Suska wrote:You are too funny sometimes. Being poor does have the advantage of not having to talk to lawyers though, even when you're on trial.
Lawyers aren't the only way to settle disagreements, you can, you know, actually talk it out or just shrug it off. Your two options aren't lawsuit or assault and battery.
Xbow wrote:The rich commit a lot of crimes of all types.
That's true, but at a far, far, far lower rate than the poor, even if you do include white collar crime. How many accounting scandals have we seen in the last ten years? A handful, and a few high profile ones. How many murders, robberies, assaults, rapes, etc. have we seen? Too many to count.
This idea that rich people are constantly committing crimes is just statistically false. I know you need to point out that they do commit some crimes (or your entire premise here collapses), but the numbers just don't favor the poor. You act like there are hordes of rich people out there holding up convenience stores but getting away with it because they have lawyers.
I also reject your elitist notion that the larger an individuals bank account is the more honest and positive he she or it will be. Wow! Grace goodness and honesty is a function of financial security how utterly absurd.
Please, quote where I said wealth equals honesty or positiveness.
In this case, I have no interest in the moral fiber of a person. If you're a lying, two-faced prick that can support himself that's far preferable to society than a decent, honest guy that needs expensive social programs and contributes nothing. Wealthy people simply know how to get wealthy (obviously), so they are able to raise their children in a way that is conducive toward not needing social programs - I would describe that as a positive influence. In contrast, poor people don't know how to get wealthy (again, obviously) so their negative influence is something a good parent should shield their child from.
Sure an individual that can't supply for his/her self the most basic necessities of life is more likely to commit a property crime that may also involve the use of force. I agree, hunger want and lack of opportunity are powerful forces. This is also the reason that gormless blood sucking liberals tend to desire to disarm the poor. Check the party affiliation of the city governments around the country that desire to create gun free zones. Of course the goal isn't really public safety for those that live in the cities, the goal is the safety of the pud knockers that feed off of their misery financially and live elsewhere behind the walls of those gated communities. Its really quite simple, if violence could be contained within 'poverty zones' you wouldn't find liberals giving a flying fuck about gun control legislation.
Violence is mostly contained within "poverty zones." Not by any official policy, but simply because poor people commit all kinds of crimes against each other. There aren't murders and rapes and robberies in the suburbs, at least not nearly at the rate of poor inner cities.
And lastly never underestimate the power that greed and avarice has on the rich. The list of rich criminals that have not and will not be brought to justice is endless.
yeah ok let's see that list of rich criminals walking free. Note that I want to see a list of actual crimes committed, not nonsense like "oppressed the proletariat."
But have no fear, violence is a commodity that can be exported to any location in a mobile society hence the desire of the rich to insulate themselves from the great unwashed by cowering behind the walls of gated communities with the protection of a few brain dead ten to fifteen dollar an hour puss gut security guards is not going to prevent them from being serviced when the time comes.
oh good, another Junior Revolutionary
Red Barn wrote:What puzzles me much more is why the failed conqueror - the Redneck "Libertarian" working for minimum wage, for instance - shares this sentiment. There's bound to be an element of self-loathing involved in this, and that seems terribly sad, don't you think?
That has to do with distrust of government. Southerners aren't particularly fond of the federal government anyway, it's not unbelievable that they'd be libertarians and prefer their state or local government takes care of them, rather than Washington.
Why are so many of the ultra-wealthy Democrats? There's bound to be an element of self-loathing involved in this, and that seems terribly sad, don't you think?