Jamalisms Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 We're talking about billionaires, not homeless people. Again, morality precludes hoarding that much wealth and anyone who can't grasp that concept is a pathetic loser. Read it as many times as you need to. No1TitansFan, and WG53 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titandan Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 5 hours ago, Jamalisms said: Morality precludes such a hoarding of wealth. Wouldn't it be moral to make money and use that money to help people? There are empathetic businessmen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleNinja Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 8 minutes ago, Jamalisms said: We're talking about billionaires, not homeless people. Again, morality precludes hoarding that much wealth and anyone who can't grasp that concept is a pathetic loser. Read it as many times as you need to. I'm not talking about either. And I absolutely grasp the concept. It's a stupid concept. Read that as many times as you need to. WG53, and Jamalisms 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 43 minutes ago, Titandan said: Wouldn't it be moral to make money and use that money to help people? As a general premise, I could offer some objections to the idea that it's of moral benefit to take money out of a system, only to reinvest (far) less of it back into the system ... but that's irrelevant. Making money and hoarding enough money to become a billionaire are worlds apart. Even though you're mostly just here to muddy the waters of any discussion, I'll offer you advice: Take some time looking into why people struggle with large numbers and how best to begin working through properly conceptualizing the difference between millions and billions or, as Elon will soon approach, trillions. You're not getting from millions to billions (or trillions) while helping people in meaningful ways without abusing systems and creating negative situations for others on a far greater scale. It's simply not possible. MadMax, and WG53 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 On 1/20/2025 at 4:49 PM, Titandan said: No one's stopping you from becoming a billionaire 5 hours ago, Jamalisms said: Morality precludes such a hoarding of wealth. 42 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said: ... homeless man under the bridge ... homeless men down Homeless Ave. ... homeless czar ... 39 minutes ago, Jamalisms said: We're talking about billionaires, not homeless people. 27 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said: I'm not talking about either. ... uh ... ok? Good chat. Thanks for the enlightening dialogue. I'll leave you with this: There's a reason greed is a sin. It just happens to be the sin we most wish to have an opportunity to engage in, so people love making excuses. MadMax 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, NashvilleNinja said: So... one homeless man under the bridge has collected far more goods than the other homeless men down Homeless Ave. He should be forced to give and spread out his goodies. And the homeless czar should determine what that guy has to give up. Right? Your comment isn't a factual error. This is a fundamental wrongness in philosophy. No one has the moral authority, nor should they have the legal ability, to determine how successful a person is or can be. There is nothing moral or immoral about money or having lots of it. But even if there was, the idea that people shouldn't have the freedom to pursue ____ amounts of it is antithetical to the founding principles of this country. I mean the problem in this thread and in this country is that people do not want to discuss history, cause and effect, policy, or "delve deep", but speak from perspectives of authority or having strong knowledge. This happens across a variety of belief systems and perspectives. I see a lot of things devolve into hypotheticals or perspective taking--where you can move the goalpost about what freedom is. Right now, we are at a point in American history where it is completely transparent that the wealthiest people on the planet are purchasing and exhibiting influence on our government and elections. You cannot look at the role Elon Musk plays in the election and deny this. You cannot look at the actions of Bezos an Zuckerberg or things like Citizens United--at some point this level of influence becomes objective fact, a current event. So the hypothetical should not have anything to do with whether or not it is morally right or wrong for a business man to do whatever the fuck they want and try to hoard wealth. The conversation we need to be having is about the American idea--the question I would ask is should we let our government evolve in a way where this amount of influence and access is allowed? Is beneficial to America? In this way, traditional talking points are things I do not want to hear. If a conservative person supports these individuals but says they are about "small government" or "less government influence", I think it is fair to call bullshit on that. We are seeing a full court press in terms of action, with Musk's role in all of this as transparent as humanly possible. There is no need for hypothetical or philosophical conversations. And some may be okay with the US government being a tool for the wealthiest to increase their piece of the pie, for Trump to make his own profits through control and hawking his bullshit merchandise, but these things are happening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Guapo Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 I didnt hear one thing about this when Zuckerberg was on the democrat side. When he spent millions on the 20 election. Not one peep when not just money but actively banning conservative opinions on twitter, facebook. Not one complaint about the huge amount of funds from soros. The Koch brothers were the ultimate boogie men until they were found to be anti Trumpers. Starkiller, Little Earl, Jamalisms, and 1 other 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Nator Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 (edited) So Trump pardoned this dude Ross Ulbricht. What's the issue with this guy? "Dark Web website creator who used it to sell drugs and to murder 5 people" is what one side says. (most mainstream/lib Twitter accounts) "Guy that created a site that other people then privately used to do a whole lot of bad stuff/just bc people used his product for evil doesn't mean he should pay" is the other view. (Libertarian jerk off accounts on Twitter.) Which is it? Edited January 22 by 'Nator OILERMAN 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleNinja Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 46 minutes ago, 'Nator said: So Trump pardoned this dude Ross Ulbricht. What's the issue with this guy? "Dark Web website creator who used it to sell drugs and to murder 5 people" is what one side says. (most mainstream/lib Twitter accounts) "Guy that created a site that other people then privately used to do a whole lot of bad stuff/just bc people used his product for evil doesn't mean he should pay" is the other view. (Libertarian jerk off accounts on Twitter.) Which is it? You forgot to include the corrupt agents who went to jail. That the investigation was sketchy AF and length of prison term being insanely out of proportion (2 life sentences+ for creating a website) is the main contention. Not that he shouldn't have to pay, but that he has paid. Arguably more than he maybe should have. The murder for hire thing was thrown out so that's not even what the 2 life sentences were for. Hell, one of the would-be victims of it allegedly supports Ross. And the drugs? The government has always had a stick up its ass about that. But it's perfectly fine for people to be hooked on drugs as long as it's the big pharma-approved shit that brings in revenue. Because that's all the government cares about. It's why murder and all that other shit wasn't what ultimately brought down Capone. It was tax evasion. Government barely gives a damn who you kill... but if they didn't make any money off of it, you're fucked. At the end of the day he was made an example of for essentially challenging the government's gatekeeper stranglehold on revenue of commerce. headhunter, and Titans279 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 18 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said: You forgot to include the corrupt agents who went to jail. That the investigation was sketchy AF and length of prison term being insanely out of proportion (2 life sentences+ for creating a website) is the main contention. Not that he shouldn't have to pay, but that he has paid. Arguably more than he maybe should have. The murder for hire thing was thrown out so that's not even what the 2 life sentences were for. Hell, one of the would-be victims of it allegedly supports Ross. And the drugs? The government has always had a stick up its ass about that. But it's perfectly fine for people to be hooked on drugs as long as it's the big pharma-approved shit that brings in revenue. Because that's all the government cares about. It's why murder and all that other shit wasn't what ultimately brought down Capone. It was tax evasion. Government barely gives a damn who you kill... but if they didn't make any money off of it, you're fucked. At the end of the day he was made an example of for essentially challenging the government's gatekeeper stranglehold on revenue of commerce. You are an idiot WG53 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Nator Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 25 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said: You forgot to include the corrupt agents who went to jail. That the investigation was sketchy AF and length of prison term being insanely out of proportion (2 life sentences+ for creating a website) is the main contention. Not that he shouldn't have to pay, but that he has paid. Arguably more than he maybe should have. The murder for hire thing was thrown out so that's not even what the 2 life sentences were for. Hell, one of the would-be victims of it allegedly supports Ross. And the drugs? The government has always had a stick up its ass about that. But it's perfectly fine for people to be hooked on drugs as long as it's the big pharma-approved shit that brings in revenue. Because that's all the government cares about. It's why murder and all that other shit wasn't what ultimately brought down Capone. It was tax evasion. Government barely gives a damn who you kill... but if they didn't make any money off of it, you're fucked. At the end of the day he was made an example of for essentially challenging the government's gatekeeper stranglehold on revenue of commerce. I didn't forget to include shit, buddy. I think I made it fairly fuckin clear that I'm unfamiliar with the case & laid out all I knew about it & was legitimately asking for info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleNinja Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 1 minute ago, 'Nator said: I didn't forget to include shit, buddy. I think I made it fairly fuckin clear that I'm unfamiliar with the case & laid out all I knew about it & was legitimately asking for info. Lol Ok, and I gave info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleNinja Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 10 minutes ago, Titans279 said: You are an idiot K Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 2 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said: K How else can you explain supporting the pardon (a full and unconditional one!) of a man who ran a site for illegal drug trafficking while also supporting a man who says those who traffic illegal drugs should be killed? It's pretty illogical and frankly idiotic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 A Milwaukee TV weather forecaster has been dropped by her station one day after she criticized Elon Musk on social media for his straight-arm gesture that many have likened to a Nazi salute. Staffers at WDJT-TV (Channel 58) were alerted by email on Wednesday that meteorologist Sam Kuffel had left the station. Her biography and picture had been removed from Channel 58 website by Wednesday afternoon. "Meteorologist Sam Kuffel is no longer employed at CBS58," said the staff memo from news director Jessie Garcia that was obtained by the Journal Sentinel. "A search for a replacement is underway." On Tuesday, conservative radio host Dan O'Donnell sharply criticized Kuffel for her two Instagram posts, accusing her of "spreading the lie that Elon Musk was giving a Nazi salute" during the presidential inauguration. He labeled her posts "vulgar." https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/22/cbs-58s-sam-kuffel-is-out-after-criticizing-elon-musk-arm-gesture/77883983007/ I'm sure the free speech absolutists and anti-cancel culture warriors here will criticize this firing. I'll just wait... MadMax, and No1TitansFan 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.