lostonearth35 wrote:
Define "rich" for me.
The top earners? It doesn’t really matter to my point: just because a majority wants to steal from a minority doesn’t make it right, does it?
lostonearth35 wrote:
The US has the most money
Who has it?
lostonearth35 wrote:
and yet there are poor and homeless people everywhere
So they’re not the ones who have all that money.
lostonearth35 wrote:
and but they're treated like they're at fault for their situation
I was emphatically taught that everything that happens to a person is always
their fault and noöne else’s. No exceptions. Denying this is blaming others for one’s own problems and feeling sorry for oneself—completely unacceptable on principle.
lostonearth35 wrote:
and politicians would rather spend all the country's money on war and killing and fighting.
They should serve the interests of taxpayers. Making sure their country is and stays the biggest, meanest, baddest kid on the block is the best way to guarantee national security.
lostonearth35 wrote:
Sick people are treated like customers at a grocery store - no wait, actually customers at a grocery store are usually treated better, even when the customers are total jerks - which is strange because I thought a person's health should always come first, and being properly treated and cared for an illness or injury is more important than school or work or anything else.
You get what you pay for. If those customers are total jerks and get away with it, it’s because they can afford to be total jerks. They have no reason to behave in any other way.
lostonearth35 wrote:
But no, the US doesn't want people to stay home for more than two days even if the person is almost dead because it loses money and that's all.
Noöne should be forced to help anyone.
lostonearth35 wrote:
A country's richness shouldn't just be defined by money alone. It should be defined by the general health, happiness and well-being of the people who live in it. Which means Canada is currently twice as "rich" as the US.
Richness should be defined by what people value, and this translates to money—that’s what money is for.
YippySkippy wrote:
Are you trolling, or do you consider yourself a thief every time you drive on public roads?
I don’t drive

But I’m fully aware I’m way, way beyond redemption. This doesn’t make what I’ve said here any less true.
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
In other words, you have no problem with paying taxes so that the government can kill people or help the super rich.
How is helping the poor pay their medical bills a big stretch?
Making sure the rest of the world remembers who’s boss benefits all taxpayers. Stealing money from taxpayers to pay the medical bills of those who haven’t earned themselves the money to pay them does not. Simple as that.
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Maybe we should have a society with no police, no roads and no military.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea. Everyone is responsible for defending their own life and property. Those who can’t take that responsibility perish. It’s the law of the jungle.
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Do you know what also costs taxpayer money? Courts. Prisons. Maybe we should just hang everybody accused of a crime without trial.
Or just let people take the law into their own hands.
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
That would be only slightly more barbaric than letting poor people die of preventable diseases.
People are free to help them at their own individual expense. If they don’t want to, they shouldn’t be forced.
_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.