Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)17:52
No.4800582

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)17:52 No.4800582

Im going to ignore your retarded typed out post and wonder how the fuck the picture you posted has any relevance what so ever to the amount of income people make.

god damn the OWS is retarded.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:32
No.4801338

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:32 No.4801338

File: 1344810777037.jpg-(21 KB, 300x320, lenineastwood.jpg)

Isn't it funny OP? Fools don't think they're oppressed... they are the oppressors in waiting....

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:34
No.4801377

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:34 No.4801377

>>4800582
>wonder how the fuck the picture you posted has any relevance what so ever to the amount of income people make.

Are you a retard? It's a chart of exactly that.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:36
No.4801409

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:36 No.4801409

>>4800448

my grandpa remembers people who would say the same exact thing 50 years ago.

and here we are

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:37
No.4801433

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:37 No.4801433

The principle of freedom certainly cannot justify a legal order wherein a few can, by virtue of their legal monopoly over necessities, compel others to work under degrading and brutalizing conditions. A government which limits the right of large land-holders limits the rights of property and yet may promote real freedom. Property owners, like other individuals, are members of a community and must subordinate their ambition to the larger whole of which they are a part.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:38
No.4801441

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:38 No.4801441

>>4801409
50 years ago wealth was not so badly out of proportion. The bottom tiers of society had much more wealth than they do now. Thanks to trickle up economics.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:38
No.4801449

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:38 No.4801449

What about Alaska OP?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:40
No.4801475

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:40 No.4801475

>>4800448
*inb4

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:40
No.4801489

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:40 No.4801489

>>4800448
>1% wanting the Dakotas

OWS sure is retarded

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:41
No.4801499

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:41 No.4801499

>>4801449
That belongs to Bill Gates.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:41
No.4801506

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:41 No.4801506

>>4801449
>Alaska part of the hidden wealth overseas. Along with Hawaii.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:45
No.4801563

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:45 No.4801563

>>4800448

Welcome to Corporativism endorse by Republican AND Demorat Parties.

Comming Soon: QE3.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:45
No.4801572

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:45 No.4801572

The rich are only super rich because of the government.

>MOAR REGULATIONS
Destroys competition or small business and other big businesses willing to lower their prices
>LAWS PREVENTING PRIVATE DONATIONS
Wtf? You really think that's going to stop corporations from handing money to the next candidate. It also is infringing upon common peoples rights to donate to their favorite candidates.

The Government and the rich work hand in hand. You really think that making more government will solve problems when the government is run by corporations? If the free market could work, these fucking aholes like goldman sachs wouldnt be screwing people over.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:47
No.4801600

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:47 No.4801600

Logical conclusion of that pic is communism. Do you want communsim OP?

I personally dont give a fuck about the distribution of wealth. In fact I think the disparity makes us stronger.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:48
No.4801617

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:48 No.4801617

Where's Alaska?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:49
No.4801629

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:49 No.4801629

>>4801617

illuminate have alaska and hawaii

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:50
No.4801648

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:50 No.4801648

>>4800448
>Government owns 60% of all the wealth and property in the country.

Cool propaganda OP.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:52
No.4801672

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:52 No.4801672

>>4801572
>Destroys competition or small business and other big businesses willing to lower their prices
No, they dont. You're assuming every regulation is the same, the purpose of regulations is to address a specific problem at hand. You can certainly pass a regulation and exclude smaller businesses from it, while keeping larger ones in check.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:53
No.4801687

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:53 No.4801687

>>4800448
>Rich pay 70% of Income taxes

>Rich with corporations provide 60% of all tax revenue.

>60% of every dollar payed to government employees and welfare and charities came from the rich.

>You now realize the Rich and corporations by virtue of the taxes they pay actually do provide jobs just by virtue of being rich to the public sector.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:54
No.4801705

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:54 No.4801705

>>4801572

You, dear anon, are clueless.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:54
No.4801707

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:54 No.4801707

>>4801687
So basically 60% of all government jobs and welfare are thanks to the rich.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:55
No.4801717

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:55 No.4801717

>>4801705
I cant help but notice how you didnt refute anything there.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:55
No.4801718

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:55 No.4801718

>>4801672
>You can certainly pass a regulation and exclude smaller businesses from it, while keeping larger ones in check.
If so, whats the incentive for a small business to grow larger if they have to battle more taxes and regulations? It keeps the small businesses small and large business large. Therefore destroying competition.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:56
No.4801735

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:56 No.4801735

>>4801572
The regulation myth has been busted more than once
Business owners just need to learn to do the damn paper work or assign someone to do it.
Its not that hard.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:56
No.4801743

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:56 No.4801743

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

somehow this video manages to make enough sense to probably make liberals and libertarians realize they're actually on the same side.

in b4 tl;dw

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:59
No.4801779

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:59 No.4801779

americans, even the poorest americans, are the global 1%. We live far above your means compared to the rest of the world.

But how can that be when, supposedly America is a land of dreaded income inequality?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)18:59
No.4801788

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)18:59 No.4801788

The wealth generated in the last 10 years is mostly a farce.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:01
No.4801806

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:01 No.4801806

>>4801718
Again, you assume a regulation is one policy all the time.

There's a regulation that prevents food companies from putting poison in your food, you against that regulation? We can debate about which regulations will help or not, but they're there to address specific problems hurting the general public.

Using your logic
>What? Regulate more after the LIBOR scandal? OUTRAGEOUS! how are small businesses supposed to have an incentive to grow when they cant collaborate with the most powerful banks to artificially increase/decrease interest rates at their benefit even at the expense of hundreds of millions of people?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:01
No.4801812

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:01 No.4801812

>>4801779

>americans, even the poorest americans, are the global 1%. We live far above your means compared to the rest of the world.

This brings up another important question. Shouldnt the american 99% be forced to give their wealth to the global 99% for true equality?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:01
No.4801814

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:01 No.4801814

File: 1344812506821.jpg-(25 KB, 500x330, The OP.jpg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8

OP is a faggot and probably poor because he spends too much time on 4chan and not enough time advancing his career, and wants everything handed to him by the government.

Pic Related: It's probably the OP

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:02
No.4801830

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:02 No.4801830

>>4800448
>They call it the American Dream because you aren't supposed to ever have it.
>They never thought of calling it the "American Reality"

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:02
No.4801831

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:02 No.4801831

>>4801687
>ALL BY THEMSELVES

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:03
No.4801840

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:03 No.4801840

>>4801812
If we had a global union rather than countries, maybe. Not the entirety of our wealth but more of it.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:03
No.4801841

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:03 No.4801841

>>4801717

There's nothing to refute but opinion, no facts.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:03
No.4801850

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:03 No.4801850

Personally, I don't see this as a "not enough government", or a "too much government" problem. It's a corruption and collusion problem.

Add more gub'mint, and let it be like it is, it'll be collusive and smother the people and small business. Take government away, and allow it to stay corrupt, the only stuff that will go away is taxes for the rich, and your social services.

This is not a left-right issue, you're being goaded into bickering over bullshit while they keep fucking you in the ass.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:03
No.4801853

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:03 No.4801853

File: 1344812628927.jpg-(28 KB, 366x304, South Dakota.jpg)

>>4801489
Apparently you aren't familiar with the Black Hills of South Dakota with all their treasures, nor the natural gas fields of North Dakota, largest ever in recent history!

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:04
No.4801854

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:04 No.4801854

>>4801830

Even if we had a global world government, it wouldn't happen.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:04
No.4801866

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:04 No.4801866

>>4801850
Remove the governments ability to do most of that stuff, and you get rid of the whole being fucked in the ass by the corrupt government.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:05
No.4801871

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:05 No.4801871

>>4801812

>From each according to their ability to each according to their need

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:05
No.4801882

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:05 No.4801882

>Rich pay 70% of Income taxes

>Rich with corporations provide 60% of all tax revenue.

>60% of every dollar payed to government employees and welfare and charities came from the rich.

>You now realize the Rich and corporations by virtue of the taxes they pay actually do provide jobs just by virtue of being rich to the public sector.

If you work in government the rich pay your salary.

NEVER FORGET THIS.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:05
No.4801883

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:05 No.4801883

>>4801840

Are you listening to yourself?

Wouldnt you be completely pissed off if the UN declared that it wasnt fair for you to live so comfortably and that you should have to give a large portion of your income to niggers in Africa who have 9 children per family?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:08
No.4801899

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:08 No.4801899

>>4801806
>There's a regulation that prevents food companies from putting poison in your food, you against that regulation?
If someone dies from eating poison a food company puts in (which they have), the story is released in the news and people don't buy from there (which they have)

>how are small businesses supposed to have an incentive to grow when they cant collaborate with the most powerful banks to artificially increase/decrease interest rates at their benefit even at the expense of hundreds of millions of people?
And yet these most powerful banks are run by the government, aka the federal reserve, the one that controls the nations money system. Free market banks couldn't collaborate because they wouldn't have the money to do this. The federal Reserve does because they just call up the US Mint and tell them to print another billion, which not only benefits the rich but devalues the savings of the common man

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:08
No.4801907

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:08 No.4801907

most people aren't getting paid a fair wage

i don't care if you scrub toilets for a living. you should be able to fully support a small family where your spouse doesn't have to work. you should be able to fully afford essential bills including complete health coverage. you should then have at least something left over for unessential spending so that businesses can actually turn a profit and have employees.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:08
No.4801911

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:08 No.4801911

>>4801883
It'd be fair though. Do you really think the US is a kind and gentle country that prospered all on its own? A lot of countries in the third world are were they are because some current powerful country fucked them in the ass at some point or another.

I'd object to the entirety of my wealth being given away, but not to some of it. Im here living off their suffering. Granted, if they do want it they'd need to go through some process that shows they are actively trying to better themselves and be productive members of society (going to school, getting a job, etc.) but thats a whole 'nother issue.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:10
No.4801936

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:10 No.4801936

>>4801899

Because not once in the history of America has the media been manipulated.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:10
No.4801939

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:10 No.4801939

I don't understand the obsession with taxing the rich.

No amount of taxation will solve our deficit. The government at the very best allowed the deficit to happen, more likely they've encouraged it. Now they're advocating taxes before we address cuts. This is entirely senseless to me, they've proven that they cannot spend responsibly.

I want regulations to prevent lobbyists from holding public positions and to prevent public servants from lobbying the offices and agencies they used to occupy. I want a 100% tax on legislators when they fail to pass a budget.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:11
No.4801941

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:11 No.4801941

OP, what are the household wealth levels required to meet what is shown on the figure?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:11
No.4801942

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:11 No.4801942

>>4801899
>If someone dies from eating poison a food company puts in (which they have), the story is released in the news and people don't buy from there (which they have)
And what;s preventing the company from buying the news? Just look at modern news outlets, FOX and MSNBC are pretty biased as they are, imagine in a more loose environment?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:11
No.4801946

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:11 No.4801946

>>4801899
That's actually dumb though. Poisoning food should constitute a form of aggression, should it not? Wouldn't it violate the NAP?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:11
No.4801958

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:11 No.4801958

>>4801939

The solution is both cuts AND taxes.

Republicans however sworn a pledge to not increase revenue spending by a penny.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:12
No.4801963

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:12 No.4801963

>>4801946
if it was proven the poising was willful or do to gross neglect yes.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:12
No.4801965

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:12 No.4801965

>>4801942
Media outlets are cartelized thanks to licensing restrictions. They can afford to be like that because they enjoy legal privileges.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:12
No.4801968

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:12 No.4801968

read "manna"

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:12
No.4801978

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:12 No.4801978

>>4801899
The mint only makes coins. The fed can invent money with ones and zeros, and they don't need to notify anyone.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:15
No.4802018

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:15 No.4802018

>>4801942
Food inc.? There are tons of investigative journalists and documentary makers around. If your dad ate a cheeseburger and died the next day of poisoning, wouldn't you be suspicious? Buying people off every second of the day is probably a lot more expensive than just not putting in poison.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:16
No.4802045

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:16 No.4802045

>>4802009

Because a government budget is not like a household budget.

You know what got us out of the great depression? The New Deal and WWII

Both massive government spendetures.

However, I do agree that some things need to be cut, like our bloated military.

But that seems to be some sacred cow that must never ever ever ever be cut, so lets instead get rid of useless things like police and teachers.

We need cuts, revenue increasing, and smart spending.

But our political climate seems to just be a case of extremes, and nothing will ever get done.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:16
No.4802056

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:16 No.4802056

>>4802009
>we can't afford to increase revenue
wat?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:17
No.4802062

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:17 No.4802062

>>4801958
I deleted my last post because I failed at reading.

I'm still not a republican, but I don't see any point in touching revenue until spending is fully addressed.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:17
No.4802072

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:17 No.4802072

>>4801866

& replace it by being fucked in the ass by the market

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:18
No.4802094

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:18 No.4802094

>>4802056
I misread your post because you called it revenue spending. Those aren't the same thing, so I addressed spending. Then I re-read your post and realized that you meant revenue.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:19
No.4802100

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:19 No.4802100

>>4802062

Think of it this way.

You are at -50 and losing 5 every week.

You also make 2 every week, causing a net loss of -3

Wouldn't it make sense to not only stop the negative loss, but also improve the positive gain?

You gain 5 and subtract 3 and suddenly you make a positive gain of +2

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:25
No.4802194

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:25 No.4802194

>>4801936
see >>4802018

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:25
No.4802195

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:25 No.4802195

Total amount of wealth can grow. Total amount of land cannot. Wealth isn't a pie chart, stop using false equivalences.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:26
No.4802220

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:26 No.4802220

>>4802100

>negative loss

That's a gain dude

Irregardless, you're not addressing the inter-related nature of what those losses & gains do to the system

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:27
No.4802233

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:27 No.4802233

>Government is corrupted by the rich and is fucking people in the ass
>Tea Party response: HEY GUYS LETS JUST GET RID OF THE GOVERNMENT

That's like selling your car for scrap because one of the tires went flat. Except this time its a country that the Republicans are trying to sell for scrap, and the rich and big corporations are the ones who will buy up the pieces.

Instead, let's try and elect some officials that will pass very tough anti-corruption laws, so that the government will once again be of/for/by the people, and not only a select few.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:27
No.4802235

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:27 No.4802235

>>4802100
You can't do both at the exact same time. The problem is, you have to choose one to accomplish first. Spending must be cut, THEN revenues can be raised. The other way around will be impossible, because if taxes are raised, then Congress will simply refuse to cut spending. You have to get Congres to do the hard job (cutting) before the easy job (raising taxes).

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:27
No.4802236

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:27 No.4802236

>>4802195

stop being deliberately obtuse

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:28
No.4802247

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:28 No.4802247

>>4802220

How is it a gain? The 2 you make is then subtracted by the 5 you lose, making it -3.

And I understand there are more complicated issues which is why I believe in mediation into both.

We need revenue raises or we'll never get out of the hole. Just sink into it slower.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:29
No.4802268

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:29 No.4802268

>>4802233
>Government is corrupted by the rich and is fucking people in the ass
>Liberal response: HEY GUYS LETS JUST ADD MORE GOVERNMENT

You really think abolishing private donations will stop people from handing money to each other? Are you saying I can't donate to my favorite candidate?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:30
No.4802272

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:30 No.4802272

>>4802235

That would be fine, but conservatives have been adament on zero revenue gains whatsoever thanks to the Grover Norquist pledge.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:30
No.4802281

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:30 No.4802281

Republicans might pledge not to increase revenue spending, but that's just because the reallocate money to the mega wealthy. Cut social services like welfare, medicare, medicaid, etc. and give MASSIVE tax cuts to the lobbying corporations. And you can talk about how the rich pay 60% taxes and shit, but the truth is there are loopholes that allow them to pay a smaller percentage than poor people. Exxon Mobil is the most profitable company in the history of Earth and has paid nearly 0% in taxes over the last few years. In fact, they've made millions and millions of dollars off of TAX CUTS.

But just keep regurgitating propaganda about "socialism" and "communism", I'm sure the Republicans have your best interests at heart. I'm sure they only stopped "socialized" healthcare to protect your money and not the multi-billion dollar insurance corporations that sign their checks.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:32
No.4802307

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:32 No.4802307

The fuck is up with the map in OP? Who the fuck would want to own the grand majority of the midwest? There's... NOTHING. Absolutely, fucking nothing to do here in the midwest, I can't wait to get the fuck out.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:32
No.4802309

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:32 No.4802309

>>>a>>70037696
>a>>70037696

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:32
No.4802321

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:32 No.4802321

>>4802281
> I'm sure they only stopped "socialized" healthcare to protect your money and not the multi-billion dollar insurance corporations that sign their checks.
>implying it doesn't help multi-billion dollar insurance companies because it forces people to purchase their insurance.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:32
No.4802324

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:32 No.4802324

>>4802281

>He actually believes this

Oh my....

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:33
No.4802327

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:33 No.4802327

>>4801911

Thats all wrong though. If the entire continent of africa did not exist, the standard of living in America would be roughly the same.

A country can become wealthy without taking advantage of someone else.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:33
No.4802333

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:33 No.4802333

>>4802268

>Liberal response: HEY GUYS LETS JUST ADD MORE GOVERNMENT

I never said anything about adding more government, just fixing what we already have. I am not a liberal and am not pro/con big/small government

>You really think abolishing private donations will stop people from handing money to each other?

I didn't say anything about abolishing private donations. There should be restrictions on it enough so that people and corporations stop seeing campaign donations as an investment on which they will receive some sort of financial return.

>Are you saying I can't donate to my favorite candidate?

I didn't say that at all. See above. Not like your going to read this post anyways.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:36
No.4802373

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:36 No.4802373

>People are becoming slaves.

You have always been slaves, you idiot statists.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:36
No.4802378

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:36 No.4802378

>>4802333
>There should be restrictions on it enough so that people and corporations stop seeing campaign donations as an investment on which they will receive some sort of financial return.
How do you get them to stop seeing it as that though? Isn't that the only reason they donate?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:37
No.4802397

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:37 No.4802397

Yup, Jesus makes you free from financial bondage!
I carry this RFID chip with the mark of 6 in my cell phone because the bible makes it clear that there are 6 suicidal prophets, 6 pieces of the armor of God,6 times Jesus was accused of having a devil,it is certain that man was created on the sixth day, 6 is also stamped upon the measurements of the Great Pyramid 6 times in the Bible our Lord was asked for a sign from:1.
The Pharisees, Matthew 12:38; Mark 8:11.
2. The Sadducees, Matthew 16:1.
3. The Disciples, Matthew 24:3; Mark 13:4.
4. The people, Luke 11:16.
5. The Jews, John 2:18.
6. The people, John 6:30.
The Hebrew #$#$' (shaish) is supposed to be derived from the root #$da#$af (shah-dash), but nothing is known about its origin or signification.
Which 6 people testified that Jesus was INNOCENT?
(Six persons bore testimony to the Savior's innocency:
1. Pilate, Luke 23:14.
2. Herod, Luke 23:15.
3. Judas, Matthew 27:3.
4. Pilate's wife, Matthew 27:19.
5. The dying thief, Luke 23:41.
6. The centurion, Luke 23:47.)

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:39
No.4802421

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:39 No.4802421

>>4802378

>How do you get them to stop seeing it as that though? Isn't that the only reason they donate?

I do not know how to actually implement that. It's partly that people need to stop being such greedy jews. It's a whole mindset of most of the rich/CEOs (save for those like Warren Buffet/Bill Gates).

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:39
No.4802427

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:39 No.4802427

Statists:
>Libertarians are dumb for believing in absolute private property. People can abuse their property rights. Therefore the state should have the right to take away what they own.

Libertarians
>Statists are dumb for believing in taxation. The state can abuse its right to tax. Therefore people should have the right to keep what they own.

Anonymous
K-19: The Window Breaker08/12/12(Sun)19:39
No.4802431

K-19: The Window Breaker Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:39 No.4802431

File: 1344814776954.jpg-(90 KB, 720x673, 560294.jpg)

>>4802045
>You know what got us out of the great depression? The New Deal and WWII

>mfw this is what statists actually believe!

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:39
No.4802439

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:39 No.4802439

>>4802268

I find it fascinating that you're defending limitless campaign contributions that pretty much seal our fates as corporate slaves. Regulations aimed at keeping YOU from donating to politicians would be backed by mega-rich corporations you fucking moron. Regulation keeping them from literally buying politicians with millions of dollars is what you should be supporting if you value the concept of Democracy at all. Like someone said earlier, regulations are designed to do very specific things, there are good regulations and bad regulations. But due to conservative misinformation the world "regulation" is pretty much synonymous with "big government" and "socialism" in your eyes. How does it feel to be so easily manipulated?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:40
No.4802458

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:40 No.4802458

>have one of the best economies in the world
>drop slightly
>"whaaa we're collapsing."
perspective, americlaps. some countries would KILL to be in your position.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:41
No.4802461

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:41 No.4802461

>>4802045
Please tell me you are joking when you say that the New Deal and WW2 ended the depression.

If you aren't please pick up a history book so you can see how wrong that statement is.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:41
No.4802463

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:41 No.4802463

history repeats itself. look at rome. usa is no diff.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:42
No.4802486

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:42 No.4802486

>>4802321
>implying it doesn't help multi-billion dollar insurance companies because it forces people to purchase their insurance.

I assume you're referring to the watered down bill that would force you to choose between private companies instead of adding an affordable public option; which I wasn't referring to.

If a public option would've made insurance companies more money, why would they spend so much money lobbying against it? Hmm... Sure makes you wonder...

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:42
No.4802492

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:42 No.4802492

>>4802421
You can't change their mindset though. So regulations will do nothing except provide a comfort zone for people to think they aren't being run by corporations. We really need to stop the problem at the governmental level though, aka no bailouts/subsides/uneeded regulation.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:43
No.4802498

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:43 No.4802498

>>4801942

You have it exactly backwards. Most people now days, especially the younger generations, are decidedly getting their news from the internet, which is the most decentralized "loose environment" we've ever had. Statists like yourself want to take freedom of speech away along with the dream of realizing a free society all because youve been socially programmed to fear liberty and take comfort in your chains of false security.

Melly !!rdTCjLakIjm
08/12/12(Sun)19:43
No.4802501

Melly !!rdTCjLakIjm 08/12/12(Sun)19:43 No.4802501

Just die you faggot. You want steal all of my money and take my guns just so some fucktards who are too lazy to work for anything can get free shit, fuck you. You mother fuckers needed to be gassed.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:44
No.4802512

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:44 No.4802512

>>4802062
Agreed

Spending is the problem

All we see is government waste left and right.

And fucking Amtrak actually loses money when it sells a cheeseburger for crying out loud.

They cant use the money they already have wisely why give them more?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:44
No.4802517

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:44 No.4802517

File: 1344815072027.jpg-(92 KB, 397x595, kfcwoman.jpg)

>The poor are more than ever

Bullshit. The #1 health problem for Americans below the poverty line is obesity.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:44
No.4802518

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:44 No.4802518

>>4802072
How specifically? Can you actually think for yourself without having to parrot OWS talking points?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:44
No.4802520

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:44 No.4802520

>>4802461

They actually did. It goes like this:

>FED is established
>stock market down turn
>FED doesnt adjust interest rates or print more money
>massive deflation
>shrinking money supply
>great depression
>WWII and New deal start
>throwing money into the economy (in the most retarded ways)
>deflation problem is fixed
>economy can grow

They fixed it in a round about way.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:45
No.4802536

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:45 No.4802536

>People are becoming slaves.
Name one.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:45
No.4802537

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:45 No.4802537

>>4802439
>Regulations aimed at keeping YOU from donating to politicians would be backed by mega-rich corporations you fucking moron
Why would they stop me from donating? I could donate to Obama and Romney (both corporate whores), and that would benefit them as well

>Regulation keeping them from literally buying politicians with millions of dollars is what you should be supporting if you value the concept of Democracy at all
Just because they cant offically give money to someone doesn't mean they can't do it privately. They will always find a way.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:47
No.4802558

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:47 No.4802558

I've never understood this leftist bullshit. Shall we equally give everyone some wealth but they can't own anymore than that (because it's got to be equal right? derp)

So builders and cleaners should be paid the same salary as doctors and surgeons because if doctors and surgeons own more then it's unequal and all wrong.

Leftist delusional shit. Shoot them all.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:50
No.4802629

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:50 No.4802629

>>4802492

That's a pretty pessimistic outlook, Anonymous. Bill Gates used to be a greedy, ruthless, son-of-a-bitch in the 80's and 90's, and look what happened after the Supreme Court smacked him around. He's pretty mellow and decent guy now. He is literally giving away most of his wealth to those less fortunate. I think people can change.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:50
No.4802631

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:50 No.4802631

>>4802537
>Why would they stop me from donating? I could donate to Obama and Romney (both corporate whores), and that would benefit them as well
I'm assuming if they had it their way you would be able to donate to their pocketed politicians only. But basically they would stop you and other non-millionaires from donating because the less power you have the more power they have.

>Just because they cant offically give money to someone doesn't mean they can't do it privately. They will always find a way.
If they were forced to donate via some illegal loophole they would risk the consequences and so would the candidate accepting contributions (potentially a good deterrent from accepting bribes). But I guess since there will always be crime we should just disband all police forces too.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:50
No.4802636

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:50 No.4802636

You know I heard that the government was afraid of setting regulations on the financial industry because its the US most productive sector.
That to me sounds ridiculous.
Finance is not an industry.
Its used to create industries.
I get the impression that you have to be a day trader if you want to survive nowadays.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:50
No.4802637

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:50 No.4802637

>>4802486
But why would I want to buy private insurance if I am already being forced under gunpoint to pay for the shitty public service? Why should I pay into a system for a bunch of obese, pot-smoking, drug doing individuals, when i lead a healthy drug free lifestyle? Wouldn't t be better to pay for a cheap plan that suits my lifestyle?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:53
No.4802696

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:53 No.4802696

>>4802558
>Shall we equally give everyone some wealth but they can't own anymore than that (because it's got to be equal right? derp)
What the fuck are you even talking about? No one is arguing for equal distribution of wealth. If I understand correctly, the OWS movement is about protecting our rapidly disappearing middle class. No one said anything about equal distribution of wealth except you and Glenn Beck

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:56
No.4802761

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:56 No.4802761

>>4800448
>America 2012 is becoming like ancient rome before it collapses, a small elite owning everything and the people with nothing.

The fall of Rome has 99 causes but income inequality ain't one. It wasn't any worse during the collapse than in the middle of the Pax Romana. It was the Roman REPUBLIC that was arguably done in by concentration of wealth - the fall in the Roman "middle" class (people wealthy enough to be eligible for military service) caused by the concentration of wealth led to the Marian reforms, which in the long run caused the loyalty of legions to shift from the SPQR to individual commanders and led to the series of civil wars that culminated in the Republic becoming the Empire (and also, obviously, made Rome the military power that it became - mixed blessings, anyone?).

Now I know where OP is coming from: an article on how the American income inequality is far larger than estimates for the Roman Empire - which means we must also be nearing a fall - started circulating on certain blogs. But it was based on the baseless assumption that this income inequality had anything to do with the fall of the Roman Empire. The historical research that caused the stir made no such claims, and the estimates were from 300 years before the fall of Rome anyway.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:57
No.4802786

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:57 No.4802786

>>4802696
Then why the fuck are they complaining that "1%" owns more than the rest of everyone else? Like everything has to be equal or something.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)19:59
No.4802838

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)19:59 No.4802838

>>4802786

Equal opportunity != Equal wealth

Ideally the American Dream is a society that is completely meritocratic

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)20:01
No.4802865

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)20:01 No.4802865

>>4802637
>But why would I want to buy private insurance if I am already being forced under gunpoint to pay for the shitty public service?
Private insurance would still be an option. And I'm assuming since you wouldn't want a public option that you already have insurance, so your shit wouldn't change at all. At worst you'd have to pay an extra half a percent in taxes. I guess that's too much of an annoyance to keep poor old women from dying after being denied insurance. Even if you have private insurance, the companies will literally cancel your coverage when you're dying and let you die to save an amount of money that's so insignificant to them it doesn't even register. And this is the system you support. That shit doesn't even happen in Cuba man... Fucking Cuba gives their citizens better health benefits than us. Fucking Cuba.

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)20:04
No.4802892

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)20:04 No.4802892

>>4802786
Surely you're not too dim to understand that 1% of the population having total financial control over 99% of the population is a bad thing. Again you imply equal distribution which no one is advocating for. Having a middle class would be nice, don't you agree?

Anonymous
08/12/12(Sun)20:04
No.4802904

Anonymous 08/12/12(Sun)20:04 No.4802904

File: 1344816268212.jpg-(617 KB, 1600x1067, 1339694894814.jpg)

>>4802761
we need a history board