Rich SOB Says Treatment Of Rich Like The Holocast

Personally, I wouldn't even bother with this topic.

This is just another hate baiting thread that is par for the course for the type of posters that post this crap.

Of course, they don't realize the intent of the letter. He wasn't comparing the suffering of the Jews to the suffering of the rich 1% of America. He was comparing social demonizing of the Jews to the social demonizing of the rich 1%. He was comparing the propaganda against the Jews to the propaganda against the rich 1%. He was comparing the blind hatred of the Jews in Nazi Germany to the blind hatred of the rich 1% on Progressive America.

And he is correct. And you know he is correct. So you take his words out of context (the Huffington Post did it first, several posters went further than that) just to twist his point to make you look like the righteous one and him as the evil one. Kindof like how the citizens of Nazi Germany did against any propaganda FOR the Jews.

This is just another example of how out of touch with reality and how narrow-minded the Progressive camp is. I would have figured that people would have learned from their mistakes with the Holocaust too....

1%'ers get a bad wrap from the media, but comparing themselves to the Jews in Nazi Germany? The Jews were forced to wear a mark identifying them to all, the rich can wear what they like, and rarely have any reason to be out in public. The Jews, by and large, were living in no better conditions and had no advantage over the other Germans, the rich live in far better conditions than the rest of the country, better access to medicine, etc.

So, assuming we talking ONLY about public demonization, which does happen, even then comparing the 1% to the Jews of Nazi Germany falls flat on it's face. There are real economic problems when 1% of the people hold 90% of the wealth. There was no real economic or social problems with the Jewish people.

I've stayed out of the topic purposefully, but to see the token Neo-Cons jump to defense of someone like this is disgusting. Ya, the wealthy have a public opinion problem and the media does them no favors, but they get to live in the lap of luxury, the Jews were rounded up in the night, starved and forced to labor, and killed when they were no longer useful. If that's not apples and oranges, we need a better analogy.

If I was rich I would be so guilty I would have to give away all my money...said no one ever.

That was not his point. You know that is not his point. You change his words so it could resemble this point, but in the end, this was not his point.

We are talking only about public demonetization. You admitted that this does happen, but then you deflect from his point into another tangent that is completely off his point.

Quote from his letter that says anything about the economic issues in Nazi Germany during the Great Depression. I promise I won't hold my breath for it though.

We are attacking the mis-characterization of his words by the Huffington Post and by some of the posters here who went further than the Post. Again, you are going away from the point into something you can attempt to argue about. He did not say anything even remotely close to what you are going off about.

I know it is hard to read wearing rose-colored glasses, but to make stuff up to prove your point? And who was it that accused me of reading comprehension again?

Actually the full title "Rich Businessman Compares Treatment Of The Rich To The Holocaust" wouldn't fit as a thread tittle. SOB fit several ways.

The entire German, Polish, and Russian branches of my family wiped out. That's why.

I don't remember reading his name. Its irrelevant. His words are the relevant part.

But you just did.

Huffngton Post isn't bias at all... wait yea it is.

Your title maybe.

The article's title says "Rich Venture Capitalist Compares Taxes on the wealthy to the Holocaust."

The letter has no mention of taxes at all either. I know the letter is beyond your comprehension, but the Post's comprehension? That is news to me (but I'm not surprised).

You are defending (indirectly) an article that is completely made up to suit the editor's agenda. So, does that mean that you also have a greater lack of comprehension, or are you just a partisan hack? We already know the answer, so you don't have to answer for us...

Really the thread should have been called. Liberals hate rich people. End of story.


No one learned anything no value was added from the article. Could have been summed up in one sentence.

I'm just waiting for the eventual delete of this thread (can't lock it in this case) because it shows truly how some posters in this thread are blinded by their own hate, so blinded that that they would attack anything as long as it fits within their parameters.

The worst thing is, they don't even know about this hate.

But this thread has shown their true colors. Can't have this type of evidence against them though...

seems to me that the only people downing on the rich are the ones that are too lazy to go and do what it takes to become wealthy themselves.

Well maybe if you were a few years older you can tell us some stories of the Bolshevik Revolution and what demonization of the successful leads to when you fire enough people up about it.

I love to hate equally. Between idiotic politicians, clueless rich people and mouth breathing members of the common rabble, everyone is capable of spewing the finest ***from their mouths. Most of us don't make national publications however. Bummer.

Those pesky taxes and criticisms of income inequality really is like the Holocaust. I can see the ovens, mass graves and wartime atrocities already. The sullen faces of the rich being shot in front of their family members, forced onto trains to death camps, worked to death.

Oh yes, the 4th reich is already here. Can't you sheeple see it?

It's a poor analogy. Referring to what happened to the wealthy in France during the French Revolution would probably have been better and more accurate.

No there won't be an instiutionalized purging of the rich by the American goverment. Anyone with an understanding of how modern day governments work would see how absurb Perkins statement is.

However, if there ever was a revolution by the 98%, then yes a lot of the 1-2% would be at the mercy of an angry mob. Hence the French Revolution analogy.

But like I said, with the way money drives politics and the way wealth is worshipped in the media there will not be an institutionalized purging of the rich in America. Maybe, in some third world nation thats had its natural resources exploited by wealthy outsiders, or even a monarchy for decade upon decade but it's not going to be happening in the United States.

Liberals hate very rich people, very rich people find it hard to stop acting like poor entitled, persecuted victims.
Seems both sides are made for each other.

People can twist this all they want, comparing the plight of the rich to Nazi Germany, propaganda against Jews or any real atrocities is an exercise in hyperbole. It's why he picked that atrocity in the first place, like every other clueless sap who thinks that Nazis or Jews are like MSG for an argument.

Sprinkle a little on your assertion and BAM, you're cooking with fire.

TBH it seem the rich 1% hogging money makes no sense to people who earn pittances and live on the breadline so to speak.

perhaps if with the millions/billions they were making company's and investing in people = giving people jobs / lives people wouldn't hate them so much but in reality people are forced to work their lives on terrible wages and are often ridiculed and hate themselves for having to do so.

simply put the 1% need to give more back

reality isn't dependent upon belief.

might want to go get that head of yours checked.

no need to get my head checked. It is a reality. lazy people always down on people that have more than them.

Need to give money back...so just because you make millions you are morally obliged to help people. It all makes sense now.

So you are saying companies are charities. They are not required to make a profit. They should give most of their money away.

That analogy is like a Holocaust of logic - a Logicaust, if you will.

Also, that sushi dinner I ate last night was like a Holocaust for fish and when I stubbed my toe this morning it was just like the *** Holocaust because reasons.

Your toes are Jewish and shouldn't be persecuted ?

People don't "always" do anything. And your reality must be amazing if you can oversimplify things like that, for sure it removes any need to actually think.

Nah but when their profits reduce the quality of living of other people, acting like they are entitled and persecuted certainly doesn't help.

apparently there is, as you're delusional, or at least the words you're typing are that of a delusional person who has lost touch with reality. Maybe you should run for the Republican nomination, worked "ok" for Romney.

when it's the people "aka society" that enables those companies to exist, yes they need to give back to the community, I'd just say it would be fine to tax them what they should be taxed, but hey, whatevs.

Again need. You are using the word wrong. They should.

no, they need to.

otherwise the society will eventually crumble. Learn to infer.

Not everyone is in the same position to get "wealthy", taking this stance is rather short sighted, and considering there is a wealth of evidence, research and thinking to substantiate that the rich keep people in a position they can;t get rich quick ~

Sociology, I would suggest reading up on this before trying to post what you consider "facts" when in fact your startling lack of knowledge on the subject is somewhat concerning.

Here's an anology ~

Child A grows up child to Bill Gates.
Bill Gates Dies. Child gets rich ~

Child B grows up with a Drug Addict mother and no father, mother dies from a drug over dose, and child (say 18) is left to look after his 3 siblings, and is forced to leave school and do a menial job to put food on the table.

So... Looks to me Child B works a lot harder but gets less... Your logic is just lolz.

please note: I used this as an extreme example and did not use this to upset anyone who has ever had any family members with substance abuse issues ~

This child A you speak of. He never had to overcome anything in his life correct ?

The rich are rich, for many reasons, now I don't agree that people who got rich should have to give up their "earned" property just because people are in a bad position ~

What I do agree with however is ~

1. A substantial pay-rise to the bottom rung of society who are on menial wages ~
2. To remove Tax Right Offs and for large companies to not get Tax Cuts ~ (Meaning they pay the amount that is dictated for standard business rates)

This is of course all the while ensuring that the company is still able to turn a profit, because if the company can not make a profit, no one profits.