UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i thought my example made it clear that motivation is what separates greed from un-greed.
Greed, it isnt just for the rich anymore.
- Thread starter NLXSK1
- Start date
canndo
Well-Known Member
Depends on how much he makes and how he got his money. If he got it from opressing or taking advantage of those who have much less than he does - yes, he is still greedy.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Yes, because you want one class of people to pay for another class of people's lifestyle. If that is not greed I dont know what is...
we have a disappearing middle class paying for the lifestyles of a select wealthy minority..... GREED..... that's my point exactly. what were you talking about?????
have you forgot: "all men are created equal"??
why divide men into classes, if not to promote GREED?????
Brick Top
New Member
Nice talking point words, but how about giving us a progressive's definition of precisely what "safe working conditions" actually are? And while you are at it how about including if to achieve them the cost of the regulations imposed to assure them drives the cost of products and or services and the operation of a business up to a point so high that either the product or service is so costly that the profitability of the business drops to the point where it is no longer worth it to the owner or owners to remain in business, so they close down and all the employees end up out of work or the price of the product or service rises so much that people can no longer afford it, also resulting in business closure and unemployed workers, is in the end worth achieving what a progressive would consider to be "safe working conditions?
By whose standards? According to who? In relation to who and what else? Should a fast food worker be paid like a skilled craftsman? Should a laborer be paid like the owner of a profitable small business? Should a skilled craftsman be paid like someone who might have taken on $100,000.00 of debt to become a highly educated professional of some sort?
How does a progressive put a value on the time anyone spends working? Is it based on their value to the business they work on and their degree of actual contribution to the success of a business? Or is it if they put in a certain number of hours or more, regardless of their true value to a business and actual contribution to the success of a business they should be assured of being able to live a more than just comfortable lifestyle?
How can that be guaranteed for anyone? Little children die of cancer. Often times some moron teenage guy will be trying to show off for his girlfriend and driving fast and wrap their car around a tree killing both of them. A person can slip on a bit of ice, fall, hit their head on a curb and die. Someone driving into bright sunlight might miss a stop sign or traffic light and run down and kill a pedestrian or crash into another vehicle killing everyone. A family on vacation can be driving at a safe speed on a highway and hit some small but sharp object in the road causing a blowout, drive off the road rolling over and all be killed. Someone by their backyard pool can slip, hit their head and drown. Someone playing golf can be struck by lighting. People made poor life choices and smoke and die of cancer. Or they drink alcohol and die in an accident or die of cancer. Or they eat foods that are delicious but unhealthy and they die of a heart attack. Or they do not exercise and do little physical work and sit around in front of a computer most of their free time or watch TV most of their free time ending up overweight and out of shape and die of a massive stroke or heart attack.
But I suppose what you actually meant was access to low cost, or free, health care, including preventative health care, and of course low cost or free medications, that would then give them some better chance of possibly having a longer life than without it. Right?
That exists and has for many, many, many, many years. Or do you mean a free or low cost high quality education, including of course higher education, and even if a student is not qualified. Oh, wait a moment, that has pretty much existed for some time now too with all the scholarships available and government legislated racial discrimination where in the name of achieving diversity on campus a certain percentage of students will be turned away, regardless of how high their qualifications might be, and that percentage of students, by law, will be filled by others who in many cases might not be as highly qualified as those turned away.
Or do progressives believe that every single student should be given a free or very low cost high quality education and be allowed to go on as far as they can, or graduate, even if they lack the skills and aptitude needed and to make up for that they will be given extra help and instead of taking timed exams be given unlimited amounts of time to take exams. In other words just so they can become as educated as possible that they are provided with an uneven playing field that tilts in their favor?
That is an extremely vague, broad, all encompassing word, "opportunity." "Opportunity" for/at what? How do progressives, which is the latest attempted re-branding of liberal since liberalism has earned such a highly negative connotation, and rightly so, define "opportunity? Whenever I hear any liberals/progressives define "opportunity" is ends up sounding like something that should be guaranteed, that regardless of a person's skills and abilities that they not only be given a chance, but that they be guaranteed of success and security.
Well, actually, yes, progressives/liberals are extremely greedy, and highly envious. They want the government to legislate that some people will receive a larger slice of pie than they are deserving of, at the cost of those who are more deserving, those who bought the ingredients to make the pie and who measured out the right amounts of each ingredient and whose oven the pie was baked in.
Liberals/progressives want the risk takers to take as much risk as ever, but for a lesser return, and for those who take no risks, they should be rewarded more generously for riding along on the coat tails of the risk takers.
I know the new term for liberal, that being progressive, sounds impressive, but give that it's just a new name for liberal it is really an incorrect usage of the word.
[h=1]progressive[/h] [pruh-gres-iv]  Origin
[h=2]pro·gres·sive[/h]   [pruh-gres-iv]
adjective 1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. ( initial capital letter) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
On the surface the term would seem to fit liberalism, but when you look deeper into liberalism the term progressive is just not the correct fit. Their beliefs in how progress should be achieved, and in what way it should be achieved, assures that progress, as in true progress, will never be achieved.
Liberals are as much true progressives as jam makers or taxidermists are conservationists.
But what the heck? Who cares if the term or title is totally inaccurate? It's still really catchy sounding!
Dizzle Frost
Well-Known Member
Hey Brick Weed....i see you and yur other account failed miserably again tryin to jack my thread.....when are you gonna learn son? I closed the thread and i checked both IPs ...seems there the same haha.....funny thing is ...when you got your pussy in an uproar last time you tried fucking with me, lost and left ...... Sunbiz1 defended you....i was helping him out but he can now thank you for the close.Nice talking point words, but how about giving us a progressive's definition of precisely what "safe working conditions" actually are? And while you are at it how about including if to achieve them the cost of the regulations imposed to assure them drives the cost of products and or services and the operation of a business up to a point so high that either the product or service is so costly that the profitability of the business drops to the point where it is no longer worth it to the owner or owners to remain in business, so they close down and all the employees end up out of work or the price of the product or service rises so much that people can no longer afford it, also resulting in business closure and unemployed workers, is in the end worth achieving what a progressive would consider to be "safe working conditions?
By whose standards? According to who? In relation to who and what else? Should a fast food worker be paid like a skilled craftsman? Should a laborer be paid like the owner of a profitable small business? Should a skilled craftsman be paid like someone who might have taken on $100,000.00 of debt to become a highly educated professional of some sort?
How does a progressive put a value on the time anyone spends working? Is it based on their value to the business they work on and their degree of actual contribution to the success of a business? Or is it if they put in a certain number of hours or more, regardless of their true value to a business and actual contribution to the success of a business they should be assured of being able to live a more than just comfortable lifestyle?
How can that be guaranteed for anyone? Little children die of cancer. Often times some moron teenage guy will be trying to show off for his girlfriend and driving fast and wrap their car around a tree killing both of them. A person can slip on a bit of ice, fall, hit their head on a curb and die. Someone driving into bright sunlight might miss a stop sign or traffic light and run down and kill a pedestrian or crash into another vehicle killing everyone. A family on vacation can be driving at a safe speed on a highway and hit some small but sharp object in the road causing a blowout, drive off the road rolling over and all be killed. Someone by their backyard pool can slip, hit their head and drown. Someone playing golf can be struck by lighting. People made poor life choices and smoke and die of cancer. Or they drink alcohol and die in an accident or die of cancer. Or they eat foods that are delicious but unhealthy and they die of a heart attack. Or they do not exercise and do little physical work and sit around in front of a computer most of their free time or watch TV most of their free time ending up overweight and out of shape and die of a massive stroke or heart attack.
But I suppose what you actually meant was access to low cost, or free, health care, including preventative health care, and of course low cost or free medications, that would then give them some better chance of possibly having a longer life than without it. Right?
That exists and has for many, many, many, many years. Or do you mean a free or low cost high quality education, including of course higher education, and even if a student is not qualified. Oh, wait a moment, that has pretty much existed for some time now too with all the scholarships available and government legislated racial discrimination where in the name of achieving diversity on campus a certain percentage of students will be turned away, regardless of how high their qualifications might be, and that percentage of students, by law, will be filled by others who in many cases might not be as highly qualified as those turned away.
Or do progressives believe that every single student should be given a free or very low cost high quality education and be allowed to go on as far as they can, or graduate, even if they lack the skills and aptitude needed and to make up for that they will be given extra help and instead of taking timed exams be given unlimited amounts of time to take exams. In other words just so they can become as educated as possible that they are provided with an uneven playing field that tilts in their favor?
That is an extremely vague, broad, all encompassing word, "opportunity." "Opportunity" for/at what? How do progressives, which is the latest attempted re-branding of liberal since liberalism has earned such a highly negative connotation, and rightly so, define "opportunity? Whenever I hear any liberals/progressives define "opportunity" is ends up sounding like something that should be guaranteed, that regardless of a person's skills and abilities that they not only be given a chance, but that they be guaranteed of success and security.
Well, actually, yes, progressives/liberals are extremely greedy, and highly envious. They want the government to legislate that some people will receive a larger slice of pie than they are deserving of, at the cost of those who are more deserving, those who bought the ingredients to make the pie and who measured out the right amounts of each ingredient and whose oven the pie was baked in.
Liberals/progressives want the risk takers to take as much risk as ever, but for a lesser return, and for those who take no risks, they should be rewarded more generously for riding along on the coat tails of the risk takers.
I know the new term for liberal, that being progressive, sounds impressive, but give that it's just a new name for liberal it is really an incorrect usage of the word.
progressive
[pruh-gres-iv]
pro·gres·sive
   [pruh-gres-iv]
adjective 1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. ( initial capital letter) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
On the surface the term would seem to fit liberalism, but when you look deeper into liberalism the term progressive is just not the correct fit. Their beliefs in how progress should be achieved, and in what way it should be achieved, assures that progress, as in true progress, will never be achieved.
Liberals are as much true progressives as jam makers or taxidermists are conservationists.
But what the heck? Who cares if the term or title is totally inaccurate? It's still really catchy sounding!
Your "throwing the gene switch to produce resin" post was classic....when it comes to copy and pasting useless information, you win...when it comes to giving quality information, you fail on all accountsYour jus some old fuck who smoked weed in 1942 , you dont know fuckall !
its gotta suck being a lonely old man with nothing and nobody but yourself and yur pc huh?
sync0s
Well-Known Member
The fuck???
sync0s
Well-Known Member
How in the world do you define taking advantage of? Because, quite frankly, you can stretch that to making a profit.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Can you say, "Social Darwinism".
WillyBagseed
Active Member
Actually progressives are tired of one class ( the middle class) having their small amount of wealth redistributed to the already wealthy.
Brickweed and NLX, having wealth and wanting more from people already struggling is in fact GREED.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Well Willy, by that definition, anyone who has any wealth is greedy because there are always people struggling.Willyßagseed;6877879 said:
There are small businesses out there that are struggling. And you want government to take more from them. That makes you just as greedy if not more than the people you despise.
To add to this...
BTW Willie, you have completely failed to prove that the people struggling are not just as greedy if not more greedy than the rich. All you are showing is that they are needy.
Brick Top
New Member
You are lying Dribble Piss, I have never used two accounts to argue with you or anyone else.
Once again, you are lying Dribble Piss. There is a difference between losing and becoming fed up with arguing with a complete and total moron and just stopping because you see the utter futility and insanity of arguing with someone who has the IQ of used cat litter.
If you were helping someone, well to begin with, God help their plants if you were supposed to be their salvation, but if you are the type of person who would withdraw their help because someone defends someone you do not like and argued with or just doesn't see eye to eye with you, well then you are a big wet floppy douchebag. That's very low, Dribble Piss, very, very low of you.
Your "throwing the gene switch to produce resin" post was classic....when it comes to copy and pasting useless information, you win...when it comes to giving quality information, you fail on all accounts
Dribble Piss, that was not me and saying was me is a lie, a flat out lie. If that member is who you claim is a second account of mine, you, well, you are full of shit, pure and simple.
And what did you use to divine that information? A Ouija Board? Maybe Tarot Cards? Did read tea leaves? How about a crystal ball? Or did you rely on your Magic 8-Ball?
I don't even have to know anything about your life to know that I would not trade places with you if a million dollars, tax, free came with the deal. I've had a great life, far better than most people have. My life today is what I want it to be, what works for me, what I like. It is not as you imagine it being and then lie about it being.
What must really suck though for you, Dribble Piss, is to be such a massive dickhead troll who cannot respond to so much as one thing I said in my recent message and instead is compelled to troll me with lies and abuse.
But I can only guess that you figure that the last time you acted like this I threw up my hands in frustration and decided it absurd to argue with the king of all assholes that if you jump right back on me using the exact same tactic I will again decide this is not worth it and simply stop, so one again you can proclaim a nonexistent triumph rather that accept that I might yet again grow tired of arguing with RIU's version of "Rain Man" over how many fish sticks he was given for dinner.
You are a pathetic excuse for a human being, Dribble Piss, and you embody much of what is bad about this site.
Brick Top
New Member
Willyßagseed;6877879 said:
How do you define the middle class having; "their small amount of wealth redistributed to the already wealthy?" And do you believe that in the name of fairness this alleged redistribution should now be reversed resulting in the wealthy having some of their wealth redistributed to the middle class?
First off, how can you justify saying that someone with wealth who might want to increase their wealth want to do it at the cost of; "people already struggling?"
One of my friends owned two successful businesses. He could have had his son oversee them and retire very comfortably. Instead he hired managers and he and his son opened a third business, one that manufactures floating aluminum docks. About the least expensive dock he sells is roughly $18,000.00 and most run between $25,000.00 and $45,000,000.00. People who are struggling are not his clientele, they are not the people who come in and write a check for a new dock.
My brother in law has had three successful businesses. On Tuesday I was at his house and he was showing me his new invention and showing me the process he is going through to get it patented. A marketing and advertising agency already has the products marketing ready to go once he receives his patent.
I used to have a neighbor, a man much older than me at the time, who married one of three sisters who were from an extremely wealthy family. They family fortune was split equally between the three daughters. At the time one of the sister's husband use a portion of her inheritance to purchase the Minnesota Twins, just a portion of it. My neighbor had 27 patents and collected fees for the rights to use his designs and royalties on whatever was produced. But he did not stop attempting to create new inventions, new designs to add to his number of patents, not even though his wife had a truly massive fortune.
One thing the envious worker bees fail to understand about people like I just used as an example is that their drive is not actually to build more wealth, that is only a pleasant side effect of the true cause. What drives many of the most successful is not greed, it is strictly personality type. They fit, or mostly fit, into what is called a Type A personality. People with Type A personality are highly competitive. They have clear drive for success, victory, high ambitions and goal oriented personality, which often makes them successful in their careers.
They are unable to just play golf and sit around on a yacht and enjoy their wealth. To them that is a waste of time, and not as in a loss of additional profits, but a loss of further achievements. It is the need to achieve that drives them far more than the profits their achievements bring them.
In two of the examples of people I gave above both set up businesses, grew them, made them successes and little by little over the years transferred stock in their corporations to children and later grandchildren, giving them the income and securing their futures, rather than amassing more and more personal wealth. Their need was to achieve, They are not greedy and do not need the income so they transfer stock in their corporations to their children and grandchildren.
The third did not do that, but he and his wife never had children. But he donated very large sums of money to everything from food-banks to major charities.
Going back to the mid-80's I can give another example. Friends of my mother owned a manufacturing company that made things like punch presses and metal lathes etc. They had enough personal wealth to get they though the rest of their lives comfortably and they had been transferring stock little bits at a time to their children and grandchildren. They sold their business for $71,000,000,00 and little babies were instantly multimillionaires.
Had they been greedy they would have retained all the stock and then collected all the profits and then left whatever they had left when they died to their children and grandchildren, which if they were greedy people who wanted to live a lifestyle of the very wealthy would have meant far less would have been left to leave their family.
I do not remember the entertainer, but many years ago I saw one interviewed and the question was asked, how long will you go on, just how much money does one person need? The reply was that he had long since stopped working for himself and his wife and everything he earned went into trust funds for his children and grandchildren. His home was nice, but it was not lavish. He could have loved a jet set lifestyle, but he didn't. He had no interest in those things, he had no interest in amassing as much personal wealth as he could. Instead he was only working to assure the security of not only his children and grandchildren, but also others that would come after his death. His singular goal was to make monetarily secure as many generations of his family as he possibly could.
I cannot call that greed. I can only call that love for one's family, including those he will never live long enough to know.
Something else the worker bee seldom if ever factors into things is how people like myself and my brother in law and my dock making friend will take large risks taking out large loans to open or buy into businesses, business that are the backbone of employment in the U.S. where the vast majority of wage earners work for small businesses, then we work our asses off to make the business work. If not for people like that the worker bees would not have what they amass in their lives. Also, if someone takes out a $2 million or $3 million loan, hires worker bees and then they fail to make their business a success, the worker bees are out of a job, but the employer has not only lost his income, but is in the bucket for a million or two million or three million or more dollars.
The employers take all the risks, not the worker bees. When you take a risk like that, a risk that creates jobs and paychecks for others besides yourself, you have more than earned the lion's share of the business profits.
Those who have never started and operated or bought or ought into and then operated a business have no conception of what it is like, the risks taken, the life insurance policies and homes or other properties that at times are needed to use as collateral to secure a loan. While they cash their paychecks, signed by their employer, and bitch how they see how much business the business does and if not for people like them that couldn't happen and that they deserve a raise, they do not know, or care, that many new businesses operate at a loss for one, two or more years and the employer they see as growing fat from profits has spent many hours on his knees in front of lenders attempting to get more loans or to renegotiate a loan in a way that will allow them to remain in operation until the business grows to a point where it has a decent degree of security.
Of course the response will likely be about major corporations with billions of dollars in profit and CEO's who make more in a year than a small business owner will make in their life. But remember, it is small business who creates the jobs and signs the paychecks for the majority of the nation's wage earners.
For all those complaining middle class workers, if they want out of the middle class they need to do what many of their employers had the balls to do. Walk into a lending institution and get a several million dollar loan and see if they can succeed or not and maybe then be able to join the ranks of those with larger amounts of wealth, rather than not take any risk whatsoever and simply claim they deserve a larger piece of the pie and actually believe they deserve to profit more off the risks taken by and hard work put in by others.
&Umm WTF does this have to do with Greed? Take it to PM'sHey Brick Weed....i see you and yur other account failed miserably again tryin to jack my thread.....when are you gonna learn son? I closed the thread and i checked both IPs ...seems there the same haha.....funny thing is ...when you got your pussy in an uproar last time you tried fucking with me, lost and left ...... Sunbiz1 defended you....i was helping him out but he can now thank you for the close.
Your "throwing the gene switch to produce resin" post was classic....when it comes to copy and pasting useless information, you win...when it comes to giving quality information, you fail on all accounts
its gotta suck being a lonely old man with nothing and nobody but yourself and yur pc huh?
canndo
Well-Known Member
The example I keep giving is the one I will use again. A CEO of a health insurance company ordering his company to search for ways to deprive premium paying individuals of expensive operations while he takes home millions. You wouldn't claim that the woman who failed to disclose acne treatment when she was 19 is greedy because she wants her cancer treatment paid for by the insurance company she has been making payments to for 10 years, would you?
Making a profit from a safe product that the consumer wants and needs is in everyone's best interest, nothing greedy about it.
Brick Top
New Member
Originally Posted by Brick Top
Hey Brick Weed....i see you and yur other account failed miserably again tryin to jack my thread.....when are you gonna learn son? I closed the thread and i checked both IPs ...seems there the same haha.....funny thing is ...when you got your pussy in an uproar last time you tried fucking with me, lost and left ...... Sunbiz1 defended you....i was helping him out but he can now thank you for the close.
Your "throwing the gene switch to produce resin" post was classic....when it comes to copy and pasting useless information, you win...when it comes to giving quality information, you fail on all accountsYour jus some old fuck who smoked weed in 1942 , you dont know fuckall !
its gotta suck being a lonely old man with nothing and nobody but yourself and yur pc huh?
WillyBagseed
Active Member
I do not have to prove they are not just as greedy, this is your THREAD, the burden of proof is yours....
Please decide whether I am Willy or Willie, also, try not to argue points like a politician.
You either know what I meant in the post and are just being an ass
OR, you ride the short bus I drive now and then. 
You obviously do not read enough here, I am all for wealth and small business you fucking retard.
I vote
the only one spewing talking points is you....... drives the cost of products and or services and the operation of a business up to a point so high that either the product or service is so costly that the profitability of the business drops to the point where it is no longer worth it to the owner or owners to remain in business.... this is just a stupid assumption.... a good that isn't profitable isn't on the market to begin with.... what you should be looking at is VIABILITY, or "is there enough demand for my product?" the answer right now is no, for most products, that's why there's so many loses out on the market right now. because the majority have lost most of their disposable income to a wealthy minority and demand has dropped. you don't even understand economics and here you are trying to talk business.....lololol
and guess what?? when a company is forced to improve working conditions it must do so spending money on the economy which = higher demand and greater economic activity. this idea that when companies spend less and less and less just for profit's sake = great economics is bogus, a sham, and incorrect.....
working conditions ALWAYS have room to improve. ask executives. once a corner office and a cadillac was premium, now it's bullet proof glass, 14 well armed bodyguards, private jets.....
all of a sudden our education system is fantastic.... not 60 days ago some of the same fools who liked this post were calling for the abolition of the department of education, because, you know, it shouldn't be free..... lol....
funny how what you criticize is Affirmative Action, which when implemented successfully targeted and pretty much eliminated racial discrimination.... one of the few pure social engineering programs that worked....
why don't you criticize the unjustified price increases that have led to the current state of higher education in this country??
you are jumping to so many irrational conclusions, which have nothing to do with my post, that it is hard to address them all... the run on sentences make little to no sense. I believe that higher quality education should be accessible. right now in the US it is not because of ridiculous and unjustified price increases....
yup. it was once possible. you think that people, for some reason, are just naturally stupid and deserve the worse. i have another point of view, that regardless of how smart/dumb you think you are, we are ALL in this together... we all deserve a good quality of life..... it'll make our country better....
i'd say I'm ANTI GREEDY... WANTING EVERYBODY TO BASK IN GREATNESS IS GREEDY ON A NATIONAL LEVEL. I WANT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY TO BE GREAT... NOT JUST ONE 'CLASS' OF THE COUNTRY...LOL
progressive
this one's incommplete... it's also a reference to an insurance company....[pruh-gres-iv]
pro·gres·sive
   [pruh-gres-iv]
adjective 1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. ( initial capital letter) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
On the surface the term would seem to fit liberalism, but when you look deeper into liberalism the term progressive is just not the correct fit. Their beliefs in how progress should be achieved, and in what way it should be achieved, assures that progress, as in true progress, will never be achieved.
Liberals are as much true progressives as jam makers or taxidermists are conservationists.
But what the heck? Who cares if the term or title is totally inaccurate? It's still really catchy sounding!