Contribute, or die.

[BADecker]

Also, those two ladies do not contribute anything necessary. They're dead weight. If they died, nobody important would care. Trump certainly wouldn't. The only people that'd care would be the Instagram girls that copy the kardashians' every single move.

So kill artists too? If their work isn't immediately useful like graphic designers they should die? Many musicians are bad and almost no one knows them. They should die too? Their work isn't necessary either. And it's all subjective anyway. So why bother with it. What about people who do repetitive work that can be automated already? Like most services for example. Where most people work. Their work isn't needed anymore so if they don't find anything else they should all die? What about old people like ace45954 said? May have contributed all their lives to society. But if they stop at some point they must die? Or is it only when their money runs out and they need help from others? Can't be. Otherwise the rich never need to be useful to society like you want. You're making feudalism look good by comparison. Living in ant colonies isn't for humans.

The point isn't "die." The point, even though it says "contribute or die" is "contribute." And the type of contribute isn't necessarily a socialistic one. "Contribute" in this sense is "contribute to your own upkeep."

"Die" in this sense isn't execution. "Die" is "Who cares what happens to you if you won't work for your own upkeep."

The point is, if it is your artistic value to run around naked in the Mohave Desert in winter, don't take it out on me because you are stupid. Don't steal what I work hard to produce, just to keep your stupid self from dying of exposure. Same with all the other useless occupations around. If you don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain and do something that produces food, clothing, and shelter for yourself, don't be upset when I cut off my funds to you because you are too stupid to go on living.

[1715421282]

1715421282

[1715421282]

1715421282

[1715421282]

1715421282

[1715421282]

1715421282

[1715421282]

1715421282

[Gronthaing]

Also, those two ladies do not contribute anything necessary. They're dead weight. If they died, nobody important would care. Trump certainly wouldn't. The only people that'd care would be the Instagram girls that copy the kardashians' every single move.

So kill artists too? If their work isn't immediately useful like graphic designers they should die? Many musicians are bad and almost no one knows them. They should die too? Their work isn't necessary either. And it's all subjective anyway. So why bother with it. What about people who do repetitive work that can be automated already? Like most services for example. Where most people work. Their work isn't needed anymore so if they don't find anything else they should all die? What about old people like ace45954 said? May have contributed all their lives to society. But if they stop at some point they must die? Or is it only when their money runs out and they need help from others? Can't be. Otherwise the rich never need to be useful to society like you want. You're making feudalism look good by comparison. Living in ant colonies isn't for humans.

The point isn't "die." The point, even though it says "contribute or die" is "contribute." And the type of contribute isn't necessarily a socialistic one. "Contribute" in this sense is "contribute to your own upkeep."

"Die" in this sense isn't execution. "Die" is "Who cares what happens to you if you won't work for your own upkeep."

The point is, if it is your artistic value to run around naked in the Mohave Desert in winter, don't take it out on me because you are stupid. Don't steal what I work hard to produce, just to keep your stupid self from dying of exposure. Same with all the other useless occupations around. If you don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain and do something that produces food, clothing, and shelter for yourself, don't be upset when I cut off my funds to you because you are too stupid to go on living.

That wasn't an answer to anything you said. And your views and his aren't the same. If I understood him correctly. Though I disagree with you both. This is what TheGr33k said:

They are dead weight and do not need to be alive. The same can be said for people who work but do not contribute anything useful or positive to society like Kim Kardashian.

I contribute and I still struggle for my living while other people's livings are being handed to them. I don't know what Trump's demands are as president but if he wins, I hope he puts everyone that doesn't want to work and everyone that's not positive aid to society to sleep. They are useless to us. When people like Snooki are dead, we can rejoice.

Then in response to my post:

Fine. Let me reword myself...


If you don't contribute positively to society, you should die.

And how exactly would we determine who is "contributing"?

By finding out who has a JOB.

That's why I said in that post "Or is it only when their money runs out and they need help from others? Can't be. Otherwise the rich never need to be useful to society like you want." And to answer your post your idea of contribute misses the effect the rich have in shaping society. In bribing politicians to get what they want. Like not pay their taxes like the rest have to. And the lack of opportunity the rest have. Want an education? Be prepared to be a debt slaved for the rest of your life. If your lucky. And then go work for those who were better at rigging the system in their favor. Or be homeless.

[BADecker]

Also, those two ladies do not contribute anything necessary. They're dead weight. If they died, nobody important would care. Trump certainly wouldn't. The only people that'd care would be the Instagram girls that copy the kardashians' every single move.

So kill artists too? If their work isn't immediately useful like graphic designers they should die? Many musicians are bad and almost no one knows them. They should die too? Their work isn't necessary either. And it's all subjective anyway. So why bother with it. What about people who do repetitive work that can be automated already? Like most services for example. Where most people work. Their work isn't needed anymore so if they don't find anything else they should all die? What about old people like ace45954 said? May have contributed all their lives to society. But if they stop at some point they must die? Or is it only when their money runs out and they need help from others? Can't be. Otherwise the rich never need to be useful to society like you want. You're making feudalism look good by comparison. Living in ant colonies isn't for humans.

The point isn't "die." The point, even though it says "contribute or die" is "contribute." And the type of contribute isn't necessarily a socialistic one. "Contribute" in this sense is "contribute to your own upkeep."

"Die" in this sense isn't execution. "Die" is "Who cares what happens to you if you won't work for your own upkeep."

The point is, if it is your artistic value to run around naked in the Mohave Desert in winter, don't take it out on me because you are stupid. Don't steal what I work hard to produce, just to keep your stupid self from dying of exposure. Same with all the other useless occupations around. If you don't have enough sense to come in out of the rain and do something that produces food, clothing, and shelter for yourself, don't be upset when I cut off my funds to you because you are too stupid to go on living.

That wasn't an answer to anything you said. And your views and his aren't the same. If I understood him correctly. Though I disagree with you both. This is what TheGr33k said:

They are dead weight and do not need to be alive. The same can be said for people who work but do not contribute anything useful or positive to society like Kim Kardashian.

I contribute and I still struggle for my living while other people's livings are being handed to them. I don't know what Trump's demands are as president but if he wins, I hope he puts everyone that doesn't want to work and everyone that's not positive aid to society to sleep. They are useless to us. When people like Snooki are dead, we can rejoice.

Then in response to my post:

Fine. Let me reword myself...


If you don't contribute positively to society, you should die.

And how exactly would we determine who is "contributing"?

By finding out who has a JOB.

That's why I said in that post "Or is it only when their money runs out and they need help from others? Can't be. Otherwise the rich never need to be useful to society like you want." And to answer your post your idea of contribute misses the effect the rich have in shaping society. In bribing politicians to get what they want. Like not pay their taxes like the rest have to. And the lack of opportunity the rest have. Want an education? Be prepared to be a debt slaved for the rest of your life. If your lucky. And then go work for those who were better at rigging the system in their favor. Or be homeless.

His whole point is the society thing. He is right. If someone is going to participate in a society that has welfare in it, he needs to contribute something that produces what society needs, or die out of the society.

The wealthy get their money to do what they do from the people who support them by buying their products and services, or by buying into their political ideals. If the people didn't do this, individually, perhaps out of stupidity, the rich would fade away... at least with regard to the people.

[Gronthaing]

His whole point is the society thing. He is right. If someone is going to participate in a society that has welfare in it, he needs to contribute something that produces what society needs, or die out of the society.

The wealthy get their money to do what they do from the people who support them by buying their products and services, or by buying into their political ideals. If the people didn't do this, individually, perhaps out of stupidity, the rich would fade away... at least with regard to the people.

Kim Kardashian isn't a welfare recipient. She produces nothing society needs. But is rich and can take care of her needs. And according to him she should die. And others like her too. According to you society can just ignore her. But like I said I don't believe that works. With the concentration of wealth as it is the rich have too much impact in society. Even if they don't contribute anything useful. Or if others could do better if given the chance. And they won't have it most of the time. Again 20 americans have the same wealth the bottom 50% of americans have. 20 to 170000000 or something. Who controls the politicians, laws that get passed, most candidates you can vote for, corporations, etc?

[bryant.coleman]

Kim Kardashian isn't a welfare recipient. She produces nothing society needs. But is rich and can take care of her needs.

Kim Kardashian has an income amounting to millions of USD per annum (from endorsements and fees), and she pays income tax to the United States. So I won't call her unproductive. But it is true that she is a degenerate and is having a wrongful influence in the society (especially among the teens). Can't compare this degenerate to all those lazy welfare rats.

[BADecker]

His whole point is the society thing. He is right. If someone is going to participate in a society that has welfare in it, he needs to contribute something that produces what society needs, or die out of the society.

The wealthy get their money to do what they do from the people who support them by buying their products and services, or by buying into their political ideals. If the people didn't do this, individually, perhaps out of stupidity, the rich would fade away... at least with regard to the people.

Kim Kardashian isn't a welfare recipient. She produces nothing society needs. But is rich and can take care of her needs. And according to him she should die. And others like her too. According to you society can just ignore her. But like I said I don't believe that works.

Perceived value. Someone thinks she is worth it. If they didn't, she wouldn't get paid.

With the concentration of wealth as it is the rich have too much impact in society. Even if they don't contribute anything useful. Or if others could do better if given the chance. And they won't have it most of the time. Again 20 americans have the same wealth the bottom 50% of americans have. 20 to 170000000 or something. Who controls the politicians, laws that get passed, most candidates you can vote for, corporations, etc?

Nobody has to use the money system. People who don't like it and still use it are ignorant. If it wasn't a good system this way, people would stop using it. People are simply ignorant.

Learn how to ride the wave, and you won't want to stop the wave either.

[catch.me.if.you.can]

Lets start to steal the lazy useless capitalistic bosses. Lets start to download copyrighted material from the internet.

[Gronthaing]

His whole point is the society thing. He is right. If someone is going to participate in a society that has welfare in it, he needs to contribute something that produces what society needs, or die out of the society.

The wealthy get their money to do what they do from the people who support them by buying their products and services, or by buying into their political ideals. If the people didn't do this, individually, perhaps out of stupidity, the rich would fade away... at least with regard to the people.

Kim Kardashian isn't a welfare recipient. She produces nothing society needs. But is rich and can take care of her needs. And according to him she should die. And others like her too. According to you society can just ignore her. But like I said I don't believe that works.

Perceived value. Someone thinks she is worth it. If they didn't, she wouldn't get paid.

Thread has already been there. TheGr33k didn't care. You didn't read the thread.

With the concentration of wealth as it is the rich have too much impact in society. Even if they don't contribute anything useful. Or if others could do better if given the chance. And they won't have it most of the time. Again 20 americans have the same wealth the bottom 50% of americans have. 20 to 170000000 or something. Who controls the politicians, laws that get passed, most candidates you can vote for, corporations, etc?

Nobody has to use the money system. People who don't like it and still use it are ignorant. If it wasn't a good system this way, people would stop using it. People are simply ignorant.

Learn how to ride the wave, and you won't want to stop the wave either.

Right. The don't like it go live in the woods libertarian argument. Rather change the current system to be more fair. Instead of starting over.

[popcorn1]

I am probably going to get a lot of disgust for this. For that I do not care.




What is the point of forcing people who don't work to live? Same goes for people that simply do not want to work but want to ride government issued services. We hard working taxpayers are forced to pay our money to the homeless that sit around wanting people to take care of them. Half of them use these services for drugs. They are dead weight and do not need to be alive. The same can be said for people who work but do not contribute anything useful or positive to society like Kim Kardashian. At least her husband runs many charitable organizations, won more than ten Grammy awards and has indeed proven himself to be a noble asset to society. I work. I contribute and I still struggle for my living while other people's livings are being handed to them. I don't know what Trump's demands are as president but if he wins, I hope he puts everyone that doesn't want to work and everyone that's not positive aid to society to sleep. They are useless to us. When people like Snooki are dead, we can rejoice.

STUPID STUPID PERSON
You sound jealous to me
when a man or woman  works hard and has children they pass all that money on to there children
So when that child is growing up you give them the very very best you can afford in life because you love them so much YOU PEANUT
So what do you want them to do have all that money and let there own flesh and blood suffer .LIKE YOU IN YOUR SHITTY DEAD END JOB
I come from a poor background 1 thing never get jealous..PEOPLE STRIVE TO MAKE THERE CHILDREN LIVES HAPPY ..REMEBER RICH PEOPLE PAY TAXES ON THE GOODS THEY BUY

AND THIS IS HOW STUPID YOU ARE YOU DUMB SHIT..

If this was law then you be dead because as a child you don.t contributed fuck all your parents do they clothe and feed you
 you thick shit ..
YOU ARE JUST A JEALOUS PERSON ..IN A SHIT JOB..DAFT SHIT ..
Plus if your in a shit job like you are ..that coat she bought her daughter as created more jobs pay more tax on the coat..than your shitty dead end job would have pay in a months tax..

So there for she created more wealth for the public to spend on roads and lamp post and so on than you did..

So your more of a waste of space than she is..
PLUS TO SAY YOU WANT A CHILD TO DIE..
GO GET RUN OVER CUNT

Also how did trump get his money off DADDY 1 MILLION 40YEARS AGO LIKE GETING 4.5 MILLION IN THIS DAY AND AGE..
Now lets say trump got brought up in this day and age with crack head parents..
who will he get his 4.5 million loan off..THE BANK
yer i just walk into a bank and say i come from trailer trash..can i have a 4.5 million dollar loan please..also i work packing beans any chance..WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ANSWER WILL BE
So trump should be killed if he as a child come from trailer trash..

AS A CHILD WHEN YOUR BORN ITS LUCK AS A CHILD YOUR BORN INTO MONEY OR GOOD PARENTS..
So in this day and age don.t you think every child has the right to an education a roof over there heads and food on the table free of charge..
the play stations a tv playing golf a holiday and so on are not free..
Its just so that child has a chance in life if parents are not up to scratch..I.E got money..
there will always be rich and poor..
just not right to bring children up STARVING COLD AND NO EDUCATION..NOT IN MY WORLD

BUT YOU BASICALLY WOULD KILL ALMOST EVERYONE EVEN YOURSELF

Also house prices in the 1970s
lets say 1 million is like having 4.5 million..
buying a house in 1970s average 5632 pounds..so 1 million would buy you 178 properties..

4.5 million in this day and age average property in 2015 is 200k so 4.5 million would buy you 23 properties..
So because you lived in the 1970s you would own 155 more properties than what you could buy in this day and age..NO WONDER TRUMP IS DOING SO WELL : ..
and then how much did he get when his dad died..

so AS YOU CAN SEE LIFE IS BECOMING HARDER AND HARDER WITH LESS SPOILS AROUND ..
THEN ROBOTS ARE TO COME YET WOOOOOOOOOOOOOW
Also people can have problems in life then they turn to drink and drugs while the kids suffer..
loose loved ones turn to drink the kids suffer parent no jobs
So when bernie sanders goes on about socialist ..
HE CAN SEE THE FUTURE ..THE FEW WILL HAVE SO MUCH AND THE POOR WILL HAVE NO CHANCE..
BECAUSE THERE WONT BE A MIDDLE CLASS ..ROBOTS WILL DO ALL THE POOR JOBS
WHY PAY YOU OVER 10 YEARS 200K WHEN I BUY AN AZIMO 40K AND DO YOUR WORK FOR 50 YEARS AND FASTER
So be careful what you wish for..
And the reason for helping the poor is because even you can loose your job and become poor
I am all for getting rich but there is being greedy AND NOT LETTING ANYONE ELSE HAVE A CHANCE