Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Like Tree5Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old October 22nd, 2012, 03:14 AM   #51 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Elected politician ? You don't make money by working, you hire folks to work. Hemingway, Rich people are different from you and I, they have more money.

Advertisements
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old October 22nd, 2012, 06:09 AM   #52 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Define "rich people". I ask because some people consider me "rich". I don't. I make slightly more than the household average here in the US. I live very frugally. My house will be paid off in 4-5 years at which point I will have no debt at all. I make it a habit to squirrel away a few hundred bucks every pay check no matter what I have to sacrifice to do so. Because of this I can afford to buy pretty much whatever I want within reason and pay cash for it. If I can't cash flow it I can reach into my slush fund. No biggie. So a lot of people consider me to be rich even though I work side by side with people who make the same money I do but live pay check to pay check. Define rich.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 03:47 PM   #53 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

The quote was Hemingway's, but have found this conversation between Fitzgerald and him is a myth.

So what is "rich", it's a granular definition, say one's net worth put's one within the top 1% of a given population, would generally be describe as rich. One could also include income given the same criteria.

I would think that if one derives wealth or income over a certain level, say a $million from unearned income, then most would call that being "rich".

Anyway, a better definition is one of comparison between a defined population.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 04:01 PM   #54 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
The quote was Hemingway's, but have found this conversation between Fitzgerald and him is a myth.

So what is "rich", it's a granular definition, say one's net worth put's one within the top 1% of a given population, would generally be describe as rich. One could also include income given the same criteria.

I would think that if one derives wealth or income over a certain level, say a $million from unearned income, then most would call that being "rich".

Anyway, a better definition is one of comparison between a defined population.
That's the thing though. My grandparents have a net worth of over $3 mil dollars. By one definition they would be considered rich. However they live in the same house they've lived in for the past 20 years. It's long since been paid for. They drove an early 80s 4 dr sedan up until 2-3 years ago. They only buy stuff when it's on sale. They steal ketchup packets from McD's so they don't have to buy condiments. If you looked at the way they live you would think I am richer than them but my net worth is not anywhere close to theirs and may never be. But many of my friends consider me rich and many people don't consider my grandparents to be rich because of their lifestyle.

In either case I find the entire premise that rich people are somehow "evil" to be ridiculously silly.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 04:36 PM   #55 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

I would argue that those with more means can accomplish more evil to more people, than those with less means. Examples, Milken, Maddoff, Lay, Keating, Sanford, etc.

Off-hand, I wouldn't call your grandparents "rich" with a net worth of $3mil, but if that was average income over a period of years, especially unearned, then that's a different call.

As previously mentioned, it's relative to the defined population as what is considered "rich". $3mil of assets is not within the top 1%.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 05:05 PM   #56 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

My grandpa was a oil man so I'm sure he would qualify as evil just by that definition.

I would argue that those with more means can accomplish more good to more people than those with less means.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 05:22 PM   #57 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Oil does pollute, causing future health issues and death, but on the other hand not having energy causes immediate health issues and death.

So I guess is doing nothing to prevent future problems is "evil", depends on one's ability and objectives.

Those that are focused on obtaining great wealth, accomplishing more good to more people is not a main objective in most cases, which doesn't imply "evil" intent. It all depends in the bloody details. I would conjecture that "drug lords" would be considered evil.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 05:53 PM   #58 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

So you make no differentiation between those who are focused on obtaining wealth above all else and those who are simply wealthy and all of them are "evil"? The presumption that just because someone has wealth means they are evil or that they somehow did something evil to get there is just beyond wrong.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 06:08 PM   #59 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,662
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,225
Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,156 Posts
Default

Did I miss something? Who said all rich people are evil?. The thing about defining "rich" is most people don't consider themselves rich because there is almost always somebody richer.
__________________
"Machete don't text"
Gmash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 06:25 PM   #60 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmash View Post
Did I miss something? Who said all rich people are evil?. The thing about defining "rich" is most people don't consider themselves rich because there is almost always somebody richer.
It's a common Democratic talking point. They bring up the rich do this, the rich do that, etc, etc.... The entire premise is that it's somehow wrong to be rich.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old October 22nd, 2012, 07:13 PM   #61 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
I would argue that those with more means can accomplish more evil to more people, than those with less means. Examples, Milken, Maddoff, Lay, Keating, Sanford, etc.
Perhaps, but I would argue that most "rich" people do far more good than bad. Certainly, many create jobs. the people you mentioned are/were evil. They do not represent the majority of those I consider rich, to be sure.

Interesting that the dems never mention the many actors, singers, rappers and others that are very rich, whenever they discuss how evil the "rich" are.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 09:21 PM   #62 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,662
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,225
Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,156 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
It's a common Democratic talking point. They bring up the rich do this, the rich do that, etc, etc.... The entire premise is that it's somehow wrong to be rich.
No, that's a Republican talking point to say the Democrats hate rich people. To ask the rich to pay a little more in taxes isn't exactly calling for their heads, which is how they act.
Gmash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 09:42 PM   #63 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
bberryhill0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rhinelander, WI> Wayzata, MN>Sisters, OR
Posts: 2,439
 
Device(s): Q9c, Eris xtrROM 4.6.5, Droid Concepts 11, Incredible 2 EclipticSense
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 844
Thanked 360 Times in 320 Posts
Default

2% own half of everything and half the people own 1%. That's a problem because the poor are violently bored and they breed.
__________________
My Eris apps
bberryhill0 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 10:57 PM   #64 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmash View Post
No, that's a Republican talking point to say the Democrats hate rich people. To ask the rich to pay a little more in taxes isn't exactly calling for their heads, which is how they act.
Exactly, therefor by Republican logic, all rich people are good, all poor people are evil, and give perpetual excuses when the rich are caught.

Enron, Worldcom, Milken junk bonds, Madoff, Tyco International, AIG, Libor, the list is endless.

Great wealth gives the opportunity to commit great crimes, and due to great wealth those with sufficient "juice" are not investigated nor prosecuted.

Whistle blowing laws in private industry along with regulation are needed and enforcement needs to be isolated from politics.

Republicans need to realize that capitalism is conducted by humans and humans can have flaws, especially when large amounts of money are involved.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2012, 03:32 AM   #65 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,662
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,225
Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,156 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Exactly, therefor by Republican logic, all rich people are good, all poor people are evil, and give perpetual excuses when the rich are caught.

Enron, Worldcom, Milken junk bonds, Madoff, Tyco International, AIG, Libor, the list is endless.

Great wealth gives the opportunity to commit great crimes, and due to great wealth those with sufficient "juice" are not investigated nor prosecuted.

Whistle blowing laws in private industry along with regulation are needed and enforcement needs to be isolated from politics.

Republicans need to realize that capitalism is conducted by humans and humans can have flaws, especially when large amounts of money are involved.
Regulations are bad m'kay. Lol. I see it more that they think all poor people are lazy parasites, not necessarily evil.
Gmash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2012, 01:18 PM   #66 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Great wealth gives the opportunity to commit great crimes, and due to great wealth those with sufficient "juice" are not investigated nor prosecuted.
Great wealth gives the opportunity to do great good. But let's completely ignore this and just go with great wealth gives the opportunity to commit great crimes. Wait a minute. I own a car. So I have the opportunity to drive down a sidewalk and mow down dozens of people. Cars must be bad too.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2012, 04:16 AM   #67 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Which part of great wealth is unclear. Owning a car is a stupid comparison.

Owning synthetic credit default swap contracts, which is a bet that your neighbor will die leads to a lot of mischief and profit.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2012, 07:36 AM   #68 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Which part of great wealth is unclear. Owning a car is a stupid comparison.

Owning synthetic credit default swap contracts, which is a bet that your neighbor will die leads to a lot of mischief and profit.
Red herring much? The part you quoted specifically said that 99.5% of the population doesn't have access to investments, options, and real estate. That is completely and totally bogus. Please tell me how 99.5% of the population does not have access to such things.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2012, 02:07 PM   #69 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Workers of the world unite!!
Socialist World Republic - Sozialistische Weltrepublik - YouTube

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Unions are severely flawed in their own rights. They can (and do) control who does and doesn't get promoted. More than once I've seen someone who should've been fired kept around because the union wouldn't let the company fire them. Unions often get in the way of progress.
That's very true! That said I have seen unions here at home mature quite a bit during our economic crisis. I do have a lot of gripes with them but perhaps we can make them more Nordic like in time. Obviously the US is a lot different, massive polarisation and stuff.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2012, 02:12 AM   #70 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Red herring much? The part you quoted specifically said that 99.5% of the population doesn't have access to investments, options, and real estate. That is completely and totally bogus. Please tell me how 99.5% of the population does not have access to such things.
They don't have the minimum $1m to enter this type of contract.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old November 7th, 2012, 02:40 AM   #71 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,662
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,225
Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,156 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
They don't have the minimum $1m to enter this type of contract.
I was wondering where you've been. I thought maybe you found a new place to annoy the conservatives lol. I'm too lazy to put as much work into it as you do.
Gmash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2012, 06:15 AM   #72 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
They don't have the minimum $1m to enter this type of contract.
You don't need $1m to start investing. Attitudes like that ensure that one will always be poor.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2012, 02:34 AM   #73 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Which part of great wealth is unclear. Owning a car is a stupid comparison.

Owning synthetic credit default swap contracts, which is a bet that your neighbor will die leads to a lot of mischief and profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
You don't need $1m to start investing. Attitudes like that ensure that one will always be poor.
Keep focused. We are talking about synthetic credit default swaps. Can you counter my assertion ? Actually you can, it takes about a $1b, but $1m can be made in increments. Check with your broker, keep focused, use the term "synthetic credit default swap". Do you need a definition ?

Explain how the "average" investor can invest in this type of contract and why this attitude one will always be poor. Your ignorance on how wealth is maintained is amazing.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2012, 04:16 AM   #74 (permalink)
Member
 
Bob Blaylock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: 38° 28′ North, 121° 26′ West
Gender: Male
Posts: 123
 
Device(s): Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Virgin Mobile

Thanks: 18
Thanked 35 Times in 28 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Right-to-Work=Master and Servant
Or in other words…
War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!
Bob Blaylock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2012, 06:43 AM   #75 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Keep focused. We are talking about synthetic credit default swaps. Can you counter my assertion ? Actually you can, it takes about a $1b, but $1m can be made in increments. Check with your broker, keep focused, use the term "synthetic credit default swap". Do you need a definition ?

Explain how the "average" investor can invest in this type of contract and why this attitude one will always be poor. Your ignorance on how wealth is maintained is amazing.
Why would the average investor be interested in synthetic credit default swaps? If you had $1m, where are you going to find a broker who's going to recommend such an extremely high risk investment? It's a ridiculous argument from the extreme. The idea that you can't invest is what will lock you into being poor for the rest of your life. Your irrational dislike for rich people is mind boggling.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Last edited by A.Nonymous; November 8th, 2012 at 06:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old November 9th, 2012, 05:19 PM   #76 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
Or in other words…
War is peace!
Freedom is slavery!
Ignorance is strength!
From the OP, "the doctrine of at-will employment first appeared as a statement in a legal treatise by Horace C. Wood, Master and Servant § 134, at pages 272-273 (1877)."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2012, 10:31 AM   #77 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Corporations are once again sticking it to little man. Hostess announced it is going out of business as it's striking workers are hampering it's ability to deliver goods. 18,500 workers will be out of a job. Yes, once again a business refuses to give it's employees pay raises claiming the silly excuse that they have to make a profit to stay in business. But unions are great right? And they do no evil. So the union is not at fault here. It must be the horrible corporation.

Hostess, maker of Twinkies and Ding Dongs, says closing business - Business on NBCNews.com
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2012, 05:49 PM   #78 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Gmash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: neither Here nor There
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,662
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3, Huawei Mercury (stock/rooted), Huawei Ascend (CM7 2.3.5 @710mhz)
Carrier: Cricket

Thanks: 2,225
Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,156 Posts
Default

Honestly, I think Hostess is doing this out of spite more than necessity.
Gmash is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2012, 07:02 PM   #79 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmash View Post
Honestly, I think Hostess is doing this out of spite more than necessity.
Not sure how you go out of business out of spite. Generally speaking it's not in one's best interest to liquidate all of one's assets.
Bob Blaylock likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.