[W:277] Florida's DeSantis moves to allow citizens to shoot looters, rioters targeting businesses

[bongsaway]

And you as a wage earner haven't a clue. The ups and downs the worry the unpredictability of the future. You punch your time clock and cash your paycheck. When you punch out your worry is over. Your money safe in a bank the business owners money at risk from everything from mother nature to fire to the title of this thread......rioting looting garbage.

My business is fine NOW however in the beginning days I could not afford insurance. I speak with many business owners in the same boat. We have operational costs, employee costs, and finally our own paycheck. Each added burden pushing the business closer to closure. So while your worries end when you punch out ours never end.

Instead of teaching us how to run our businesses and what products we should purchase to protect ourselves perhaps you might start by spending some of that effort teaching the rioting thug scumbags not to riot and loot. Seems the place to start is with the law breakers not the law abiding productive members of society.

As with most liberal positions you have crap back assward.

Once again, nobody forced you to own a business. Do you actually think I haven't heard all this stuff before? My brother owns his own business, I know all about your end of being a business owner. One of my best friends owns his own plumbing business, he too did very well for himself and I listen to him whine all the time about how he's broke. His financial advisor also complains about how broke he is and then tells us about his five thousand dollar bicycle and the only reason he bought it, it was on sale. So broke. Scumbags rioting and looting, get ya' some insurance now that you can afford it. And stop whining.

 

[Ikari]

Stand against violence says the riot supporting hypocrite lol. You just continue to amaze lol.

Moderator's Warning:

Knock it off. These directed trolls are not acceptable for upstairs, keep it to the subject and not the poster. This goes for EVERYONE. I don't want to see this crap in this thread anymore. Keep to the topic, stop with the childish back and forth personal BS. Failure to abide by this warning may result in moderator action or thread banning. All posts made prior to this warning are still subject to moderator review and action.

 

[Nickyjo]

Hi Nickyjo,

Dresden always has been and still is cause for much heated debate.

What I often find when discussing this subject is that people try to project todays standards onto a 75 year old situation. At the same time, there is also a lot of misinformation regarding the Dresden bombing. I think the Dresden bombing was horrible, but not worse than any other bombing in Germany. They were not giving signs to surrender and ultimately, Hitler never did surrendered, he just committed suicide, the coward.

But that is all hind side. When the decision was made to bomb Dresden we did not know that yet, did we.

But when the decision was made to bomb Dresden, the situation with Russia was also take into account. And the often used argument that it was just a cultural city is not true. Well, it was a cultural city, but there was also a lot of industry and there were many German refugees from the Russian front. It was a legitimate target I believe.

And besides that, after all they had done... Yes, I think it is ok to just keep bombing them until they surrender. Regardless of how horrible the results were.

Joey

What you say about the 75 year old situation is correct. But if you remember, the world was horrified by what was done in Guernica in the 1930s. A decade later it was forgotten, small potato s by comparison. War destroys morality, even among the moral. If you had gone to the worst Inquisitor of the Middle Ages and told him that a Christian nation would have countenanced Dresden or Hiroshima, he wouldn't have believed you. "You had to be there" only goes so far as an excuse

 

[JoeyJoystick]

What you say about the 75 year old situation is correct. But if you remember, the world was horrified by what was done in Guernica in the 1930s. A decade later it was forgotten, small potato s by comparison. War destroys morality, even among the moral. If you had gone to the worst Inquisitor of the Middle Ages and told him that a Christian nation would have countenanced Dresden or Hiroshima, he wouldn't have believed you. "You had to be there" only goes so far as an excuse

Hi Nickyjo,

I will never argue about how horrific it was what was done to Dresden. Or any act of war, by anyone, to anyone. It was horrible. I am not trying to justify the horrors of war. What I was saying that in the context of the war as it was back than, I do believe it was acceptable to bomb Dresden. Or least not more or less acceptable than any other bombing raid by the allies (or the Germans for that matter)

Joey

 

[Nickyjo]

Hi Nickyjo,

I will never argue about how horrific it was what was done to Dresden. Or any act of war, by anyone, to anyone. It was horrible. I am not trying to justify the horrors of war. What I was saying that in the context of the war as it was back than, I do believe it was acceptable to bomb Dresden. Or least not more or less acceptable than any other bombing raid by the allies (or the Germans for that matter)

Joey

Perhaps acceptable in the context as you say. But perhaps also considered a war crime. (Then again, the winners get to define war crimes. We hanged some Japanese for waterboarding, among other crimes.) Our morality has gotten trumped by our technology. I remember reading that some German machine gunners stopped firing at the Brits during the battle of the Somme, so overcome were they by the horror of what they were doing. Had they been able to kill the 20k soldiers that perisished that day with a bomb, no problem perhaps.

If, to induce Japan's surrender, for example we had tortured and killed a few thousand prisoners individually, we couldn't have stomached it. But "bombs away" cures a queasy stomach. (To me, as I understand things, assuming Japan had not processed what Hiroshima was all about by then, Nagasaki three days later was a worse action.) The unthinkable becomes the acceptable becomes the justifiable becomes the essential becomes the righteous. Funny how the mind works. "Thou shall not kill" would have come with dozens of footnotes in the 20th century.

 

[Daddyo]

Once again, nobody forced you to own a business. Do you actually think I haven't heard all this stuff before? My brother owns his own business, I know all about your end of being a business owner. One of my best friends owns his own plumbing business, he too did very well for himself and I listen to him whine all the time about how he's broke. His financial advisor also complains about how broke he is and then tells us about his five thousand dollar bicycle and the only reason he bought it, it was on sale. So broke. Scumbags rioting and looting, get ya' some insurance now that you can afford it. And stop whining.

You own your own home? If yes is it insured? Is rioting and looting covered?

Hopefully when these scumbags come for business they equally attack you wage earners at your vulnerable point, your homes. Then perhaps that flippant attitude will fade away. Maybe just maybe you'll find some empathy for law abiding citizens and not just for the rioting scum. Maybe the envy you feel toward business owners will alas subside. You never know.

 

[bongsaway]

You own your own home? If yes is it insured? Is rioting and looting covered?

Hopefully when these scumbags come for business they equally attack you wage earners at your vulnerable point, your homes. Then perhaps that flippant attitude will fade away. Maybe just maybe you'll find some empathy for law abiding citizens and not just for the rioting scum. Maybe the envy you feel toward business owners will alas subside. You never know.

Lol. Wishful thinking on your part.

 

[Daddyo]

Perhaps acceptable in the context as you say. But perhaps also considered a war crime. (Then again, the winners get to define war crimes. We hanged some Japanese for waterboarding, among other crimes.) Our morality has gotten trumped by our technology. I remember reading that some German machine gunners stopped firing at the Brits during the battle of the Somme, so overcome were they by the horror of what they were doing. Had they been able to kill the 20k soldiers that perisished that day with a bomb, no problem perhaps.

If, to induce Japan's surrender, for example we had tortured and killed a few thousand prisoners individually, we couldn't have stomached it. But "bombs away" cures a queasy stomach. (To me, as I understand things, assuming Japan had not processed what Hiroshima was all about by then, Nagasaki three days later was a worse action.) The unthinkable becomes the acceptable becomes the justifiable becomes the essential becomes the righteous. Funny how the mind works. "Thou shall not kill" would have come with dozens of footnotes in the 20th century.

Fatman and little boy didn't kill as many civilians as the conventional fire bombings did.

I have an uncle in law who is Phillipino. I know he hates to this day the Japanese people. So years ago after the sunami I was busting his eggs and I asked him what he thought about it. He litterally fist pumped. I asked him why he hated them so much and wow. The Japanese decapitated his father after making him dig his own grave. They tossed baby's in the air and caught them with their bayonets. He went on and on. So the Japanese had it coming.

 

[Daddyo]

Lol. Wishful thinking on your part.

Just trying to use your own words and attitude in such a way to change your thinking.

I dont want anything to happen to any innocents home or business. It just sucks how easy others will throw a business owner under the bus. Especially when they themselves would use deadly force against anyone who dare steal or destroy their valuables.

 

[bongsaway]

Just trying to use your own words and attitude in such a way to change your thinking.

I dont want anything to happen to any innocents home or business. It just sucks how easy others will throw a business owner under the bus. Especially when they themselves would use deadly force against anyone who dare steal or destroy their valuables.

I am not for the use of violence, or burning or looting. You don't need to change my thinking. It comes down to this whether you wish to believe it or not. Ten percent of the people own ninety percent of the world's money. In contrast that leaves ninety percent of the people left fighting for the other ten percent and that is exactly what we do, we fight one another when the whole time those same ten percent are still making a killing. I ask this over and over and basically get the same kinds of answers in our capitalistic society. When is enough, enough?

 

[aociswundumho]

I am not for the use of violence, or burning or looting. You don't need to change my thinking. It comes down to this whether you wish to believe it or not. Ten percent of the people own ninety percent of the world's money. In contrast that leaves ninety percent of the people left fighting for the other ten percent and that is exactly what we do, we fight one another when the whole time those same ten percent are still making a killing. I ask this over and over and basically get the same kinds of answers in our capitalistic society. When is enough, enough?

No. You are assuming there is a fixed-pie of wealth, and that when someone becomes a dollar richer it necessarily means someone else is a dollar poorer. That is totally and completely false.

 

[Nickyjo]

Fatman and little boy didn't kill as many civilians as the conventional fire bombings did.

I have an uncle in law who is Phillipino. I know he hates to this day the Japanese people. So years ago after the sunami I was busting his eggs and I asked him what he thought about it. He litterally fist pumped. I asked him why he hated them so much and wow. The Japanese decapitated his father after making him dig his own grave. They tossed baby's in the air and caught them with their bayonets. He went on and on. So the Japanese had it coming.

Them and all their little babies. Right.

 

[bongsaway]

No. You are assuming there is a fixed-pie of wealth, and that when someone becomes a dollar richer it necessarily means someone else is a dollar poorer. That is totally and completely false.

I am assuming no such thing. You are assuming that's what I think.

 

[aociswundumho]

I am assuming no such thing. You are assuming that's what I think.

Yes you are. You wrote:

In contrast that leaves ninety percent of the people left fighting for the other ten percent

That statement assumes there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and that the only way for the poor to have more is if the rich have less.

Let's also note the hypocrisy about you bragging about your own personal wealth in your sig file, while literally billions of people in the world still live on a few dollars per day. Funny how it never occurs to leftists who push for wealth "redistribution" to begin by redistributing their own wealth to the poor.

 

[bongsaway]

Yes you are. You wrote:


That statement assumes there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and that the only way for the poor to have more is if the rich have less.

Let's also note the hypocrisy about you bragging about your own personal wealth in your sig file, while literally billions of people in the world still live on a few dollars per day. Funny how it never occurs to leftists who push for wealth "redistribution" to begin by redistributing their own wealth to the poor.

You assume too much. I have said before but I'll repeat myself, it's not my condo. Where do I brag about my personal wealth? I own my home mortgage free and have basically very little debt because I'm careful with my money, it's not because I'm wealthy, I'm not.

You are only proving my point when you state there are billions of people in the world living on a few dollars a day. Look around that same world, are any of the leaders of these billions suffering along with them? Hell no.

 

[aociswundumho]

You assume too much. I have said before but I'll repeat myself, it's not my condo. Where do I brag about my personal wealth? I own my home mortgage free and have basically very little debt because I'm careful with my money, it's not because I'm wealthy, I'm not.

Compared to whom? It doesn't take that much to get into the global 1%:

Just how much money do you need to be among the global 1 percent?

According to the 2018 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse Research Institute, you need a net worth of $871,320 U.S. Credit Suisse defines net worth, or "wealth," as "the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts."

...

A net worth of $93,170 U.S. is enough to make you richer than 90 percent of people around the world, Credit Suisse reports.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html

If you own your own home free and clear, that puts you around the top 5% in the world. If your home is worth 500k, and you include all of your other assets, you're probably in the top 1%. On top of that, you spend every other week in a luxury oceanfront condo, and you have the audacity to claim you're not wealthy?

So when are you going to redistribute your money to the poor? I think we all know the answer to that question - never. You're part of the "I got mine" crowd, and you don't even realize it.

 

[bongsaway]

Compared to whom? It doesn't take that much to get into the global 1%:



If you own your own home free and clear, that puts you around the top 5% in the world. If your home is worth 500k, and you include all of your other assets, you're probably in the top 1%. On top of that, you spend every other week in a luxury oceanfront condo, and you have the audacity to claim you're not wealthy?

So when are you going to redistribute your money to the poor? I think we all know the answer to that question - never. You're part of the "I got mine" crowd, and you don't even realize it.

My home is small and old and probably not worth more than 100k and as I've said, the condo isn't mine. As I've also said, you assume too much.

 

[aociswundumho]

My home is small and old and probably not worth more than 100k

Still puts your net worth in the top 10%.

Don't you think someone in the top 10% should redistribute his money to the bottom 90%?

 

[bongsaway]

Still puts your net worth in the top 10%.

Don't you think someone in the top 10% should redistribute his money to the bottom 90%?

The net worth it takes at every age to be richer than most people you know

The typical American household has a net worth of about $97,300. Here's the net worth it takes to be part of the top 20% of Americans at every age.

www.businessinsider.com

You also know how much money I have in the bank? Like I said, you assume too much.

 

[aociswundumho]

You also know how much money I have in the bank? Like I said, you assume too much.

You could be flat broke, it doesn't matter. If your house is worth 100k, and you own it free and clear, then you are in the top 10% of the world:

To be among the top 10 percent worldwide, you don’t even need six figures: A net worth of $93,170 will do it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-part-of-the-1-percent-worldwide.html

Since you are in the top 10%, you should sell the house, and redistribute the money to poor people, thus making the world more equal.

 

[Daddyo]

I am not for the use of violence, or burning or looting. You don't need to change my thinking. It comes down to this whether you wish to believe it or not. Ten percent of the people own ninety percent of the world's money. In contrast that leaves ninety percent of the people left fighting for the other ten percent and that is exactly what we do, we fight one another when the whole time those same ten percent are still making a killing. I ask this over and over and basically get the same kinds of answers in our capitalistic society. When is enough, enough?

Still the best system. Keeps the most people out of poverty and alive and healthy. Like it or not problem or not its the best.

 

[Daddyo]

Them and all their little babies. Right.

Thats the rumor.

 

[Daddyo]

Yes you are. You wrote:


That statement assumes there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and that the only way for the poor to have more is if the rich have less.

Let's also note the hypocrisy about you bragging about your own personal wealth in your sig file, while literally billions of people in the world still live on a few dollars per day. Funny how it never occurs to leftists who push for wealth "redistribution" to begin by redistributing their own wealth to the poor.

Always free with OPM.....other peoples money.

 

[Daddyo]

You assume too much. I have said before but I'll repeat myself, it's not my condo. Where do I brag about my personal wealth? I own my home mortgage free and have basically very little debt because I'm careful with my money, it's not because I'm wealthy, I'm not.

You are only proving my point when you state there are billions of people in the world living on a few dollars a day. Look around that same world, are any of the leaders of these billions suffering along with them? Hell no.

A look around the world and those leaders are living off the backs of those poor people. Many are wealth because they abuse the people.

 

[Daddyo]

Compared to whom? It doesn't take that much to get into the global 1%:



If you own your own home free and clear, that puts you around the top 5% in the world. If your home is worth 500k, and you include all of your other assets, you're probably in the top 1%. On top of that, you spend every other week in a luxury oceanfront condo, and you have the audacity to claim you're not wealthy?

So when are you going to redistribute your money to the poor? I think we all know the answer to that question - never. You're part of the "I got mine" crowd, and you don't even realize it.

It makes them feel better to fight for the poor. Of course its almost always with OPM.