Identifying evil people

reply to post by Valhall


If what you say is true, then Money is the most malevolent factor ever. It brings out the "Evil" in people. That is the only thing on their minds.

What a infection.

However, there are very few who show a great amount of benevolence in the midst of this malevolent entity.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Valhall


Wow..some negative posts on this thread..yet it was flagged quite a bit. At first I couldn't tell if you were serious but by the end of your post I could tell the sarcasm. I was always told growing up 'money was the root to all evil'. Yet as I grew up I realized, evil is evil no matter the size of the wallet, like another member stated, poverty can lead to evil tendencies. What I think is evil about this topic, is the fact Lady Gaga has more net worth than the Clintons. Boo.

reply to post by flashtrum


I thought Romney was the only one who believed that lie about "$90B in failed green energy investments.". C'mon people, this kind of stuff is so easy to research to avoid being duped by these scumbags. "they" think we're a bunch of gullible idiots, and all-too-often, we prove them right. Link below (if it works right, I don't think i've ever posted links on ATS) is a brief summary on how blatant of a "mis-application of facts" Romney's ridiculous $90B line of B.S. Is. If the link doesn't work, any source with a shred of credibility is all you need to find the truth:

www.politifact.com...

My parents have a few millions and my family is not "evil" and I haven't been raised to be "evil"
The amount of money you have does not relate to evilness or desire to be corrupt / power hungry

Originally posted by dogstar23
reply to post by flashtrum

 

I thought Romney was the only one who believed that lie about "$90B in failed green energy investments.". C'mon people, this kind of stuff is so easy to research to avoid being duped by these scumbags. "they" think we're a bunch of gullible idiots, and all-too-often, we prove them right. Link below (if it works right, I don't think i've ever posted links on ATS) is a brief summary on how blatant of a "mis-application of facts" Romney's ridiculous $90B line of B.S. Is. If the link doesn't work, any source with a shred of credibility is all you need to find the truth:

www.politifact.com...

Romney said that to point out that Obama used 90billion for energy related investments, instead of education which Obama said was one of his Main focuses.


Also, www.abcnews.com > go find the debate fact check. You can see all of Obamas false facts in the first debate. They're numerous.

The error in the OP is in the assumption that a person possessing money inherently equates to the same proportional degree of evil doing. This argument is proven to be illogical on all counts.

Money is a neutral tool. It is the human controlling how he/she spends that money that determines if it is a good use or evil use of money.

Personally, I consider anyone spending his/her money on goods made in China to be evil. That money spent on Chinese goods, to a great degree, leaves the United States of America to be passed from hand to hand to hand to hand to hand (etc...) in China, thereby making that $1 an EVIL American spent on Chinese good worth a cumulative $5 in a very short time. That one dollar that stays in China can then easily become worth $1,800 per year... $1,800 per year we could have better used in our economy by supporting American businesses that have goods made in China (even when it's not as cheap as the Chinese made crap). That's how China became the super power it is today.

When you come down to it, there are far more EVIL cheap bastards trying to save a buck by buying cheap Chinese crap at Wal-Mart than there are rich bastards.

Wow, there's so much ignorance in this thread. I feel like it's a gigantic troll reading it, but I have to point out where you're wrong on principal.

Originally posted by Jobeycool
It is amazing we have 47% of people not paying income taxes.Massive unemployment that is not even told correctly.Real unemployment numbers are nearly 15%,Massive massive debt that will bankrupt the future of this country and yet the liberal dominated media and the government is somehow correct about everything.

Lets start with the 47% not paying income taxes. 1/2 of that are made up of people getting SSI and SSDI, That income by law is tax free. It's also quite low, people on disability for example get $680/month at full disability (they're considered unable to work and support themselves, even partially). There's quite literally nothing there to tax. Some people are on welfare and refuse to work but that's as much a symptom of a bad economy as anything else. You mention the unemployment numbers, and point out that the real unemployment rate is 15%. Simple logic says that's 15% of the population that's not earning an income because they can't find work. Last on this subject, since since entitlements are set at certain income levels, if it were to be taxed the payout would just be increased so that the take home remains equal. It's simplified bookkeeping that there's no taxes on it. There's hardly some huge epidemic of people refusing to work and just live off of welfare. The job market is quite simply terrible.

Originally posted by ValhallNow, the "evilness" factor comes in from the rhetoric right here on this board. (And in other areas where promotors of the liberal economic agenda are speaking and writing). Romney is bad because he's rich. That's the main issue...he's just a bad rich man. So rich is bad (i.e. evil) and it apparently kicks in at $250,000 combined income annually.

It's at 250,000 because that's about the income level where peoples real tax rates start to go down while disposable income as a percentage of your budget skyrockets. It's not about good/evil, it's that that's the point where most people can start to afford to pay more.

Originally posted by Valhall
So all the middle class with a combined income of $250,000 a year are bad and need to get on board and then all those people above them need to be whipped into shape. God knows we can't have them running around continuing this evil behavior. Obamas included, by the way. Wonder if Obama would be willing to reduce his evilness by doing what Bloomberg did and just take a buck a month for salary?

I also wonder if Romney would. So I wonder that for both of them. There's point where redistribution of wealth has to kick in according to Obama and I think according to that philosophy he is being morally deficit in taking his salary when he's serving as a civil servant and his net worth is as high as it is. Does wealth redistribution not apply to him?

This is one of the worst things a politician can do at any level of government. If you set the precedent of taking a very low salary it means anyone who wants that job in the future will be expected to take that low salary, meaning the only people able to fill the position are people with so much money they can afford to not bring in an income from working. You talk about evilness, that's one of the most evil things an individual can do because it paves the way for rule by the rich as the only way of the future in government. And if someones not rich it guarantees corporations will buy them out so they can afford to live. As for wealth redistribution, you still keep some of it, but the idea is that society as a whole (that same society that allows you to be rich) is improved.

Continued in the next post.

Originally posted by ValhallThere is no such thing as arbitrage. What the socialists amongst have forgotten is that will ALWAYS be a fact...they can't eliminate it. Like universe winding down, there is always a loss to a win.

I invite a lot people to get over it. It doesn't mean that someone who did better than you raped you.

The moment you believe this you admit that America a land where everyone is supposed to be able to prosper has failed. If one person winning means one person loses (and this is guaranteed in an unchecked free market) you eventually end up with a small handful of big winners and a huge majority of losers. As long as there's inflation it's theoretically possible for everyone to win. If inflation goes up at 3% a year everyone can end up with 1-2% more wealth. Finally, it's typical in a business for those that work the hardest to be the lowest paid, especially in a service economy. Go take a stroll through a mall some day and look at all the people working the floor of the stores for low wages. Now think about the managers above them sitting in an office, then the owners above the managers making the most money and playing golf all day while others are doing the actual work. I would call that rape, and we're not even getting into the idea of corporations hiring people to invent technology that they go in to make billions with while the inventor only sees his relatively low salary. That's intellectual rape and it's practiced by corporations on a mass scale. The people that work the hardest and make a company run are paid the least.

Originally posted by Valhall
They don't appear as anti "their" wealth. They do appear as anti-wealth and they definitely appear as pro-redistribution

Originally posted by Valhall
I'm not going to play your game. You know damned well that Obama and Biden have given speeches in which they target the wealthy and in which they show contempt for the wealthy. You also know damned well that Obama has given speeches on redistribution of wealth. And you've got to know that the new tax code sets "wealthy" at $250,000 for a couple. You've also got to know how much the tax rates are rising beginning at that level and on up.

As I touched on earlier, 250,000 (Romney also picked this number, as did Bush) was picked because that's where the disposable income of an above average sized family starts to see huge gains in it's disposable income, and access to ways to start paying less in taxes. It's not an evil/not evil divide, it's that at that point you start seeing 100% of pay raises going to spending (or saving) money, and you're able to take advantage of tax shelters and investment income. Quite simply, that's the level at which people can afford to pay more in order to benefit society and in reality they're not even being asked to pay an absurd amount, they're being asked to pay the lowest on paper tax rate in our nations history.

Originally posted by Ghostx
My parents have a few millions and my family is not "evil" and I haven't been raised to be "evil"
The amount of money you have does not relate to evilness or desire to be corrupt / power hungry

Evil isn't how much you have, it's how you got it and what you do with it. Just about everyone on an individual level thinks of themselves as good, but most people take a narrow self centered view around what they do. Do your parents pay a tax rate of 15% or less or do they pay the on paper tax rate? Do they give back to the community and try to make others be successful or do they spend that money on what gives them the greatest personal return? Are they happy when the stock price of a company they're invested in jumps as a result of a cost cutting measure like jobs moved from the US to China? If so, do they keep the stock for a greater return or do they have some principals and unload the stock because the company is actively harming the country? If they own a business, do they try to pay someone the least that they'll work for or do they pay the person what they're worth?

Those are all ways in which a rich person can be evil. Again though, it's not that someone has money that they're evil. It's what they did to create that wealth or what they do to maintain it that determines evilness.

I think most people I know consider Romney a Gordon Gecko type; not really evil, just self-serving.

It's not much of a topic when the OP can't be bothered to know that "just being rich" isn't considered evil, or the OP is just using a straw man, finding it too difficult to make a case being honest about what people are concerned by.

Other than that, I'm going to avoid this particular "debate" as it's annoying and obnoxious out of the gate.

reply to post by Valhall


You're putting words into other people's/groups' mouths. No one I am aware of has said Romney is evil because he is rich. Rather, people have said he is not to be trusted because he'll say anything to anybody or any group to get their votes, and he made his money in an unsavory way, i.e. being a corporate raider. Furthermore, his tax plan is to give additional tax cuts to rich people like himself, so he seems to be quite mercenary. And he clearly has lowered the bar on the level of mendacity a politician can get away with. Yes, people accuse him of having bad character, but not too many people are seriously calling him evil. There's a difference, you now, but this is part of the usual conservative game plan: use hyperbole, make false claims and prevaricate.

People are not calling him evil because of his wealth; their problems with him are because of his actions and what he says. They may also distrust him because he is stinking rich, but they aren't calling him evil for it. Your post is based on a false premise. FAIL.

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by Valhall

 

I now have a clear view of what your stating in the original OP, it just took several posts for clarification. That is all i wanted to accomplish.

Its not to much to ask for supporting evidence for your argument is it?

But you didn't ask for a clear definition - someone else did. You've simply been oddly arguing that this is the OP's definition, despite the OP clearly stating that is not his personal definition...!

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by Valhall

 

Now i can see that you are offering your opinion on this supposed definition of "evil person(s)" according to the democrats and not a personal belief of yours.

It seems apparent that the democrats will always appear to be anti-wealth compared to the Republicans, though to the "evil" extent you have illustrated would be a far reaching conclusion.

Well i for one had a clear view from the pretty clear opening post. He clearly stated that he was presenting someone else's definition, and did so with some wit.

You seem to have taken that wit literally - perhaps English is not your first language!? I'm sure it's all just a misunderstanding, but my sympathies are with the OP since you've totally derailed the thread with your inaccurate accusations

Sorry to wade in to this 'debate' uninvited, but the OP does need defending here (even if i don't agree with its over-simplistic determinations). Also, i notice that the OP has been edited, so if the original OP wasn't as clearly stated then i humbly apologise for the big foot in my big mouth....

reply to post by Valhall


So basically your definition of "evil" is the political opponent?


I got news for ya. The term was coined out of mans natural and all continuous duality to this day. At least to my understanding "demonizing" that what is foul to his virgin ears, eyes. The things that are below him , all creatures great and small of this earth. The good, evil, ethics,and ect. You may find yourself one day reflecting upon yourself be it death bed be it a personal crisis. I can assure you these men "Romney" and "Obama" are neither but between good or evil. Because they do not have a will :hence puppets. Because they bow to someone that lords over them like sniveling children.


The world bankers.


aka cancer

reply to post by BobM88


Us broke Indiana people, we are all nearing sainthood if held by this standard. Shoot, we might as well relocate the Vatican to INdianapolis.

Originally posted by Sinny
that's why its the 99% vs the 1%.

There is no 99% vs 1%. The fact is that the Occupy Wall Streeters tried to say that they represented 99% of the country when in fact, they did not. Most of the country did not back or agree with the Occupy Wall Street movement and most were put out that the OWSers claimed to speak for 99% of the country.