The Paradox of Wealth

[TemplarKormac]

Sell everything you have and give to the poor.

There is nothing wrong with that Bible quote if the person is speaking about herself and ordering others to do so. It is not your right to ORDER others to give to charity. That should be a personal choice, and then that person should be able to decide who to give it to based on their beliefs, NOT WHAT OTHERS BELIEVE.

So, BE A BOOP. If you want to sell everything you have and give it all away, then do so. That is a personal choice that you must make. I give to charity every year; not a large amount, but what I can afford.

Hypocrisy: Quoting Bible verses and then turning around and then saying we aren't a Christian Nation. LOL Which religion in this country is predominant? Answer that question truthfully and you will see that your statement is completely bogus, and the PRAVDA of a leftist agenda. It is a LIE.

Explain about Lying in the Bible.

Perfect.

 

[eagle1462010]

Would a true Christian continue to support a habitual liar................

Obama Lies way more than the average lying politician, yet the left still praises him.............and then claim to be Christians.......but we're aren't a Christian Nation.

LOL

 

[L.K.Eder]

Prove it, wiseguy.

no. burden of proof is on you, who stupidly stuttered that "america is being turned upside down".

you suck at this, seriously.

You suck at debating, pal. This isn't kindergarten, name calling is for children.

Please, prove to me that America is not being turned upside down. My proof is the distrust Americans have in their governing body. Instead of enjoying the freedom to prosper, people who share your ideologies wish to make prosperity harder to attain, to avoid leaving the less fortunate behind in the race known as life. The problem is, in making it hard for the rich to prosper, you make it harder for the less fortunate to taste prosperity. When you try to punish one, you wind up punishing them all.

posting that americans distrust their governing body is not at all proving that america is being turned upside down. try again, or better, don't.

you have no idea what my ideologies are, so shut up about that as well.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So people who disagree with you are trolls?



Oh, you just keep fighting the good fight, home skillet.

Uh yeah, you hid behind LK Eder when I lit your half baked faux religious argument up. If you associate with trolls, I'll see you as one. You contend that you aren't a troll BUT you hang around with them, all while thanking their posts.

Unless you want me to not to see you as a troll, then do something to prove otherwise. Otherwise, deal with it. Guilt by association in this case is justified. Trolls use halfhearted arguments to bring down a thread. Trolls aren't objective, they don't want to be, and clearly, neither are you.

You are also a very intelligent person, but to nitpick the Bible and then tell me it doesn't matter? "America isn't a Christian nation" you say, yet you quote from it's most sacred text, The Bible. Such utter hypocrisy has never been witnessed before by me. You belie your own intelligence when you stoop to bastardizing a religious text, then in one fell swoop saying "oh well it doesn't matter, nobody cares about it anyway." You're a far better person than that. I've seen it.

Does it hurt you to be honest once in a while?

 

[TemplarKormac]

no. burden of proof is on you, who stupidly stuttered that "america is being turned upside down".

you suck at this, seriously.

You suck at debating, pal. This isn't kindergarten, name calling is for children.

Please, prove to me that America is not being turned upside down. My proof is the distrust Americans have in their governing body. Instead of enjoying the freedom to prosper, people who share your ideologies wish to make prosperity harder to attain, to avoid leaving the less fortunate behind in the race known as life. The problem is, in making it hard for the rich to prosper, you make it harder for the less fortunate to taste prosperity. When you try to punish one, you wind up punishing them all.

posting that Americans distrust their governing body is not at all proving that america is being turned upside down. try again, or better, don't.

you have no idea what my ideologies are, so shut up about that as well.

You made your ideologies quite clear in this thread. Okay, so, there was a time when people trusted their government. Now, they are afraid of it. So, practically speaking, America has been turned upside down. Instead of the government serving the people, the people serve the government. Now, make a point or make your way out of the thread, Eder.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I also suggest you do the same, LL. Yes I know you're here.

 

[L.K.Eder]

You suck at debating, pal. This isn't kindergarten, name calling is for children.

Please, prove to me that America is not being turned upside down. My proof is the distrust Americans have in their governing body. Instead of enjoying the freedom to prosper, people who share your ideologies wish to make prosperity harder to attain, to avoid leaving the less fortunate behind in the race known as life. The problem is, in making it hard for the rich to prosper, you make it harder for the less fortunate to taste prosperity. When you try to punish one, you wind up punishing them all.

posting that Americans distrust their governing body is not at all proving that america is being turned upside down. try again, or better, don't.

you have no idea what my ideologies are, so shut up about that as well.

You made your ideologies quite clear in this thread. Okay, so, there was a time when people trusted their government. Now, they are afraid of it. So, practically speaking, America has been turned upside down. Now, make a point or make your way out of the thread, Eder.

once upon a time people trusted their government. then they stopped trusting. because. due to this sudden distrust america was turned upside down. the end.

also. paradox and prosperity! what a load of bollocks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

posting that Americans distrust their governing body is not at all proving that america is being turned upside down. try again, or better, don't.

you have no idea what my ideologies are, so shut up about that as well.

You made your ideologies quite clear in this thread. Okay, so, there was a time when people trusted their government. Now, they are afraid of it. So, practically speaking, America has been turned upside down. Now, make a point or make your way out of the thread, Eder.

once upon a time people trusted their government. then they stopped trusting. because. due to this sudden distrust america was turned upside down. the end.

also. paradox and prosperity! what a load of bollocks.

So, when are you actually going to debate my thread? Huh? Yanno, you're only making your side look bad here. Such rudeness must be all you have to hurl at me.

 

[LoneLaugher]

One simple observation. It's quite simple in fact. I've noticed how far left liberals here and elsewhere supposedly strive for wealth and income equality. They've been doing it for a very long time. They want the rich to become poorer, and the poorer to become richer. A paradox. A double standard of ideologies that I want an explanation for. How is it that on one end liberals want the rich to pay their fair share, but on the other, want to give the poor what they deserve? Am I missing something here? Robbing the rich to give to the poor? Is this why America is being turned upside down?

These Liberals speak of wanting the poor to be more prosperous, but speak out against those who happen to be prosperous. Why? If these liberals want people to be prosperous, why begrudge those who are actually prosperous of their prosperity? Why say that the poor need to prosper, but speak out against them when they do achieve that goal? Where's the equality in taking from someone else and giving to someone who hasn't even earned it? This Paradox of Wealth is intriguing and utterly confusing. Poor to prosperous, prosperous to poor. A vicious cycle created by the liberal establishment who themselves are rich, passed down to the unwitting masses underneath their wealthy heels.

Let's say a poor man becomes prosperous, yet according to this logic, he is slapped down for becoming too prosperous. An already prosperous man suddenly loses everything he has, and is told by some that he deserves it because he somehow exploited the poor people below him. Somehow, the rich don't deserve to be rich even after liberals suggest that the poor should become as the rich, with as little effort as possible. But I have few questions for them. Just how do you think a man or woman becomes rich? Answer: He or she has to be poor first. Do you realize the position you've put yourselves in? Should you ever rise out of financial mediocrity or abject poverty and become prosperous like those evil rich folk, just remember that you in your success have become the very thing you abhor.

Your premise fails unless you prove that liberals begrudge and abhor those who become rich and that liberals want to make them poor. You have not done that here.

If the rich have been robbed to give to the poor...............what evidence can you provide to support the claim? Absent such evidence, your premise fails. You know.....find some rich people who have gotten poor over the past decade due to income redistribution. Can you do that? Have things been turned upside down? For whom?

Wanting the rich to pay a fair share wanting and the poor to be treated fairly are not mutually exclusive ideals. That presents no paradox. Again....your premise fails.

Your third sentence in the second paragraph is masterful. You get triple points for brilliant use of a word.

Overall...terrible presentation based on a very weak, unprovable premise.

You have done it again!

 

[eagle1462010]

posting that Americans distrust their governing body is not at all proving that america is being turned upside down. try again, or better, don't.

you have no idea what my ideologies are, so shut up about that as well.

You made your ideologies quite clear in this thread. Okay, so, there was a time when people trusted their government. Now, they are afraid of it. So, practically speaking, America has been turned upside down. Now, make a point or make your way out of the thread, Eder.

once upon a time people trusted their government. then they stopped trusting. because. due to this sudden distrust america was turned upside down. the end.

also. paradox and prosperity! what a load of bollocks.

We have a Gov't that couldn't poor the pee out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel. Americans don't trust them by a wide margin in polls.

If they want to EARN our trust back, then they need to FIX THE MESS THEY CREATED. Other than that we will continue to FIRE career politicians until they understand we are tired of the bull.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I also suggest you do the same, LL. Yes I know you're here.

Preemptive strike? I love it. I live deep within you, idiot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

One simple observation. It's quite simple in fact. I've noticed how far left liberals here and elsewhere supposedly strive for wealth and income equality. They've been doing it for a very long time. They want the rich to become poorer, and the poorer to become richer. A paradox. A double standard of ideologies that I want an explanation for. How is it that on one end liberals want the rich to pay their fair share, but on the other, want to give the poor what they deserve? Am I missing something here? Robbing the rich to give to the poor? Is this why America is being turned upside down?

These Liberals speak of wanting the poor to be more prosperous, but speak out against those who happen to be prosperous. Why? If these liberals want people to be prosperous, why begrudge those who are actually prosperous of their prosperity? Why say that the poor need to prosper, but speak out against them when they do achieve that goal? Where's the equality in taking from someone else and giving to someone who hasn't even earned it? This Paradox of Wealth is intriguing and utterly confusing. Poor to prosperous, prosperous to poor. A vicious cycle created by the liberal establishment who themselves are rich, passed down to the unwitting masses underneath their wealthy heels.

Let's say a poor man becomes prosperous, yet according to this logic, he is slapped down for becoming too prosperous. An already prosperous man suddenly loses everything he has, and is told by some that he deserves it because he somehow exploited the poor people below him. Somehow, the rich don't deserve to be rich even after liberals suggest that the poor should become as the rich, with as little effort as possible. But I have few questions for them. Just how do you think a man or woman becomes rich? Answer: He or she has to be poor first. Do you realize the position you've put yourselves in? Should you ever rise out of financial mediocrity or abject poverty and become prosperous like those evil rich folk, just remember that you in your success have become the very thing you abhor.

Your premise fails unless you prove that liberals begrudge and abhor those who become rich and that liberals want to make them poor. You have not done that here.

If the rich have been robbed to give to the poor...............what evidence can you provide to support the claim? Absent such evidence, your premise fails. You know.....find some rich people who have gotten poor over the past decade due to income redistribution. Can you do that? Have things been turned upside down? For whom?

Wanting the rich to pay a fair share wanting the poor to be treated fairly are not mutually exclusive. That presents no paradox. Again....your premise fails.

Your third sentence in the second paragraph is masterful. You get triple points for brilliant use of a word.

Overall...terrible presentation based on a very weak, unprovable premise.

You have done it again!

Yeeeah...

Perhaps if you had read the whole thread through, you would have seen an embedded link in my thread to the op-ed piece by Paul Krugman in the New York Times entitled "The Undeserving Rich". He thinks the rich don't deserve to be rich. Pure and simple. And I know how much you hang on to each and every one of his words.

Your critique is flawed. You didn't disprove the paradox, you sat there and said it didn't exist, again without proving it. Assertions do not substitute for facts, LL. But making factual arguments was never your thing, now was it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I also suggest you do the same, LL. Yes I know you're here.

Preemptive strike? I love it. I live deep within you, idiot.

No, that comment makes you sound... perverse. I, having preempted your trolling, you proceed lash out at me with a childish riposte about the composition of my writing. How cute. Sit thee down.

 

[LoneLaugher]

One simple observation. It's quite simple in fact. I've noticed how far left liberals here and elsewhere supposedly strive for wealth and income equality. They've been doing it for a very long time. They want the rich to become poorer, and the poorer to become richer. A paradox. A double standard of ideologies that I want an explanation for. How is it that on one end liberals want the rich to pay their fair share, but on the other, want to give the poor what they deserve? Am I missing something here? Robbing the rich to give to the poor? Is this why America is being turned upside down?

These Liberals speak of wanting the poor to be more prosperous, but speak out against those who happen to be prosperous. Why? If these liberals want people to be prosperous, why begrudge those who are actually prosperous of their prosperity? Why say that the poor need to prosper, but speak out against them when they do achieve that goal? Where's the equality in taking from someone else and giving to someone who hasn't even earned it? This Paradox of Wealth is intriguing and utterly confusing. Poor to prosperous, prosperous to poor. A vicious cycle created by the liberal establishment who themselves are rich, passed down to the unwitting masses underneath their wealthy heels.

Let's say a poor man becomes prosperous, yet according to this logic, he is slapped down for becoming too prosperous. An already prosperous man suddenly loses everything he has, and is told by some that he deserves it because he somehow exploited the poor people below him. Somehow, the rich don't deserve to be rich even after liberals suggest that the poor should become as the rich, with as little effort as possible. But I have few questions for them. Just how do you think a man or woman becomes rich? Answer: He or she has to be poor first. Do you realize the position you've put yourselves in? Should you ever rise out of financial mediocrity or abject poverty and become prosperous like those evil rich folk, just remember that you in your success have become the very thing you abhor.

Your premise fails unless you prove that liberals begrudge and abhor those who become rich and that liberals want to make them poor. You have not done that here.

If the rich have been robbed to give to the poor...............what evidence can you provide to support the claim? Absent such evidence, your premise fails. You know.....find some rich people who have gotten poor over the past decade due to income redistribution. Can you do that? Have things been turned upside down? For whom?

Wanting the rich to pay a fair share wanting the poor to be treated fairly are not mutually exclusive. That presents no paradox. Again....your premise fails.

Your third sentence in the second paragraph is masterful. You get triple points for brilliant use of a word.

Overall...terrible presentation based on a very weak, unprovable premise.

You have done it again!

Yeeeah...

Perhaps if you had read the whole thread through, you would have seen an embedded link in my thread to the op-ed piece by Paul Krugman in the New York Times entitled "The Undeserving Rich". He thinks the rich don't deserve to be rich. Pure and simple. And I know how much you hang on to each one of his words.

Your critique is flawed. You didn't disprove the paradox, you sat there and said it didn't exist, again without proving it. Assertions do not substitute for facts, LL. But making factual arguments was never your thing, was it?

Did you just say that assertions do not substitute for facts? YOU? You just said that?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I also suggest you do the same, LL. Yes I know you're here.

Preemptive strike? I love it. I live deep within you, idiot.

No, that comment makes you sound... perverse. Having preempted your trolling, you lash out at me with a childish riposte about the composition of my writing. How cute. Sit thee down.

Idiot. You think I saw your whining pre-admission of failure before I submitted reply? Why so stupid?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your premise fails unless you prove that liberals begrudge and abhor those who become rich and that liberals want to make them poor. You have not done that here.

If the rich have been robbed to give to the poor...............what evidence can you provide to support the claim? Absent such evidence, your premise fails. You know.....find some rich people who have gotten poor over the past decade due to income redistribution. Can you do that? Have things been turned upside down? For whom?

Wanting the rich to pay a fair share wanting the poor to be treated fairly are not mutually exclusive. That presents no paradox. Again....your premise fails.

Your third sentence in the second paragraph is masterful. You get triple points for brilliant use of a word.

Overall...terrible presentation based on a very weak, unprovable premise.

You have done it again!

Yeeeah...

Perhaps if you had read the whole thread through, you would have seen an embedded link in my thread to the op-ed piece by Paul Krugman in the New York Times entitled "The Undeserving Rich". He thinks the rich don't deserve to be rich. Pure and simple. And I know how much you hang on to each one of his words.

Your critique is flawed. You didn't disprove the paradox, you sat there and said it didn't exist, again without proving it. Assertions do not substitute for facts, LL. But making factual arguments was never your thing, was it?

Did you just say that assertions do not substitute for facts? YOU? You just said that?

Uhh, is there a problem? You acknowledged the points I made by referencing them; saying, "they aren't mutually exclusive." Ready to debate me now? Or would you prefer to continue with your ad hominem crusade?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Preemptive strike? I love it. I live deep within you, idiot.

No, that comment makes you sound... perverse. Having preempted your trolling, you lash out at me with a childish riposte about the composition of my writing. How cute. Sit thee down.

Idiot. You think I saw your whining pre-admission of failure before I submitted reply? Why so stupid?

Alas, you chose the latter. It wasn't an admission of anything. Your childish remarks are an actual admission of failure, a failure to address the point instead of the person making them. How puerile can you possibly be?

 

[BDBoop]

Somebody @ mention me if he ever addresses the first response in this thread. I'm going to go read for a bit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Somebody @ mention me if he ever addresses the first response in this thread. I'm going to go read for a bit.

Yeah, I did address it. And I demolished it. That's what happens when you cherry pick the Bible, BD.

 

[eagle1462010]

I addressed it as well.

Be Boop give everything you have to charity if that's what floats your boat. Hell, build an ark. Don't preach to me how I spend my money or tell me who to give it to.

I'll decide who, when, and how much I'll give based on my beliefs and not yours. Hell we might agree on some of those charities, but that's not the point of the hypocrisy.