World welcomes Obama win

#251
#251
UT IE 95 said:
Civility is a product of mutual respect and the will to aloow people that disagree with you to make a point. Most on here that understand that. Then others, well, not so much.
Click to expand...

All I simply did was respond to a post you made... if you're offended by it, not much I can do, but feel free to take continued potshots if it will make you feel better.
 
#252
#252
volsforever27 said:
All I simply did was respond to a post you made... if you're offended by it, not much I can do, but feel free to take continued potshots if it will make you feel better.
Click to expand...

Anytime you refer to someone's opinion as an "asnine comment" you will get what you deserve.
 
#254
#254
UT IE 95 said:
Anytime you refer to someone's opinion as an "asnine comment" you will get what you deserve.
Click to expand...

I like how you went back and fixed the multiple errors in your last post once you decided to call him out on his spelling.
 
#255
#255
kptvol said:
I like how you went back and fixed the multiple errors in your last post once you decided to call him out on his spelling.
Click to expand...

I wasn't calling him out on spelling. I make spelling and grammatical mistakes all the time. I noticed it in my post and corrected it. I knew what he meant but I spelled like he did since I was quoting it.
 
#256
#256
UT IE 95 said:
I wasn't calling him out on spelling. I make spelling and grammatical mistakes all the time. I noticed it in my post and corrected it. I knew what he meant but I spelled like he did since I was quoting it.
Click to expand...

I'm a terrific speller, but I suck as a typist. Sue me.
 
#259
#259
BigPapaVol said:
No. 1) The point you made was that the lone route to wealth is minimizing payroll. You made very clear that 2) wealth can't exist without it. If you said otherwise without simply agreeing with me or quoting me, you'll need to prove it.

You've gone way out your way to talk about where the basis of the money to pay the wealthy comes from. I went out of my way to say that 3) wealrh originated long before the work force.[/QUOTE]

1 and 2 are different points. I stand behind 2. I never said 1. But you claim I did. Tell me where I said that.

Again again, here's what I posted:

"one of the reasons they're making this much money is that there are a lot of people under them making a hell of a lot less than they are."

"lone" does not equal "one of." you made this up, thus the argument with yourself. I guess the score is now 3 to 0. And you're still winning.

you have never proven 3, which is an entirely different argument altogether. You'd have to go pretty far back in time to the first "wealthy" people to prove that. And I bet you'd be wrong.
Click to expand...
 
#261
#261
OrangeEmpire said:
TennNC is a special case.....

He is a libertarian who has a guilty conscience.

So he has liberal leanings when it comes to social matters.
Click to expand...

It's hard for me to self-actualize, but if given the truth serum, I'd probably agree to that.
 
#262
#262
TennNC said:
BigPapaVol said:
No. 1) The point you made was that the lone route to wealth is minimizing payroll. You made very clear that 2) wealth can't exist without it. If you said otherwise without simply agreeing with me or quoting me, you'll need to prove it.

You've gone way out your way to talk about where the basis of the money to pay the wealthy comes from. I went out of my way to say that 3) wealrh originated long before the work force.[/QUOTE]

1 and 2 are different points. I stand behind 2. I never said 1. But you claim I did. Tell me where I said that.

Again again, here's what I posted:

"one of the reasons they're making this much money is that there are a lot of people under them making a hell of a lot less than they are."

"lone" does not equal "one of." you made this up, thus the argument with yourself. I guess the score is now 3 to 0. And you're still winning.

you have never proven 3, which is an entirely different argument altogether. You'd have to go pretty far back in time to the first "wealthy" people to prove that. And I bet you'd be wrong.
Click to expand...
and I am saying that it is not one of the reasons. It is not a reason at all and you have not proven that. Your convoluted connection back to someone in China was not support for your Marxism. It was proof that there are people out there willing to work at a rate that makes good ideas profitable.

I know you want to parse words to support your Marxist point and pretend I'm putting words in your mouth, but it's intellectually dishonest and you know it. You made your point, explicit or implicit, and I refuted it. Then you turned to the mincing of words to make it appear that you weren't really saying what you said. If you were including other reasons for the existence of wealth, why did you mistakenly leave those out? Surely you viewed them as important as the subjected labor force that you imply. Could it be that they were the entrepreneurial side and the exact side that has been the driver of the US rise to economic greatness in the world? It just doesn't suit the collective viewpoint very well does it?

Again, wealth does not exist because of a cheap labor force. Wealth exists because someone had a very good idea and took a risk and people were 100% willing to walk in a do a job offerred them. I 100% guarantee you that the idea and the risk came along before the hiring did, in every single case. Not a couple of instances, every single one of them. The very first guy that said I'll help you build houses for others for 2 chickens per week started that process. He made that decision because he deemed his week of time to be worth 2 chickens weekly and apparently couldn't find anyone else to give him 3.
Click to expand...
 
#268
#268
BigPapaVol said:
TennNC said:
and I am saying that it is not one of the reasons. It is not a reason at all and you have not proven that. Your convoluted connection back to someone in China was not support for your Marxism. It was proof that there are people out there willing to work at a rate that makes good ideas profitable.

I know you want to parse words to support your Marxist point and pretend I'm putting words in your mouth, but it's intellectually dishonest and you know it. You made your point, explicit or implicit, and I refuted it. Then you turned to the mincing of words to make it appear that you weren't really saying what you said. If you were including other reasons for the existence of wealth, why did you mistakenly leave those out? Surely you viewed them as important as the subjected labor force that you imply. Could it be that they were the entrepreneurial side and the exact side that has been the driver of the US rise to economic greatness in the world? It just doesn't suit the collective viewpoint very well does it?

Again, wealth does not exist because of a cheap labor force. Wealth exists because someone had a very good idea and took a risk and people were 100% willing to walk in a do a job offerred them. I 100% guarantee you that the idea and the risk came along before the hiring did, in every single case. Not a couple of instances, every single one of them. The very first guy that said I'll help you build houses for others for 2 chickens per week started that process. He made that decision because he deemed his week of time to be worth 2 chickens weekly and apparently couldn't find anyone else to give him 3.
Click to expand...

Most convoluted post of the year. You actually get penalized on both sides of your argument. Updated score:

BPV: 2
BPV: -1
Click to expand...
 
#271
#271
iceman9 said:
I saw today where hops were selling for over $27 bucks when a couple years ago they were $2-$3 , whats the chance BHO is a beer drinker..........:p
Click to expand...

this is a major concern, also since I love kraut bier, the weak dollar is an issue. Mein Gott!
 
#275
#275
TennNC said:
BigPapaVol said:
Most convoluted post of the year. You actually get penalized on both sides of your argument. Updated score:

BPV: 2
BPV: -1
Click to expand...
I'll take that as you have no response that merits reading. The Marxist proletariat vs. bourgoise argument always comes to this point, but it really only became evident since all of those sticking to his ideal failed utterly.
Click to expand...
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top