LOOK! KORRA'S DOING HER IMPRESSION OF A TABLE!

This.

... Except the guy on the left is black, so that's pretty unlikely.

Except that's hardly ever how it works in reality. Most of the time, the guy on the right was born into a rich family, never had to worry about scraping enough together for his next meal, went to a private school for rich kids, followed daddy's footsteps and became a businessman. Most of the time, the guy on the left was born into a shit-poor family, never received a good education (or any at all), has to work his ass off at a shitty job so he can buy enough food to survive, gets stuck in a debt trap and works for years to get out, etc etc....

It's true that now days it's more common to be born into a rich family. But think back to how that fortune was built and you'll most likely find somebody who worked a lot.

Plus a man who is not worth his money will soon lose it. For example, will Paris Hilton be rich after her dear old dad croaks? Not for very long she won't.

I know

That's not my name, Brooke

My name's....not.....BROOOOOOOOOOOKE!

You must have me confused with someone else

I know

> "proved"

Its ok guys we will handle this

Probably the most creative one here.


Also, I just turned 16 as of 12:00 AM. Wanted to post that somewhere. Felt lonely.
Happy birthday me.

you are a magical kingdom. happy birthday.

yfw

HAPPY MOTHERFUCKIN' BIRTHDAY.
You are now old enough for THE HARDCORE SHIT.
<-

I took a photo of a dick shaped piece of pork and uploaded it.

Hipsters and instagram.

I thought that's what instagram was for

Here, hold this.

>be idealist
>express idealist ideas that resembles marxist socialism or common selflessness
>butthurt all over
>it's contagious
>my own butt starts to hurt
>oh lord, what have I started?
>butt hurts so bad
>hope I didn't inflict similar butthurt to peers in this thread
>forgive me, I didn't know!
>have to get up to work in 6 hours
>I hereby exorcize butthurt from this thread, may it never return
>MFW I go to sleep now, knowing everything will be okay

>implying people only do stuff for personal gain

You're American, aren't you?

Lmao, bullshit. Everyone does things for personal gain.

Bankers (Of any origin)
Druglords of various countries
Sierra Leone
Various Leaders of VARIOUS Countries
Large Corporations, of Various Nationalities

It isn't "America" Jackass, it is human. Humans are greedy.

So if you had to go through 4 years of college, 4 sleepless years of medical school, and 2 years of residency to become a doctor, you would be just fine doing all that and being paid $40,000 dollars per year (30k euros) because helping people is the only thing you're concerned about? You would do all that when you could be a sales clerk a earn the same income?

You're full of shit, aren't you?

>be idealist
>express idealist ideas that resembles marxist socialism or common selflessness
>butthurt all over
>it's contagious
>my own butt starts to hurt
>oh lord, what have I started?
>butt hurts so bad
>hope I didn't inflict similar butthurt to peers in this thread
>forgive me, I didn't know!
>have to get up to work in 6 hours
>I hereby exorcize butthurt from this thread, may it never return
>MFW I go to sleep now, knowing everything will be okay

Conservatives all want an equal chance at the start and they are usually the harder workers in my life, liberals expect the same rewards as those who worked harder than they did because they think everyone should get a fair shake.

All in all if you're a lazy fuck you can go rot in a gutter food stamps the rest of us paid for are keeping you alive, if you just are hard on your luck then I can sympathize.

thank you.

1. I meant do not give them the money directly which is ridiculous
2. Letting all the charitable rich people pay to charities is unbelievably unfair because the greedy walk away without paying and no social responsibility
3. The money donated needs to go to a government who can direct the money to somewhere useful such as healthcare, education and social development.
4. The greedy man is the one who wants more than he truly needs and refuses to give charitably to others even though he used the same education needed by so many others to rise above
5. I do not believe charities would be successful without government intervention in America because the rich generally have this view that people are poor due to their own fault.
6. The conservative/republican ideal wants society to grow and improve but allows for free markets which are proven to cause economic polarisation which leads to poverty, that is the true hypocrisy.

No no, what I was saying was don't give them the money to reach your height of success. Give them the foundations (such as opportunity to education and support) to have the chance to reach the tall mans level and if he fails then so be it but do not condemn him to a terrible life. Also relying on the charity of rich people is an idea that will never work because a lot of people are not willing to give a penny away.

And how to you give them the "foundations"? The money to pay for these "foundations" has to come from somewhere!

And why do you feel many people wouldn't be willing to give to charities? There have been worldwide movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, of people who believe in giving charity to the less fortunate. I would think with all of their returned tax money these people would be the first to jump at the chance to give to the poor. But the truth is, they want the GOVERNMENT to help the poor with OTHER peoples' money. This way they can claim they care about the poor and feel good about themselves without doing anything substantial to truly help or giving up any of the luxuries they have, such as IPhones, in order to be able to donate more of their money to charitable causes. You see, the greedy man is always the person who wants more than YOU do. My point is that American "liberals" are a walking hypocrisy. There are so many who believe in charitable causes, and yet they believe without government intervention there would be no charities. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

1. I meant do not give them the money directly which is ridiculous
2. Letting all the charitable rich people pay to charities is unbelievably unfair because the greedy walk away without paying and no social responsibility
3. The money donated needs to go to a government who can direct the money to somewhere useful such as healthcare, education and social development.
4. The greedy man is the one who wants more than he truly needs and refuses to give charitably to others even though he used the same education needed by so many others to rise above
5. I do not believe charities would be successful without government intervention in America because the rich generally have this view that people are poor due to their own fault.
6. The conservative/republican ideal wants society to grow and improve but allows for free markets which are proven to cause economic polarisation which leads to poverty, that is the true hypocrisy.

Right now you're assuming everyone is born equal, the little man clearly was born at a disadvantage, fair enough if he was at that height because of his fault but he may not be, he may have been born into a poor family with money problems therefore ruining his chances of education therefore deliberately not being able to reach the same heights as the tall man. Also in America I know you do not have free healthcare so yes the small mans money issues could be caused by the tall man if he owns the private healthcare business the man owes money too.

Society should be improving as a whole, not just the advantaged individuals. Nor do I believe taking what is unnecessary from the rich as they are entitled to enjoy their riches but most people are born into riches, not worked for them. You should not enjoy your money at the expense of other people.

If you give the man the box (an equal opportunity in life as you did) he may be able to reach the same heights as you did.

Also a free market is liberal. Liberal and left wing are not interchangeable terms. Look up Neo-Liberalism. People who support socialism do not support a liberal/free market.

Just because someone is born into money does no mean their wealth is everlasting. Paris Hilton is a dumb blonde who goes out partying and wastes a whole bunch of money. But how long after her successful businessman father dies do you think her wealth will last? A man who is not worth his money will soon lose it.

Also, you're assuming just because someone is born into a poor family that there is no hope that they could possibly succeed in life. In a free society where taxes are low, there would be even more charitable organizations (ex. The United Negro College Fund) because people would have more disposable income to donate that would help lower income individuals pay for schooling so that they can increase their value in the job market. Also, you're going back to what i said about determining what is "necessary." Please refer again to my previous comment.

If you give the small boy the box, he might TEMPORARILY reach the same height as I have, but he will not have the skills to maintain his wealth and buy boxes in the future when a charitable tall man is not readily available.

I will give you this, you're right about a free market being truly liberal. However, ironically, liberalism in the U.S. has come to mean support of public programs, regulated markets and a great deal of government control of peoples' economic endeavors and personal lives, hence why I referred to it as the "liberal" belief.

No no, what I was saying was don't give them the money to reach your height of success. Give them the foundations (such as opportunity to education and support) to have the chance to reach the tall mans level and if he fails then so be it but do not condemn him to a terrible life. Also relying on the charity of rich people is an idea that will never work because a lot of people are not willing to give a penny away.

And how to you give them the "foundations"? The money to pay for these "foundations" has to come from somewhere!

And why do you feel many people wouldn't be willing to give to charities? There have been worldwide movements, such as Occupy Wall Street, of people who believe in giving charity to the less fortunate. I would think with all of their returned tax money these people would be the first to jump at the chance to give to the poor. But the truth is, they want the GOVERNMENT to help the poor with OTHER peoples' money. This way they can claim they care about the poor and feel good about themselves without doing anything substantial to truly help or giving up any of the luxuries they have, such as IPhones, in order to be able to donate more of their money to charitable causes. You see, the greedy man is always the person who wants more than YOU do. My point is that American "liberals" are a walking hypocrisy. There are so many who believe in charitable causes, and yet they believe without government intervention there would be no charities. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

1. I meant do not give them the money directly which is ridiculous
2. Letting all the charitable rich people pay to charities is unbelievably unfair because the greedy walk away without paying and no social responsibility
3. The money donated needs to go to a government who can direct the money to somewhere useful such as healthcare, education and social development.
4. The greedy man is the one who wants more than he truly needs and refuses to give charitably to others even though he used the same education needed by so many others to rise above
5. I do not believe charities would be successful without government intervention in America because the rich generally have this view that people are poor due to their own fault.
6. The conservative/republican ideal wants society to grow and improve but allows for free markets which are proven to cause economic polarisation which leads to poverty, that is the true hypocrisy.