnected with each other in this society created by many.

Why are people like you so angry about the truth? You may have had an idea, but others helped you realize that idea. Without infrastructure, you couldn't get people to your location to help build your buildings and bring you the materials and transport out the finished product. Without others, you couldn't manufacture your product. Without others, you couldn't advertise your product. And without customers, you can't sell your products.

The arrogance and selfishness of humans never ceases to amaze and sadden me.
 
2012-09-10 04:02:29 PM

cman: TheMysticS: TheMysticS: cman: FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey

Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself

I've really come to respect you, cman.
You is all right.

Maybe I was wrong.
Did you send that message?
Or is the troll trolling you?
You never replied.

He was tolling. I added him to my ignore list so i didn't see his follow up. First guy I have ever ignored, too


Figured so.
 
2012-09-10 06:10:17 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: o5iiawah: Z-clipped: You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.

The guy who manufactures the ipad didn't engineer it, market it for have the wherewithal to identify that there were a large group of people who wanted one. His skill is to assemble it, ususally following some diagram that a higher-paid engineer developed so that just about anyone could put one together.

The guy who drives the product to the customer's doorstep didn't engineer the product, forsee its demand or market it, he's there to deliver it and just as easily as he delivers the ipad, he could deliver a load of oranges or a load of trees to be made into decking.

The guy who designs the advertising for the product is paid well by the guy who designs the product since making the market aware of the product is critical to its success. I'm willing to bet a company like Apple has some very highly paid and talented individuals on staff.

You're one of those "you didn't build that" crowd and thats fine. Let's be honest in saying that an industrialist with a brilliant idea is probably not going to be on the assembly line, packing the product, driving the truck, delivering the product and drawing up marketing sketches to be submitted to media all at once. He hires people to do that for him since his time is spent coming up with id ...


cache.trustedpartner.com
 
2012-09-10 06:59:07 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: No man is an island, we're all in it together, and everything we do is interconnected with each other in this society created by many.

Why are people like you so angry about the truth? You may have had an idea, but others helped you realize that idea. Without infrastructure, you couldn't get people to your location to help build your buildings and bring you the materials and transport out the finished product. Without others, you couldn't manufacture your product. Without others, you couldn't advertise your product. And without customers, you can't sell your products.


You can feel in your heart that we're all interconnected and you are free to live your life, absent of coercion, in the service of others. I choose to do it as well, however I refuse to be a part of a society that throws chains on someone and demands they serve others. We tried that before and it sucked. Maybe someone, somewhere up on a hill, there's going to be an angry old man who doesn't want to help anyone, be charitable or take care of anyone else. Who are we as a society to chain him up and demand his service? I hate to just outright call someone a marxist, but damn....

Why do you keep humping this idea of infrastructure? That everyone who drives on a road or drinks a glass of water is indebted to government or the greater society for everything they do? WE ALL PAY FOR THE ROADS. You're right, without others, a person cannot manufacture that product. that is why those "Others" are paid wages to manufacture the product.
 
2012-09-10 07:50:25 PM
Being a drug dealer is one of the few ways to make money in spite of government infrastructure.

You did build that.
 
2012-09-10 07:56:32 PM
Re: "You didn't build that": The industrialists, the organizers are like a catalyst. Combine that catalyst with labor and you get big, complex end products that require organizations to create.

The catalysts are rarer. Quite rare really. The labor is more common and more interchangeable. But it takes both the catalyst and the labor to make the end product. Both are important. Neither does much good by itself. The catalyst merely has grand dreams while the labor mills about, disorganized.
 
2012-09-10 08:26:15 PM

o5iiawah: Keizer_Ghidorah: No man is an island, we're all in it together, and everything we do is interconnected with each other in this society created by many.

Why are people like you so angry about the truth? You may have had an idea, but others helped you realize that idea. Without infrastructure, you couldn't get people to your location to help build your buildings and bring you the materials and transport out the finished product. Without others, you couldn't manufacture your product. Without others, you couldn't advertise your product. And without customers, you can't sell your products.

You can feel in your heart that we're all interconnected and you are free to live your life, absent of coercion, in the service of others. I choose to do it as well, however I refuse to be a part of a society that throws chains on someone and demands they serve others. We tried that before and it sucked. Maybe someone, somewhere up on a hill, there's going to be an angry old man who doesn't want to help anyone, be charitable or take care of anyone else. Who are we as a society to chain him up and demand his service? I hate to just outright call someone a marxist, but damn....

Why do you keep humping this idea of infrastructure? That everyone who drives on a road or drinks a glass of water is indebted to government or the greater society for everything they do? WE ALL PAY FOR THE ROADS. You're right, without others, a person cannot manufacture that product. that is why those "Others" are paid wages to manufacture the product.


I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. We both seem to agree that as a society we're all interconnected and that our money has gone to build the means to go places and buy the products others make. So why are you constantly trying to argue with everyone?

And why is others in quote marks?
 
2012-09-10 09:02:07 PM

o5iiawah: Its true. Poverty is a state of mind or a way to describe the aggregate financial situation of an individual. Barring a scant percentage who are simply a paycheck from getting their foot over the top rung and being able to sprint away from the lifestyle. A few thousand here or there to an individual who cant budget or blows their money on items that arent assets wont make a lick of difference.

You cant out-earn stupid. There's people who make $300,000/yr who are by all accounts flat broke as are there people who make $40,000 who are wealthy. A person who makes $250k+ is not immediately "Rich"



Ah yes, it's a state of mind. Not a reality to someone whos pensions and investments were torn up when they were retiring, or someone who spent their life working in a factory only to have it go overseas and them left with no job and too old and broke to go back to school to learn a new trade and be hired.

or someone who has medical bills that bankrupted them.

or someone whos business failed... restaurants fail 70% of the time.

What about those people? Obviously it's just a "state of mind" and if they only had the right mind would they magically be successful and smart like you.

Like all Fark trolls you are dirt poor and worship the rich. But you act like you're rich because you think it makes you come across as smart and important.
 
2012-09-10 09:03:23 PM

halfof33: well that, and walking around the Loop where Occupuds are noticeably absent,

And walking near Obama's headquarters where they might get 10 people to protest once a week.

And their own web site, of where they bragged about shutting down a conference dedicated to ENDING child trafficking.

So yeah, another quality post sport.



So because they were kicked out of where they setup camp, it's gone now?

Because you only see a few people protesting that means the entire country wide movement is gone?

Nice try with the misinformation campaign about child trafficking you heard on Rush Limbaugh

Yeah, another quality post. Projecting as usual.
 
2012-09-10 09:04:46 PM

Silly Jesus: Those cesspools



And you base that on what? What have you contributed to society? Who are you to pass judgment to an entire group of tens of thousands of people? You're a nobody and will always be a nobody. When you die nobody will care, because you will never have contributed anything to this planet.
 
2012-09-10 09:08:09 PM

ideamaster: Most people want to blame OTHERS for THEIR problems. I feel bad for people that are evicted from their homes. However it is truly not their home unless the mortgage is paid off. No one forced you to sign a sheet of paper to borrow money for 15 or 30 years. You made a choice. And sometimes bad things happen. Did they put away money? Did they have an emergency fund?

Okay, maybe they didn't have a good paying job and they didn't have a lot of money. Why didn't they work on building better/more valuable skills instead of being on facebook and playing xbox?

People feel entitled to too many things. If you didn't earn it, then you don't deserve it. It is really that simple.



So it's my fault if I lost my job, can't find a new one in this bad economy, because a company shipped it overseas and then can't pay the mortgage or rent it out for a reasonable price?

It's my fault if I get a health condition that makes me unable to pay the bills?

It's my fault if my investments or pension disappeared with the financial crisis?

It's my fault the bankers crashed the entire world economy making my business struggle to sell enough to break even?

Go fark yourself you self entitled douchebags who think the rich deserve constant returns and less taxes while everyone else suffers because of the rich's decisions.
 
2012-09-10 09:10:36 PM
stixblog.com
 
2012-09-10 09:12:58 PM

Silly Jesus: if you contribute the maximum ($5,000) to a Roth IRA every year starting in your 20's you'll pretty much certainly be a millionaire when you retire



because the stock market is always a consistent constant return with no downside? You might be a moran

o5iiawah: If Steve Jobs could only have made $250k/yr, he would have only worked one day per year.



Funny then that Jobs took a salary of $1 then

Silly Jesus: My friends easily spend 5K a year on cigarettes and video games and porn etc. They are still where we started...I am now quite comfortable.



And then you grow up, go into your 40's or 50's and suddenly realize your job is outsourced or new technology takes over, you have no options, your retirement account collapses because of a stock market crash, and now you have to sell your house and live off what you have left.

So yeah, it's really worked for you, not even halfway through your life but already claiming victory.
 
2012-09-10 09:35:01 PM

intelligent comment below: because the stock market is always a consistent constant return with no downside? You might be a moran


Of course there are no guarantees, but even if you don't want to think about your investments on a day-to-day basis, you can invest in a fund that's indexed off of the S&P 500, and I don't think there's ever been a 40-year period (which is the length of time he was talking about) where the S&P-indexed fund wouldn't give you an average annual return of at least nine or ten percent.
 
2012-09-10 10:46:22 PM

Frederick: Being a drug dealer is one of the few ways to make money in spite of government infrastructure.


1) How is that different than any other business with regards to infrastructure?
2) The reason drug dealing is so profitable is the government making it illegal.
 
2012-09-10 11:02:26 PM

intelligent comment below: So it's my fault if I lost my job, can't find a new one in this bad economy, because a company shipped it overseas and then can't pay the mortgage or rent it out for a reasonable price?

Well... Is it my fault? You can thank your congressmen for that pathetic tax code that chokes job growth in this country for the bad economy. The job belongs to the company, not to you. Should we pay someone to make a product/service that no one uses? Do you pay for the most expensive item, simply because you want them to have the money?

As for reasonable price, that is also determined by supply and demand.

It's my fault if I get a health condition that makes me unable to pay the bills?

Is it my fault? Should i have to pay for you dumping soda, caffeine, tobacco, alcohol and grease into your body? I am sure you have heard of life not being fair.

It's my fault if my investments or pension disappeared with the financial crisis?
Well, if it was an investment, then yes, it is probably your fault for not being able to manage your money. Did you diversify your assets, did you have an emergency fund, did you know what you were investing in? As for pensions, I don't know if that is your fault or not. Most of us in the real world don't have the luxury of pensions.

It's my fault the bankers crashed the entire world economy making my business struggle to sell enough to break even?

Is it fair that millions of people died in the holocaust? Be thankful you are not jewish and living in occupied poland. Or that you were not in the world trade towers when those people died. Did the bankers tell people to go out and stop buying your product or service?

Maybe you should consider changing your product lines, increasing your prices, decreasing your costs, or simply getting out of business.


Go fark yourself you self entitled douchebags who think the rich deserve constant returns and less taxes while everyone else suffers because of the rich's decisions.


The rich don't get constant returns. They risk their money in the market every day. And some people win, some people lose. You don't know jack shiat about taxes. You are entitled to the same tax breaks as everyone else. It is easy to blame the rich because that absolves you of any and all responsibility.

You Sir (or Ma'am) are the pathetic douchebag that opens their mouth and spout all kinds of whining and you don't know jack shiat about what you are talking about.

If you want to blame anyone, blame your elected officials for throwing money away and rewarding bad businesses to keep them afloat. Reward your teachers and little league coaches for giving everyone a trophy no matter how bad they suck.

For anyone that truly understands money and supply & demand they should be horrified at washington and people in general for their lack of self-control or planning for the future. 

Life isn't fair, so why don't you put on your big boy pants and do your best with the cards life has given you and stop making excuses for yourself.
 
2012-09-10 11:02:54 PM

o5iiawah: And when it comes to the "infrastructure" required, I'm sure that his company or his idea is going to generate tax revenue which then translates into infrastructure that his business uses.


Great! That was easy! Personally, I believe in setting the top tax bracket(s) such that above a reasonably high income that affords a comfortable, maybe somewhat extravagant lifestyle (I'm using $250K in this example), almost all of what's made above that goes to taxes. Say, 70% above $250K, and 85% above $300K. No exceptions for investments.

o5iiawah: The tax rates of a quarter century ago

(1987) were set to pay for the war (ended in1945), not to create Utopia. Once the was was paid for, the right-wing extremist JFK (died in 1963) cut the rates. to a top bracket of 70%! That's some pretty good math there, Lou.

Well, it sure is a good thing there's no war that we need to pay for now, eh?

o5iiawah: A funny thing happens when you decide to tax someone at 99%, You get 1% of productivity out of them.


I know that sounds like it makes logical sense and everything, but you're wrong. It's a stupid oversimplification of the motives resultant from the human psyche, based on nonsense philosophical/economic theory.

the fact is, is just doesn't happen that way in the real world. We had a top marginal rate of over 70% from 1940 to 1981. Industry didn't collapse. The top 1% still worked hard. There was progress and innovation. The internet and the personal computer were invented under those conditions. You need to give up this idiotic fantasy.

o5iiawah: You're one of those "you didn't build that" crowd and thats fine.


That's because I'm not completely disconnected from reality, or pushing some political agenda.

o5iiawah: The fact is, the guy on the line or the guy driving the truck has a certain skillset and chances are that there are millions of others just like him. The fact that he delivers a product does not grant him ownership to the assets of the product.


Having an idea is not a skill set. Again, I'm not saying that good ideas shouldn't be compensated. But they don't entitle a single person to reap billions of dollars while others do the work for him.

Silly Jesus: Don't even know where to start, really.


Perhaps, and I don't mean this as an insult, it has to do with the difference in the inherent value we assign to other people, vs. the value range of what an individual is capable of contributing to society. I imagine my baseline of the first is quite a bit higher than yours, while my big picture view of the second is quite a bit lower.

Silly Jesus: I agree. The psychological profiles of such people are pretty interesting.


Again, I think a lot of them are mildly mentally ill. That strong a drive to acquire, even when further acquisition has no real material effect shows a disturbing disconnect from the sense of self. On the face of it, it benefits society that we have such people, but I'm personally against giving them the keys to the car we're all riding in, if you take my meaning.

It wouldn't be so bad if money had only material value, but the fact that our political system allows enormous wealth to equate to so many other forms of power is the real issue at hand. Not that the scenario can ever be completely eradicated, but we're moving completely in the wrong direction these days, IMO.
 
2012-09-10 11:06:47 PM

Z-clipped: Silly Jesus: Don't even know where to start, really.

Perhaps, and I don't mean this as an insult, it has to do with the difference in the inherent value we assign to other people, vs. the value range of what an individual is capable of contributing to society. I imagine my baseline of the first is quite a bit higher than yours, while my big picture view of the second is quite a bit lower.

Silly Jesus: I agree. The psychological profiles of such people are pretty interesting.

Again, I think a lot of them are mildly mentally ill. That strong a drive to acquire, even when further acquisition has no real material effect shows a disturbing disconnect from the sense of self. On the face of it, it benefits society that we have such people, but I'm personally against giving them the keys to the car we're all riding in, if you take my meaning.

It wouldn't be so bad if money had only material value, but the fact that our political system allows enormous wealth to equate to so many other forms of power is the real issue at hand. Not that the scenario can ever be completely eradicated, but we're moving completely in the wrong direction these days, IMO.


You sound much more reasonable now.
 
2012-09-10 11:11:53 PM
Z-clipped:
Well, initially it would go to the IRS. Where it goes from there, we can all decide together as a nation. The possibilities are limitless. Tell you what... you pay yourself $250K/year for the next 50 years, and we can take the remaining $987500000 of your cool billion and maybe,

-feed 2 million starving people for a year.

-start a fund to build a space elevator

-improve the worldwide communications network

-offer about 20000 people a $50k no interest business loan to use to get their ideas off the ground (and once they pay it back, holy crap, we could do this one again!)

-start a project to terraform Mars

-fund research to improve alternative energy sources

See? You get to live very comfortably, and the rest of the world benefits too, instead of one useless person having more than they could ever spend or appreciate. It's not that difficult a concept. It was only about 50 years ago that this country had tax brackets that reflected this idea. The world didn't end, innovation wasn't stifled, and some people still had more than others. Hopefully, we can end the current bout of insanity we're going through and get back to being more civilized.

I find your insistence upon stealing other people wealth offensive. It's the cry of incompetent louts everywhere "It's not FAIR that you have more money than me. I suck air, too."

Additionally, although you're probably too dim to realize it, you have provided your own rebuttal -- how polite of you. You list a whole bunch of things that someone else's money could do, once you confiscated most of it from them. Okay... Look at the items on your list, above. There's no reason that a private person couldn't do wonderful things from that list without having the government be your thug. Bill and Melinda Gates are attempting to end disease, especially in Africa, with some of Bill's billions -- and also with some of Warren Buffet's billions, since Buffet made a freaking HUGE donation to The B&M Gates Foundation.

But THAT is not the problem... Obama managed to spend about a TRILLION dollars -- a thousand times the amount you were fapping over -- and what do we have to show for it? Pretty close to NOTHING. The reason? Government is the least efficient "charity" on the planet. Some years back, it was determined that the government needed to collect $8 to get $1 to someone who needed it. And THAT is assuming that it was both a good idea, and a useful approach to do it. If government were considered as a charity, the government would shut it down. It's only 12.5% efficient. Recently, Kansas City's VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) branch was branded the least efficient charity in the nation. And it spent $23M to generate $55.5M in donations. That's roughly 70% efficient. In other words, the LEAST efficient charity in the nation is more than five and a half times as efficient as the government. If they were a private charity, they would be trying to shut themselves down.
 
2012-09-10 11:12:20 PM

Z-clipped: Having an idea is not a skill set. Again, I'm not saying that good ideas shouldn't be compensated. But they don't entitle a single person to reap billions of dollars while others do the work for him.


I don't understand this statement or line of reasoning.

If I make a widget, and I sell it for $10 and I pay someone $5 to make each one and take it to market...and they voluntarily do this work for $5 per widget through a voluntary contract....how am I in some way not "entitled" to that $5 in profit from each widget that my company makes? Who is entitled to that money? Where does it go? If there is enough demand for my widgets that my income would be billions of dollars, why does this suddenly flip some switch whereby I am no longer "entitled" to my profits?

It's a purposefully oversimplified scenario, I realize, but perhaps it will make it easier for us to understand one another...
 
2012-09-10 11:21:12 PM
BMFPitt:
I don't get why billionaires work 80 hour weeks. Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anythgin hands-on? I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life. I don't mind that they do, but I think it's crazy. Maybe it's just some weird competitive thing, and they don't know how to have cool hobbies like Richard Branson.

Just perhaps, they know that if they quit "while they're ahead" perhaps as many as tens of thousands of people will be out of a job. If ANYONE can do something that makes buttloads of money, and employs thousands of people, wouldn't you say that there is at least SOME moral pressure to keep doing what it is that makes so much money, and keeps so many profitably employed? You seem to fall under the same mental aberration that suggests that anyone wealthy is also greedy and selfish.
 
2012-09-10 11:33:16 PM
Keizer_Ghidorah:
When a man presents himself as a completely worthless farktard every time he opens his mouth, it's hard not to see him any other way. When Savage starts showing some humanity, maybe I'll think of him as human. Don't see how that's "pulling things out of my ass", but you always seem to dismiss and ignore things in order to try to be a smug dick towards others.

Indeed. And thank you, very sincerely, for making that both easy and justifiable. You're a mensch.

But, you miss the point. I saw the movie "Misery." Did you? In the movie Kathy Bates plays a psychotic fan. Oh, and DAMN, does she do a good job. Scared the crap out of me. But, do you know what? I don't assume that, because she PLAYED a psychotic, that she IS one.

Venomous radio is WAY big business. Unless you knew Savage personally, you have NO REASON to think that what he spouts is heart-felt. HE COULD EASILY JUST BE ACTING in such a way that he can collect a very large paycheck. An actor's job is to pretend to be someone they are not. Sorry, I can't make it any simpler. Savage is an actor on the radio. His opinions COULD match his on-air persona, but probably don't. He might be a moderate, a conservative, or a middle-of-the-road type, acting like a rabid conservative BECAUSE IT IS HIS JOB.

Since I don't know him any better than you do, all I am doing is presenting possibilities. Your concept of "I heard him, he spouts hate all day" is one I am not going to evaluate, especially since it might well be correct, and I don't care to subject myself to that. However, your claim utterly ignores that it is his JOB to be a rabid radio host, at high pay, and THAT is sufficient reason to act that way, even if it is counter to one's natural proclivities.

Do you have it yet? I can get the tire swing and the bananas, if that would help.
 
2012-09-11 12:35:16 AM

GeneralJim: I find your insistence upon stealing other people wealth offensive.


Good. If I'm offending someone with your sensibilities, I must be on the right track.

Silly Jesus: If I make a widget, and I sell it for $10 and I pay someone $5 to make each one and take it to market...and they voluntarily do this work for $5 per widget through a voluntary contract....how am I in some way not "entitled" to that $5 in profit from each widget that my company makes? Who is entitled to that money? Where does it go? If there is enough demand for my widgets that my income would be billions of dollars, why does this suddenly flip some switch whereby I am no longer "entitled" to my profits?

It's a purposefully oversimplified scenario, I realize, but perhaps it will make it easier for us to understand one another...


It's important to remember that I said "not entitled to reap billions", not, "not entitled to profit". I'm simply putting a reasonable limit on the value of what one person can really contribute to society. I think that for one man to be able to acquire billions of dollars represents a kind of market failure. Above and beyond a certain income, there becomes no point to acquisition other than acquisition itself. If some people are driven to acquire beyond what is reasonable simply to have more than everyone else, let them do so under a constraint (say, a very high tax rate above a certain margin). As long as the constraint is applied equally to everyone, they can still feed their hubris, and society can reap the benefits directly, instead of relying on the charity of an arguably mentally ill person.

As an aside, you chose an example that actually supports something I said earlier- partnerships. The two people in your example are effectively working as equal partners, sharing equal work. The fact that one of them had the idea for the widget is not even represented monetarily. Not that all businesses should be equal partnerships, but I do think all corporations should be required to base their top tier of compensation on the bottom tier by some reasonable common multiple, like say, 10.

In the US today, allowing an individual to amass an enormous fortune has multiple devastating effects on society as a whole. It allows them far too much economic influence, multiplying their ability to create real market failure in the classic sense. It affords far too much political power by multiple channels- in fact, it has served to equate money and politics to such a degree that we (the general public) may never be able to peacefully recover our franchise. It also serves, as I said before, to create dynasties of aristocrats which I find morally repugnant, and which are one of the things the Founders came here to escape from in the first place.
 
2012-09-11 12:50:37 AM

GeneralJim: Government is the least efficient


Quick quiz for you:

TRUE OR FALSE?

1. There exist certain goals achievable by centralized means that are not achievable through private industry.

2. While private industry governed by market forces is generally considered to be more efficient than government-run tax-funded industry, there are some cases where this is not the case.

3. Though people may not like them, it is necessary for the government to levy some taxes for a society to operate.
 
2012-09-11 02:53:02 AM
Frederick:
Being a drug dealer is one of the few ways to make money in spite of government infrastructure.

You did build that.

I hate to throw water on your pretty little bonfire, but actually, "drug dealers," as most of us would define the term, REQUIRE government to be viable business entities. Without the laws that make the drugs illegal, and the police, border patrol, and even military to greatly restrict the flow of contraband into the country, pot, cocaine, and heroin, at least, would be quite cheap, and would probably be sold in spice outlets, grocery stores, and pharmacies, like seaweed is now. So, sadly, government DID make the drug trade.
 
2012-09-11 03:45:17 AM

GeneralJim: Frederick: Being a drug dealer is one of the few ways to make money in spite of government infrastructure.

You did build that.
I hate to throw water on your pretty little bonfire, but actually, "drug dealers," as most of us would define the term, REQUIRE government to be viable business entities. Without the laws that make the drugs illegal, and the police, border patrol, and even military to greatly restrict the flow of contraband into the country, pot, cocaine, and heroin, at least, would be quite cheap, and would probably be sold in spice outlets, grocery stores, and pharmacies, like seaweed is now. So, sadly, government DID make the drug trade.


You like to argue, dont you? And what's this about a bonfire?
 
2012-09-11 06:49:54 AM
Z-clipped:
It's important to remember that I said "not entitled to reap billions", not, "not entitled to profit". I'm simply putting a reasonable limit on the value of what one person can really contribute to society. I think that for one man to be able to acquire billions of dollars represents a kind of market failure. Above and beyond a certain income, there becomes no point to acquisition other than acquisition itself.

And, of course, YOU would decide how much is "reasonable," eh, Tovarische? That's a crock. It only shows YOUR lack of imagination that the only thing YOU can think of as a reason for acquiring more than "enough" money is the acquisition. Well, if that's the case, why in the Hell does government continually want more money? Just to have it?

Some people want a lot of money because money is the all-purpose tool, and nearly anything can be done with it. Long ago, more people realized what government is -- a group of unimaginative, greedy, selfish, inefficient, unproductive, and thuggish people, much like you have shown yourself to be. In contrast, someone like Andrew Carnegie amassed a great fortune, and did great things with it. Without even looking anything up, I can think of Carnegie Hall, Carnegie-Mellon University, and the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh. I also know that he was a library freak, and built and funded many of them, although they're not as easy to remember as many of the things to which he gave his name.

There is a massive cultural and educational treasure which Andrew Carnegie donated to the public. If government had seized his money, they would have turned most of it into bribes and other waste, probably built a grubby office or two for their army of bureaucrats, and would have been a decade or more ahead in their plan to get their hands around every activity taking place in the country. Andrew Carnegie did much more with his money than the government would have done. And he is nowhere near the only philanthropist around. Just because your approach to money is venal, greedy, and selfish doesn't mean that such is the case with others. In fact, your venality, greed, and selfishness might just prevent you from moving from being a poorly-paid wage slave to being a rich philanthropist, the journey that Andrew Carnegie made. Omnia pueris bonis eveniunt bene.
 
2012-09-11 06:58:02 AM
Z-clipped:
GeneralJim: Government is the least efficient

Quick quiz for you:

TRUE OR FALSE?

1. There exist certain goals achievable by centralized means that are not achievable through private industry.

FALSE


2. While private industry governed by market forces is generally considered to be more efficient than government-run tax-funded industry, there are some cases where this is not the case.

FALSE. (Name one.)


3. Though people may not like them, it is necessary for the government to levy some taxes for a society to operate.

TRUE. The Founders had this exactly right: Keep government function to as small as is possible, split the government into three parts, and have those parts fighting each other for power -- thus keeping government occupied fighting itself, and leaving the people alone, for the most part.


twistedsifter.sifter.netdna-cdn.com
 
2012-09-11 07:05:49 AM
Frederick:
GeneralJim: Frederick: Being a drug dealer is one of the few ways to make money in spite of government infrastructure.

You did build that.

I hate to throw water on your pretty little bonfire, but actually, "drug dealers," as most of us would define the term, REQUIRE government to be viable business entities. Without the laws that make the drugs illegal, and the police, border patrol, and even military to greatly restrict the flow of contraband into the country, pot, cocaine, and heroin, at least, would be quite cheap, and would probably be sold in spice outlets, grocery stores, and pharmacies, like seaweed is now. So, sadly, government DID make the drug trade.

You like to argue, dont you? And what's this about a bonfire?

Meh. I prefer debate. And, for some reason, I pictured you setting up a fire out in the woods, trying to shed a bit of light... but with an idea that is fundamentally incorrect. So, while I agree that government doesn't have a stake in everything just because they are pushy, you chose a bad example to illustrate the point.

/ I'm a doctor, dammit, Jim, not a metaphor.
 
Displayed 50 of 434 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report