Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[kaz]

I always like how leftists want facts when anyone disagrees with your sweeping, unsupported statements. You first, my dear. Back up your own point. I'm not playing the game where whatever you say (sans support) goes but anyone disagreeing with you has to convince you you're wrong. Pass

Another one who asks questions and then answers them himself. Excellent.

It wasn't a "question" Holmes. Your hypocrisy was a statement. Prove me wrong! That's your standard, I'll pass on that. Proving to the village idiot he's the idiot can only end up in proving that you're now the village idiot.

 

[kaz]

Ya know, at one time, the Rockefellers owned more than anyone else in the nation. I'm sure if you went back into the 1800's, you'd find families like Vanderbilt that owned a lot more than anyone else.

It really makes you wonder why envying those that have materially more than you is so en vogue. It would just depress me.

Having a Presidential Candidate repeat it ad nauseum probably wouldn't endear me to vote for her/him either.

For one thing, it's not envy.

For another, the wealthy of that era were conspicuous in their endowments and donations to charity. They were also part of a class system that was far more stratified than it is today. There was a sense among the "lower" classes that the wealthy were the American equivalent of royalty.

That peasant mentality survives today in the "Must Not Anger the Money Gods or They Will Send All of Us to China" mentality extant in this thread.

You're green all over, Holmes. You should look at the Vandies and marvel at what a great country it is instead of wanting to plunder that which you didn't earn. Clearly it is envy

That's very creative. Do another one.

Didn't you hear the school bell? It's time to come in from the playground

 

[IlarMeilyr]

" Indeed, in 1927 the kulaks produced over 600 million poods of grain, about 130 million poods of which they marketed outside the rural districts. That was a rather serious power, which had to be reckoned with. How much did our collective farms and state farms produce at that time? About 80 million poods, of which about 35 million poods were sent to the market (marketable grain). Judge for yourselves, could we at that time have replaced the kulak output and kulak marketable grain by the output and marketable grain of our collective farms and state farms? Obviously, we could not.." -- Stalin

"Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America." -- Sanders

What's the difference?

More than just a language barrier.

The ideas are the exact same: successful people are frustrating the Progressive Utopia

They're exactly the same the way apples and Allen wrenches are the same.

Missing the point has been your specialty since you first appeared at USMB, Arainrhod. Nice name, by the way.

 

[kaz]

the United States before we had unions

Oh, this should be fun...

Describe what you believe the U.S. was like before unions. A few facts interspersed with the opinion might be nice.

life in the 1920s was good for most people. It was better than it had ever been for 5000 yrs of recorded history.

The AFL was founded in 1886.

But I'm sure the rum-runners and the investors who caused the Crash of '29 did very well.

Unions were voluntary until the FDR administration.

That's not what you originally stated. You stated they didn't exist until the 1920s.

I believe he meant in any meaningful way. I know that because it was butt obvious, Holmes

 

[Arianrhod]

Didn't you hear the school bell? It's time to come in from the playground

Not until two or three of you start whispering about me behind your hands like a couple of third-graders. Go on, now. You know you want to.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Didn't you hear the school bell? It's time to come in from the playground

Not until two or three of you start whispering about me behind your hands like a couple of third-graders. Go on, now. You know you want to.

Or, since this is a (you know it, you love it) MESSAGE Board, we can go right ahead and "say" it to your e-face:

You are a putz.

 

[Arianrhod]

Oh, this should be fun...

Describe what you believe the U.S. was like before unions. A few facts interspersed with the opinion might be nice.

life in the 1920s was good for most people. It was better than it had ever been for 5000 yrs of recorded history.

The AFL was founded in 1886.

But I'm sure the rum-runners and the investors who caused the Crash of '29 did very well.

Unions were voluntary until the FDR administration.

That's not what you originally stated. You stated they didn't exist until the 1920s.

I believe he meant in any meaningful way.

No, he got the date wrong. Nice of you to interpret for him, though.

 

[Arianrhod]

Didn't you hear the school bell? It's time to come in from the playground

Not until two or three of you start whispering about me behind your hands like a couple of third-graders. Go on, now. You know you want to.

Or, since this is a (you know it, you love it) MESSAGE Board, we can go right ahead and "say" it to your e-face:

You are a putz.

Thank you for a wonderfully insightful, on-topic post. Do another.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Didn't you hear the school bell? It's time to come in from the playground

Not until two or three of you start whispering about me behind your hands like a couple of third-graders. Go on, now. You know you want to.

Or, since this is a (you know it, you love it) MESSAGE Board, we can go right ahead and "say" it to your e-face:

You are a putz.

Thank you for a wonderfully insightful, on-topic post. Do another.

It was concise and responsive to the bleating whining blather YOU had just offered.

So, feel obligated to stop your butt hurt whining, try to man up for the first time EVER and say something of some at least marginal merit.

We'll be the ones waiting patiently.

For the rest of time.

Hurry back, and prove what a bitch you are. Go!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Let's see if it's even POSSIBLE to drag aryanhood back to the actual topic of this thread.

To recap: Waltons have much wealth. Wealth BAD. Waltons bad.

 

[Arianrhod]

To recap: Waltons have much wealth. Wealth BAD. Waltons bad.

If you say so.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

To recap: Waltons have much wealth. Wealth BAD. Waltons bad.

If you say so.

so then, the answer seems to be "no." We cannot in fact drag you into the light.

Figured.

 

[Arianrhod]

We cannot in fact drag you into the light.

Not if I'm already there. So few posts and you're ready to resort to violence?

 

[candycorn]

Ya know, at one time, the Rockefellers owned more than anyone else in the nation. I'm sure if you went back into the 1800's, you'd find families like Vanderbilt that owned a lot more than anyone else.

It really makes you wonder why envying those that have materially more than you is so en vogue. It would just depress me.

Having a Presidential Candidate repeat it ad nauseum probably wouldn't endear me to vote for her/him either.

Stupid bitch.....

The conservative war on women knows no limits; never ends, shows no signs of stopping or waning....

Good. Women will cast 6 out of every 10 ballots next November. They will remember comments like yours. Can't wait!

Yes, women aren't like everyone else, liberals know that. The sweet dearies need the bar lowered on their jobs and they need more government handouts. I mean the idea that women don't need more tender care from our benevolent and caring government is just hatred, it's a war on them.

You know about liberalism, you know nothing about women

The hilarity of your statement almost defies belief.

 

[candycorn]

Ya know, at one time, the Rockefellers owned more than anyone else in the nation. I'm sure if you went back into the 1800's, you'd find families like Vanderbilt that owned a lot more than anyone else.

It really makes you wonder why envying those that have materially more than you is so en vogue. It would just depress me.

Having a Presidential Candidate repeat it ad nauseum probably wouldn't endear me to vote for her/him either.

For one thing, it's not envy. It's a sound bite.

For another, the wealthy of that era were conspicuous in their endowments and donations to charity. They were also part of a class system that was far more stratified than it is today. There was a sense among the "lower" classes that the wealthy were the American equivalent of royalty.

That peasant mentality survives today in the "Must Not Anger the Money Gods or They Will Send All of Us to China" mentality extant in this thread.

ThEre is plenty of philanthropy in today's wealthy

 

[Brain357]

Well what country has a strong middle class without unions?

the United States before we had unions

Really what years would this be? Link?

You mean to counter your links? which would be ...

No you say we had a strong middle class before unions, what years are you talking about?

Whatever, you know nothing about unions except the marketing pitch

Whatever? You can't give years to back up your wild claim?

I know that only countries with them have a strong middle class.

 

[Brain357]

Let's see if it's even POSSIBLE to drag aryanhood back to the actual topic of this thread.

To recap: Waltons have much wealth. Wealth BAD. Waltons bad.

Yes and while they make billions each year we subsidize their workers with welfare. Perfect formula for big government.

 

[kaz]

Didn't you hear the school bell? It's time to come in from the playground

Not until two or three of you start whispering about me behind your hands like a couple of third-graders. Go on, now. You know you want to.

There is no clearer statement that you have nothing then when you have to repeat my line to you back to me

 

[kaz]

Ya know, at one time, the Rockefellers owned more than anyone else in the nation. I'm sure if you went back into the 1800's, you'd find families like Vanderbilt that owned a lot more than anyone else.

It really makes you wonder why envying those that have materially more than you is so en vogue. It would just depress me.

Having a Presidential Candidate repeat it ad nauseum probably wouldn't endear me to vote for her/him either.

Stupid bitch.....

The conservative war on women knows no limits; never ends, shows no signs of stopping or waning....

Good. Women will cast 6 out of every 10 ballots next November. They will remember comments like yours. Can't wait!

Yes, women aren't like everyone else, liberals know that. The sweet dearies need the bar lowered on their jobs and they need more government handouts. I mean the idea that women don't need more tender care from our benevolent and caring government is just hatred, it's a war on them.

You know about liberalism, you know nothing about women

The hilarity of your statement almost defies belief.

What you think is what liberals think, it's not what women think.

Note: Liberal men and women agree with you. Conservative men and women disagree with you.

Now see if you can solve this case. Is it being female as you contended that divides that, or is it some other factor? What could it be, I wonder, Holmes?

 

[kaz]

the United States before we had unions

Really what years would this be? Link?

You mean to counter your links? which would be ...

No you say we had a strong middle class before unions, what years are you talking about?

Whatever, you know nothing about unions except the marketing pitch

Whatever? You can't give years to back up your wild claim?

I know that only countries with them have a strong middle class.

Right, a statement you haven't backed up, you only demanded I prove you wrong. I actually have no interest in doing that