• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Democrats hate wealth?

DVSentinel said:
Carleen said:
Another definition of greed is a disire for greater wealth and possessions beyond one's needs. To seek out money/wealth for one's work beyond the fair market value of work performed. I would also add the desire to meet one's needs through intruments other than performing labor/services.

Despite it's evil reputation, not all greed is bad. It is the most successful motivation for creation of new technology, business and ideas.
Click to expand...
Greed is NOT good, it cannot be.
As man, we are all "greedy" - to a lesser or greater extent..
Evil ?
This I believe not in....
A better word is needed for the motivation to create...
Try "love".
Click to expand...
 
Do Republicans hate the poor?
 
Carleen said:
Unfortunately alot of jobs have been outsourced. The intention of NAFTA has failed. One of the reasons unemployment is so high is the amount of jobs that have been outsourced. This is the kind of greed that is detremental to our job recovery. Cheaper wages equals more profit.
Click to expand...

And the greed of Unions had nothing to do with that outsourcing? It had a lot to do with it. Yes, cheaper wages equals more profit, in some cases outsourcing was the difference between sovlency and bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler both had to be bailed out because they didn't outsource enough and their labor costs were over $90 an hour. Ford got concessions from the Unions, GM and Chrysler didn't until after the government took control. A major portion of GMs debt was due to union contracts at plants it had closed. The government made some cuts that GM had been trying to do for years, but couldn't because it would of mounted up too much debt. With all the talk about outsourcing, which really started back in the 1960s or earlier, it is funny how very few noticed that when the Obama regime had control of these companies, they moved production from right to work states to union states and actually didn't close or move very much that was already outsourced.
 
Redress said:
this is like asking if republicans hate the poor
Click to expand...
Many Republicans hate the poor and many Democrats hate the rich. There are probably a fair amount of people who hate both.
 
Everyone hates the poor. They're smelly and they say strange things. They don't even like each other.



It is overall the constrant drum beating otherwise that the wealthy are evil and the Democrats are ongoing to punish them.
Click to expand...

What?
 
Last edited:
This is all a puppet show. Liberal comes from a Latin word meaning "slaveowner." Politics is a food fight at a prep school. At least since the 1960s, the Democratic Party has been taken over by spoiled, sheltered, suburb-born snobs who despise and fear the majority. So we've got two elitist hereditary parties sinking America, once the refuge from aristocratic totalitarianism, by forcing us to choose between two self-obsessed, conceited, untalented, and ignorant groups who couldn't care less about the majority of their fellow Americans. Birth privileges bring death to democracy.
 
PrometheusBound said:
This is all a puppet show. Liberal comes from a Latin word meaning "slaveowner." Politics is a food fight at a prep school. At least since the 1960s, the Democratic Party has been taken over by spoiled, sheltered, suburb-born snobs who despise and fear the majority. So we've got two elitist hereditary parties sinking America, once the refuge from aristocratic totalitarianism, by forcing us to choose between two self-obsessed, conceited, untalented, and ignorant groups who couldn't care less about the majority of their fellow Americans. Birth privileges bring death to democracy.
Click to expand...
"Liberal" actual comes from a Latin word meaning "free."
 
Democrats dont "hate wealth".
Just ask all the rich democrats.
 
joko104 said:
I heard a Democrat challenger of the Dem ocratic incumbent for this area (state offtce) whose radio ad for the Democratic primary boasted that he "isn't rich. Isn't it time we elect a REAL Democrat?"The near total campaign theme of Obama and national democrats is that wealthy people are evil. It is the campaign against Romney. It is overall the constrant drum beating otherwise that the wealthy are evil and the Democrats are ongoing to punish them. Do Democrats hate the wealthy?
Click to expand...
I think Democrats hate wealthy Republicans.
 
Last edited:
I think the reason people think they hate the wealthy, is that Democrats want to lessen the divide between rich and poor. Democrats want to increase taxes on the wealthy to increase social spending. Republicans want to create jobs by lessening taxes on the wealthy and are opposed to large government.
This thread is pretty messed up, if you ask me. :wink:
 
waas said:
I think the reason people think they hate the wealthy, is that Democrats want to lessen the divide between rich and poor. Democrats want to increase taxes on the wealthy to increase social spending. Republicans want to create jobs by lessening taxes on the wealthy and are opposed to large government.
This thread is pretty messed up, if you ask me. :wink:
Click to expand...

rich republicans want less government so they don't have to pay more taxes
rich democrats want to use tax money to buy the votes of the masses because public office is where rich democrats get their wealth

Its rich democrats who want to keep people poor and dependent so their votes can be bought with handouts

republicans want people free of government and not sucking from the public tit
 
Wait..
I thought Democrats hate America and want to destroy it?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Wait..
I thought Democrats hate America and want to destroy it?
Click to expand...

No, otherwise they would just pack up leave and let the rest of us live in peace. They don't really hate America or want to destroy it anymore than really want socialism. No, they are just grossly unaware of the law of unintended consequences and thus believe that because they are Americans, they can do what others couldn't, make socialist policies actually work. Of course, they are also unaware of just how socialistic their beliefs really are and adamantly deny any connection while anyone not blinded by their belief can clearly see the correlation. Unfortunately, even though it may not be their intent, the destruction of America is exactly what they are leading us to.
 
DVSentinel said:
No, otherwise they would just pack up leave and let the rest of us live in peace. They don't really hate America or want to destroy it anymore than really want socialism. No, they are just grossly unaware of the law of unintended consequences and thus believe that because they are Americans, they can do what others couldn't, make socialist policies actually work. Of course, they are also unaware of just how socialistic their beliefs really are and adamantly deny any connection while anyone not blinded by their belief can clearly see the correlation. Unfortunately, even though it may not be their intent, the destruction of America is exactly what they are leading us to.
Click to expand...

Ohhh now i see the light!
George Soros is in the control seat right!?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Ohhh now i see the light!
George Soros is in the control seat right!?
Click to expand...

Exactly! And now that you see the light, will you still support the Soros Puppets?
 
PrometheusBound said:
If you were free in Rome, you usually owned slaves. It also implies freedom from having to do the work that only slaves do.
Click to expand...

Neither of those things is true. First, most free Romans didn't own slaves, slaves were too expensive. Second, slaves and free poor people often had to do a lot of the same jobs. Some of the worst jobs, like dangerous mining, were reserved for slaves. But practically any trade or service job was performed by both poor and slave alike. This includes gladiators, many of whom were slave but many of whom were free and even wealthy.

There is no way of construing the Latin word "Liber" to mean "slaveholder." That is simply not what it meant or implied.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Neither of those things is true. First, most free Romans didn't own slaves, slaves were too expensive. Second, slaves and free poor people often had to do a lot of the same jobs. Some of the worst jobs, like dangerous mining, were reserved for slaves. But practically any trade or service job was performed by both poor and slave alike. This includes gladiators, many of whom were slave but many of whom were free and even wealthy.

There is no way of construing the Latin word "Liber" to mean "slaveholder." That is simply not what it meant or implied.
Click to expand...
The only ones who counted were the slaveowners. They controlled what liberal implies, and there modern equivalents--spoiled, sheltered, suburb-born snobs--still control the liberal agenda. Also note the similar class-bias that the nobility are noble, gentlemen are gentle, people that live in villages instead of castles are vile. In Greek, aristocracy literally means "rule by the best."
 
PrometheusBound said:
The only ones who counted were the slaveowners. They controlled what liberal implies, and there modern equivalents--spoiled, sheltered, suburb-born snobs--still control the liberal agenda. Also note the similar class-bias that the nobility are noble, gentlemen are gentle, people that live in villages instead of castles are vile. In Greek, aristocracy literally means "rule by the best."
Click to expand...
Let's cut through the BS. You started out with a false claim that liber means "slave holder." it really means "free.". In ancient Rome a typical liber (free man) was too poor to own slaves. All liberi "counted" as liberi, and slave ownership was unrelated to liber status. Just admit you got caught BSing, don't dig yourself deeper.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Let's cut through the BS. You started out with a false claim that liber means "slave holder." it really means "free.". In ancient Rome a typical liber (free man) was too poor to own slaves. All liberi "counted" as liberi, and slave ownership was unrelated to liber status. Just admit you got caught BSing, don't dig yourself deeper.
Click to expand...
Covering up for the elitists won't make them adopt you. The plebeian liberi didn't count at all except as a Head Count; they had no influence on the political philosophy you claim was named after them.
 
PrometheusBound said:
Covering up for the elitists won't make them adopt you. The plebeian liberi didn't count at all except as a Head Count; they had no influence on the political philosophy you claim was named after them.
Click to expand...

The political philosophy wasnt named after any group of Romans. Romans used the word Liber almost exactly like we use the word free today. Liberal is an English word that also means free, derived from the Latin. As an English word used to describe a political philosophy it was originally associated with what we call conservatives today. "Classical" liberalism was the political philosophy of, for exmple, Adam Smith, and was called liberalism because of its emphasis on personal freedoms and the free market.

It is patently false to claim that Liber means slave holder or that it carries connotations associated wih slave holding. It's ahistorical, and to anybody who knows Latin it just sounds silly. You're just making a smokescreen to cover up the fact that you got caught in a BS statment.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
of course not. Nancy Pelosi has used her position to make herself fabulously wealthy. Ditto Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and all the rest. They don't hate the wealthy - they are the wealthy (though of course, they may not have accepted that).

But they think that people envy the wealthy and they are willing to manipulate that in order to achieve political success. Talking down about the visibly successful makes lots of people feel better about themselves (witness our celebrity coverage), and people feel more morally justified in taking from those whom they disparage.
Click to expand...

The difference is that all the names you mentioned are OK with paying a higher tax rate to help the deficit. Greedy skinflints are the ones that arouse hatred from many people.
 
Diogenes said:
Exactly! And now that you see the light, will you still support the Soros Puppets?
Click to expand...

Soros does not use his fortune to undermine the US govt. like the Koch Bros. Yet you are one of their puppets. Voting against your own interests is nothing to be proud of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom