If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Jay-Z confused by Occupy Wall Street, 'What are you fighting for?'   (nydailynews.com) divider line 434
    More: Amusing, Occupy Wall Street, Jay Z, Russell Simmons, fixed rate mortgage, Zuccotti Park, demonization  
•       •       •

15635 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2012 at 5:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



434 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-11 07:50:52 AM

GeneralJim: 1. There exist certain goals achievable by centralized means that are not achievable through private industry.

FALSE


Really? What motivation does a company beholden to shareholders have to pursue a goal that has little or no resulting monetary profit? That's the kind of thing that gets corporate officers fired, you know?

GeneralJim: FALSE. (Name one.)


I could name several, but I don't think the conversation would be fruitful, given your unwillingness to make the obvious concession on the first point.

GeneralJim: TRUE.


Well, at least we can agree on that point. The rest of that discussion is simply a matter of deciding what the government should be doing and what it shouldn't, and then how much we should tax people and how the taxes should be distributed. But then, your opinion isn't worth any more or less than mine on that topic. It's something we should all be deciding together. The problem is, jackasses in Washington are deciding it based on pressures from a few very wealthy people, instead of the pressure of the electorate. That needs to stop before we can make any real headway.

GeneralJim: And, of course, YOU would decide how much is "reasonable," eh, Tovarische?


Of course not. I just threw out a number for discussion. The important thing is understanding that there exists a point beyond which, it's not reasonable. That too much wealth and power in the hands of one or a few is just as equivalent to slavery as your boogeyman of socialism is.

GeneralJim: Long ago, more people realized what government is --


Oh man, my eyes almost rolled out of my skull reading the rest of that post. I think we've gone about as far as we're going to with this. Have a nice day.
 
2012-09-11 07:55:06 AM

GeneralJim: Just perhaps, they know that if they quit "while they're ahead" perhaps as many as tens of thousands of people will be out of a job. If ANYONE can do something that makes buttloads of money, and employs thousands of people, wouldn't you say that there is at least SOME moral pressure to keep doing what it is that makes so much money, and keeps so many profitably employed?


If I hadn't already excluded people who would be in that kind of situation, that might be a valid reason.

You seem to fall under the same mental aberration that suggests that anyone wealthy is also greedy and selfish.

You seem to have a desperate need to see that in any statement, even one that is in direct opposition to it.
 
2012-09-11 08:16:57 AM

Z-clipped: It's important to remember that I said "not entitled to reap billions", not, "not entitled to profit". I'm simply putting a reasonable limit on the value of what one person can really contribute to society. I think that for one man to be able to acquire billions of dollars represents a kind of market failure. Above and beyond a certain income, there becomes no point to acquisition other than acquisition itself. If some people are driven to acquire beyond what is reasonable simply to have more than everyone else, let them do so under a constraint (say, a very high tax rate above a certain margin). As long as the constraint is applied equally to everyone, they can still feed their hubris, and society can reap the benefits directly, instead of relying on the charity of an arguably mentally ill person.

1) It's not necessarily only a mentally ill person driven by some crazy desire to hoard money that becomes a billionaire. Bill Gates started a product that keeps on selling. Is he mentally ill to keep improving on his product and advertising it and selling it simply because he has amassed a huge sum of money? To some people the idea of making an exceptional product is indeed a driving force. I think you have an image of all wealthy people as Howard Hughes sitting in a dim room alone and letting his money pile up. Who are you, or anyone else, to tell someone that they have enough money and the government should seize the rest from them?
2) As has been cited in this thread a few times...the government is incredibly inefficient at charity. The numbers used here were $8 in expenses to donate $1. I've seen similar figures cited elsewhere. Bill Gates, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, donates truckloads of money to charities more efficiently than the government ever could. Why confiscate their money and then spend it less efficiently?


As an aside, you chose an example that actually supports something I said earlier- partnerships. The two people in your example are effectively working as equal partners, sharing equal work. The fact that one of them had the idea for the widget is not even represented monetarily. Not that all businesses should be equal partnerships, but I do think all corporations should be required to base their top tier of compensation on the bottom tier by some reasonable common multiple, like say, 10.

So a company like, say, Coca-Cola that has an incredible number of "levels" of employment should limit the compensation of the guy that oversees an entire continent, say Coca-Cola China, to 10X the salary of the janitor? Say the janitor makes $20K....so the guy in charge of millions of dollars of product and market share and thousands of employees should only be compensated $200K?

What about a neurosurgeon and the guy who cleans the toilets in the hospital?


In the US today, allowing an individual to amass an enormous fortune has multiple devastating effects on society as a whole. It allows them far too much economic influence, multiplying their ability to create real market failure in the classic sense. It affords far too much political power by multiple channels- in fact, it has served to equate money and politics to such a degree that we (the general public) may never be able to peacefully recover our franchise. It also serves, as I said before, to create dynasties of aristocrats which I find morally repugnant, and which are one of the things the Founders came here to escape from in the first place.

The money intertwined in politics problem does need to be taken care of, but I don't think the solution to that problem is to confiscate money from the wealthy. There are laws currently that aren't being enforced and there are probably others that wouldn't be a bad idea to have....I think that that is the way to solve the problems that you are talking about....not by government confiscation of private wealth.

 
2012-09-11 08:22:11 AM
i47.tinypic.com
Screw it, as long as we punish the rich.
 
2012-09-11 08:26:26 AM

GeneralJim: [i47.tinypic.com image 400x400]
Screw it, as long as we punish the rich.


www.heritage.org
 
2012-09-11 08:35:15 AM
Z-clipped:
GeneralJim: 1. There exist certain goals achievable by centralized means that are not achievable through private industry.

FALSE

Really? What motivation does a company beholden to shareholders have to pursue a goal that has little or no resulting monetary profit? That's the kind of thing that gets corporate officers fired, you know?

You have monomania. "Beholden to shareholders?" Well, just for one, a non-profit can't make a profit. A "Hey, let's build a new road" non-profit could do just that. There's nothing magic about taking money from people at gunpoint. Furthermore, it's probably BETTER if projects get done by (or at least paid for by) people who want to see the project completed. Let those who want more books for the library (or a library itself) pay for it, and the folks who want the road resurfaced pay for THAT. Every job that is done privately will have about a factor of eight increase in the money. If the government quit doing everything, and taking (or printing) so much money, more would get done. If only 25% as much money were given voluntarily as is taken by taxes, twice as much would get done.
 
2012-09-11 08:52:47 AM
Z-clipped:
2. While private industry governed by market forces is generally considered to be more efficient than government-run tax-funded industry, there are some cases where this is not the case.

GeneralJim: FALSE. (Name one.)

I could name several, but I don't think the conversation would be fruitful, given your unwillingness to make the obvious concession on the first point.

So, you can't think of one, either. Got it.


3. Though people may not like them, it is necessary for the government to levy some taxes for a society to operate.

GeneralJim: TRUE.

Well, at least we can agree on that point. The rest of that discussion is simply a matter of deciding what the government should be doing and what it shouldn't, and then how much we should tax people and how the taxes should be distributed. But then, your opinion isn't worth any more or less than mine on that topic. It's something we should all be deciding together. The problem is, jackasses in Washington are deciding it based on pressures from a few very wealthy people, instead of the pressure of the electorate. That needs to stop before we can make any real headway.

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that there are WAY more slackers than doers. It's an obvious problem when people on the dole vote for those promising them a "raise." Since the leeches greatly outnumber the rich, there is too much catering to them. Those on government dole, INCLUDING government employees and people serving in Congress, should not have the vote. Furthermore, the salaries of House, Senate, and Executive Branch officials should be set by popular vote. And, further, there should be NO law passed by Congress that does not apply to Congresscritters. You want to foist off that abortion called Obamacare on us with the force of law? Well, then, that's what YOU get, too.

Despite your drawer-dousing over rich people, they don't cause much of a problem. And, you're totally backwards on your tax ideas, as well. What we need is a totally inescapable, one-page tax code: Somewhere around 10% of income goes to general taxes, and another 15% for the socialist crap we have put in place, like SS, and Medicare. Drop the cap on the SS contributions, too, and give people an exclusion on the 10% tax for the first, say, $10,000 / person of income. End of story.
 
2012-09-11 09:02:20 AM
Z-clipped:
GeneralJim: And, of course, YOU would decide how much is "reasonable," eh, Tovarische?

Of course not. I just threw out a number for discussion. The important thing is understanding that there exists a point beyond which, it's not reasonable. That too much wealth and power in the hands of one or a few is just as equivalent to slavery as your boogeyman of socialism is.

You fail to understand the basics. Any business transaction is VOLUNTARY. Government transactions are INVOLUNTARY.

Yes, companies and individuals might well conspire to eliminate competition, and that must be stopped. But, in a free market, anyone who thinks "prices are too high for X" is entitled to make or collect X, and sell it at whatever price they like. Then people get to CHOOSE from whom they get their X, which often has a lot to do with the price charged for X by the various vendors or manufacturers. And if they don't like it, they can do without X, or make their own X, or whatever is appropriate for the X under discussion.

The point is that business gets money from transactions that people want to make, and government TAKES money, like it or not. It's a whole different class of transaction, which puts limits on business that do not exist for government, INCLUDING a requirement for efficiency to survive.
 
2012-09-11 09:04:59 AM
BMFPitt:
GeneralJim: Just perhaps, they know that if they quit "while they're ahead" perhaps as many as tens of thousands of people will be out of a job. If ANYONE can do something that makes buttloads of money, and employs thousands of people, wouldn't you say that there is at least SOME moral pressure to keep doing what it is that makes so much money, and keeps so many profitably employed?

If I hadn't already excluded people who would be in that kind of situation, that might be a valid reason.

Oh, you did? I missed that. Where is it?
 
2012-09-11 09:17:20 AM
Silly Jesus:
GeneralJim: [i47.tinypic.com image 400x400]
Screw it, as long as we punish the rich.

[www.heritage.org image 432x434]

Yeah, thanks for bringing up the Laffer Curve. So, before the derpfest begins, the Laffer Curve is only about HEAVY taxation. There IS a point, below which further tax rate cuts have no effect. That point is somewhere near 35-40%. The Laffer Curve, mostly, points out that if you are punishing the rich with a 85% tax rate, lowering that to 75% would bring in a LOT more money in tax revenue. And you have to be a totalitarian to want higher taxes, when those taxes will REDUCE the amount that government nets.

 
2012-09-11 12:30:21 PM

GeneralJim: Oh, you did? I missed that. Where is it?


"Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anything hands-on? I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life. I don't mind that they do, but I think it's crazy. Maybe it's just some weird competitive thing, and they don't know how to have cool hobbies like Richard Branson."

But like I said, if you have a desperate psychological need to find attacks on rich people where none exist, you'll tend to ignore stuff like that.

Unless you would like to make a compelling case that a mutual fund manager retiring is likely to cost tens of thousands of jobs.
 
2012-09-11 03:24:57 PM
Question:

How many jobs have job creators created under the Bush tax cuts?
 
2012-09-11 03:27:17 PM

FloydA: James F. Campbell: jim32rr: FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.

Admins got you down? Can't get anything greenlit, so you come in whining over the submissions of others? Well that's ahh something

Welp, at least FloydA isn't an ignorant, cumstained farktard. Not that I'm calling anyone else in this thread an ignorant, cumstained farktard. I'm just saying that FloydA isn't one.

I've got no idea who this guy is; he apparently went straight into my iggy list because I have no recollection of him whatsoever. He seems to be under the impression that my ego is vested in the number of greenlights I've had. It's amusing to me because, in the 9 years I've been on Fark, I have only submitted two links. He might just as well try to insult me for the fact that I don't have any CMT country music awards and I've never won a Pokemon championship.


Doubt if I'm on your ignore list, haven't said anything to be ignored over. My comment was stupid and not the direction I should have taken. You were slamming that the story was submitted, based on the comments/conversations in the thread quite a few farkers had an interest, you included.

No harm, no foul Floyd
 
2012-09-11 06:40:34 PM

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: When a man presents himself as a completely worthless farktard every time he opens his mouth, it's hard not to see him any other way. When Savage starts showing some humanity, maybe I'll think of him as human. Don't see how that's "pulling things out of my ass", but you always seem to dismiss and ignore things in order to try to be a smug dick towards others.
Indeed. And thank you, very sincerely, for making that both easy and justifiable. You're a mensch.

But, you miss the point. I saw the movie "Misery." Did you? In the movie Kathy Bates plays a psychotic fan. Oh, and DAMN, does she do a good job. Scared the crap out of me. But, do you know what? I don't assume that, because she PLAYED a psychotic, that she IS one.

Venomous radio is WAY big business. Unless you knew Savage personally, you have NO REASON to think that what he spouts is heart-felt. HE COULD EASILY JUST BE ACTING in such a way that he can collect a very large paycheck. An actor's job is to pretend to be someone they are not. Sorry, I can't make it any simpler. Savage is an actor on the radio. His opinions COULD match his on-air persona, but probably don't. He might be a moderate, a conservative, or a middle-of-the-road type, acting like a rabid conservative BECAUSE IT IS HIS JOB.

Since I don't know him any better than you do, all I am doing is presenting possibilities. Your concept of "I heard him, he spouts hate all day" is one I am not going to evaluate, especially since it might well be correct, and I don't care to subject myself to that. However, your claim utterly ignores that it is his JOB to be a rabid radio host, at high pay, and THAT is sufficient reason to act that way, even if it is counter to one's natural proclivities.

Do you have it yet? I can get the tire swing and the bananas, if that would help.


You sure like to watch yourself type, don't you.

Sorry, Charlie, but there's a big difference between an actress in a fictional movie and a talk radio host in real life. I know the actress is acting when she's pretending to be someone form the 1800's, or pretending to ride atop a dragon while she shoots magic bolts at ogres. Talk show hosts in real life, though, are not dealing with fantasy things or talking about fantasy people (unless they're the insane people who are the right's mouthpieces, apparently). When I hear nothing from Rush, Hannity, Larson, Beck, and Savage but fear-mongering, hate-mongering, attacks on American citizens because they don't think they way they do, attacks on American citizens for not conforming to what they think (Sandra Fluke ring a bell?), and pronouncing fellow Americans as trash, filth, vermin, evil, etc for daring to go against what they hold sacred... no. No, that is not acting. That is what they think and feel in their daily lives, and they feel the need to spew it to the world to get as much money and attention as possible. And no, the "I'm just an actor" thing doesn't work, if you believe that you might as well believe your five-year-old when he beats up his younger brother and cries "We were just playing!" when you confont him about it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They're free to blech and barf their hateful filth, and I'm free to point out that they're nothing but greedy disenguous filth-belching troglodytes.
 
2012-09-11 07:24:50 PM
BMFPitt:
GeneralJim: Oh, you did? I missed that. Where is it?

"Now someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who probably enjoyed what they did maybe makes some sense, but fund managers and guys like that who don't actually do anything hands-on? I don't get what motivates you to put in crazy hours once you have enough money that your grandkids would be set for life. I don't mind that they do, but I think it's crazy. Maybe it's just some weird competitive thing, and they don't know how to have cool hobbies like Richard Branson."

Sorry -- that was a trick question. I KNEW you said no such thing, because I looked back. Your exceptions here are for people who LIKE what they are doing, and has nothing to do with the fact that very competent people slacking off to make "just enough" money could lose thousands of people their jobs.


But like I said, if you have a desperate psychological need to find attacks on rich people where none exist, you'll tend to ignore stuff like that.

Where none exist? Really? Did you read this thread? Holy crap. Actually, it is YOU who is sounding desperate... for what I don't know... just envy, maybe?


Unless you would like to make a compelling case that a mutual fund manager retiring is likely to cost tens of thousands of jobs.

It COULD. Or, in the case of a truly gifted MFM, his slacking off could cost pension funds billions of dollars they would otherwise have had.

And, since you probably missed it, the point was that there can be compelling moral cases to do a lot of work, if one is gifted at that work. Michael Jordan could have had a "comfortable life" by only playing a few games a year on a per game contract. But he played in every game he could. By doing that, he helped his team in many ways.
 
2012-09-11 07:27:47 PM
Keizer_Ghidorah:
You sure like to watch yourself type, don't you.

Did you ever notice how most of the people making dipshiat claims about others all seem to think they know what others think, and want, but never say? It's a frickin' cognitive disorder, I tell you...
 
2012-09-11 07:31:34 PM
Keizer_Ghidorah:
Sorry, Charlie, but there's a big difference between an actress in a fictional movie and a talk radio host in real life. I know the actress is acting when she's pretending to be someone form the 1800's, or pretending to ride atop a dragon while she shoots magic bolts at ogres.

What a naif! No, Bucko, that is YOU not being able to see the fact that people talking on the radio are PERFORMERS, just like movie actors. I suppose if they got all riled up in an attack on the same stuff, while pretending to be Ben Franklin, THAT would be enough to clue you in.

I get it: the concept of radio performance is beyond you.
 
2012-09-11 08:00:51 PM

GeneralJim: Sorry -- that was a trick question. I KNEW you said no such thing, because I looked back. Your exceptions here are for people who LIKE what they are doing, and has nothing to do with the fact that very competent people slacking off to make "just enough" money could lose thousands of people their jobs.


Like I said, I'm not surprised that you would choose to willfully misinterpret my statement in such a way as to create a fictional enemy.

Where none exist? Really? Did you read this thread?

I did. And there were tons. But my post wasn't one of them.

Actually, it is YOU who is sounding desperate... for what I don't know... just envy, maybe?

You're not completely sure that it's envy? Watch out, your imaginary world is starting to fracture.

It COULD. Or, in the case of a truly gifted MFM, his slacking off could cost pension funds billions of dollars they would otherwise have had.

Who said anything about slacking off? I was talking about retiring to an island or finding something more fulfilling but less intense to do.

And, since you probably missed it, the point was that there can be compelling moral cases to do a lot of work, if one is gifted at that work. Michael Jordan could have had a "comfortable life" by only playing a few games a year on a per game contract. But he played in every game he could. By doing that, he helped his team in many ways.

I understand why a basketball player would enjoy basketball. In my original post I stated that it is possibly the same sort of motivation.

I also don't understand why people collect stamps. Clearly this indicates that I hate all stamp collectors and want the government o ban stamp collecting.
 
2012-09-11 09:03:17 PM
BMFPitt:
GeneralJim: Sorry -- that was a trick question. I KNEW you said no such thing, because I looked back. Your exceptions here are for people who LIKE what they are doing, and has nothing to do with the fact that very competent people slacking off to make "just enough" money could lose thousands of people their jobs.

Like I said, I'm not surprised that you would choose to willfully misinterpret my statement in such a way as to create a fictional enemy.

You're freaking SERIOUS? Heck, I gave you too much credit, and assumed you were just lying to make a point. Sorry -- I'll try to use smaller words.

So, now you're claiming that I WILLFULLY misinterpreted your lie, er, statement? And, you would know this HOW?



i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-11 09:17:19 PM

GeneralJim: You seem to fall under the same mental aberration that suggests that anyone wealthy is also greedy and selfish.


I really don't think it's about money after a certain level. One person can only eat so much caviar and $100 steak, washing them down with $5000 bottles of champagnes... drive so many Bentleys... own so many acres of oceanfront property...

No, when you get to the $billion mark, it's about power. It's about control. It's about the ability to snap your fingers and have sh*t happen because you have more money than you could ever spend in 100 lifetimes.

Take that doughy asshole Sheldon Adelson, for example. He owns the equivalent of a small nation, and he couldn't even spend all of the interest on his money in his lifetime... yet he's pumping millions into the RNC coffers to make sure his candidate gets elected so that not only can he escape possible criminal investigation and prosecution, but he wants to actually change the foreign policy of the United States of America (vis-a-vis Israel).

Power. And he's not alone... wealthy people from the Rockefellers to the DuPonts to the Vanderbilts to the Bushes have done exactly the same thing throughout american history, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is what makes everyone else dislike some rich people... not because of their money, but because of what they do with it.

It's not about money, it's about controlling you, controlling me, controlling anything and anyone they can. And no one likes being controlled. 

And yes, some are greedy as well. If they weren't they might pay their workers a bit more, and if you're a billionaire do you need even more when you could give someone in your employ who's making minimum wage an extra dollar an hour?
 
2012-09-11 09:43:22 PM
BMFPitt:
Actually, it is YOU who is sounding desperate... for what I don't know... just envy, maybe?

You're not completely sure that it's envy? Watch out, your imaginary world is starting to fracture.

Seriously? You're giving me shiat because I am NOT claiming to be able to read minds? You're one sick puppy.
 
2012-09-11 09:48:03 PM

BMFPitt:

It COULD. Or, in the case of a truly gifted MFM, his slacking off could cost pension funds billions of dollars they would otherwise have had.

Who said anything about slacking off? I was talking about retiring to an island or finding something more fulfilling but less intense to do.

So? You prefer to call it goofing off instead? Pick nits much?
 
2012-09-11 09:51:46 PM
BMFPitt:
And, since you probably missed it, the point was that there can be compelling moral cases to do a lot of work, if one is gifted at that work. Michael Jordan could have had a "comfortable life" by only playing a few games a year on a per game contract. But he played in every game he could. By doing that, he helped his team in many ways.

I understand why a basketball player would enjoy basketball. In my original post I stated that it is possibly the same sort of motivation.

There you go with the "enjoy" crap again. At least you're consistent. Consistently clueless, but the consistency has to count for SOMETHING. You missed it again. Look, I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. I'm done with this topic.
 
2012-09-11 10:32:45 PM

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: Sorry, Charlie, but there's a big difference between an actress in a fictional movie and a talk radio host in real life. I know the actress is acting when she's pretending to be someone form the 1800's, or pretending to ride atop a dragon while she shoots magic bolts at ogres.
What a naif! No, Bucko, that is YOU not being able to see the fact that people talking on the radio are PERFORMERS, just like movie actors. I suppose if they got all riled up in an attack on the same stuff, while pretending to be Ben Franklin, THAT would be enough to clue you in.

I get it: the concept of radio performance is beyond you.


You're sure doing a lot of white-knighting for people who have proclaimed time and time again that their listeners need to start a war to take back America while outright attacking and slandering people they disagree with. If you're convinced they'll sleep with you in gratitude, knock yourself out. I'll continue to hold them as the evil filth they are.

You might also want to try responding to one post with one post, you're looking a lot like I drunk what.
 
2012-09-11 11:47:10 PM
rewind2846:
GeneralJim: You seem to fall under the same mental aberration that suggests that anyone wealthy is also greedy and selfish.

I really don't think it's about money after a certain level. One person can only eat so much caviar and $100 steak, washing them down with $5000 bottles of champagnes... drive so many Bentleys... own so many acres of oceanfront property...

No, when you get to the $billion mark, it's about power. It's about control. It's about the ability to snap your fingers and have sh*t happen because you have more money than you could ever spend in 100 lifetimes.

Look above... I said "You seem to fall under the same mental aberration that suggests that anyone wealthy is also greedy and selfish." You're proving my point. Apparently, you cannot imagine anyone rich having ANYTHING but selfish motives. I've know rich people; some of them are dicks, just like with poor people, and some of them are simply great folks, people who got ahead by being both smart and hard-working. Most of them I know donate a great deal to charity, and take good care of their relatives. But you seem to be buying the Democratic bull that anyone with money is evil, some in one way, and some in another. It is, truly, bullshiat.
 
2012-09-11 11:49:17 PM
rewind2846:
It's not about money, it's about controlling you, controlling me, controlling anything and anyone they can. And no one likes being controlled.

Actually, that's the process for statist governments. Are you as virulently hateful of them as you are of rich people?
 
2012-09-11 11:57:03 PM
Keizer_Ghidorah:
You're sure doing a lot of white-knighting for people who have proclaimed time and time again that their listeners need to start a war to take back America while outright attacking and slandering people they disagree with. If you're convinced they'll sleep with you in gratitude, knock yourself out. I'll continue to hold them as the evil filth they are.

You might also want to try responding to one post with one post, you're looking a lot like I drunk what.

First off, about you telling me how to post -- Fark you. I prefer one idea per post; if you don't like it, tough.

Second, YOU are "black knighting" anyone with money. It makes you look petty and venal, as well as envious. And then this business with radio shock jocks. Surely you can't think that anyone rich is evil, and that anyone talking shiat on the radio believes everything they are saying? Well, maybe you DO believe anything anyone says on the radio is their heartfelt belief, and that they would NEVER exaggerate, or rabble-rouse, just because it's their freaking JOB. I keep trying to give you credit for being smarter than that, and you keep insisting that you ARE that clueless. For example, do you think Howard Stern is the flaming jackass he plays on his show?/font>
 
2012-09-12 12:20:35 AM

GeneralJim: rewind2846: It's not about money, it's about controlling you, controlling me, controlling anything and anyone they can. And no one likes being controlled.
Actually, that's the process for statist governments. Are you as virulently hateful of them as you are of rich people?


We elect our governments. We can always vote them out. No one elects the rich people that want to control you.
 
2012-09-12 12:31:57 AM

GeneralJim: But you seem to be buying the Democratic bull that anyone with money is evil, some in one way, and some in another. It is, truly, bullshiat.


Hope you keep that armor nice and shiny, you White Knight kinda guy you. Let us all know how the sex went after they promised to give you some, okay?

These people wouldn't piss dom Perignon on you if you were on fire, yet you're swinging from the sack like a starving deer tick. Sad.

Plenty of good rich folks, folks that actually give more than money to charities and do good work. Those aren't the ones that get the grief... in fact they frequently get praise from us evil democrats.
The bad ones are the ones that cause the most hurt and do the most damage, and as a result earn the most scorn. They're also the ones who see it as their mission to subvert our political process at all levels with assloads of cash to achieve their own selfish ends. Thank you Citizens United and the United States Supreme court.

To put it so that even you can understand:
RICH != BAD
POOR != BAD
ASSHOLE = BAD
POOR ASSHOLE = BAD
RICH ASSHOLE = VERY BAD

Got it? Good.
 
2012-09-12 09:33:37 AM
rewind2846:
GeneralJim: rewind2846: It's not about money, it's about controlling you, controlling me, controlling anything and anyone they can. And no one likes being controlled.

Actually, that's the process for statist governments. Are you as virulently hateful of them as you are of rich people?

We elect our governments. We can always vote them out. No one elects the rich people that want to control you.

So, "no," then. You LIKES you some totalitarian government. Well, I have a bit of information, Bucko -- the more powerful government is, the more it will be bought. If government has no power to interfere in business, and give cronies an advantage, NOBODY will be buying politicians. It's pretty straightforward. Obama is using the fascist business model, which ties a few huge corporations into a network of favored toadies, and then the government forces others either out of business, or into losses by selective legislation.

So, we're headed down the same road taken by NAZI Germany. Don't come crying to me when you get what you want, and it ends up putting the rich and the CEOs of large corporations WAY more firmly in control. Enjoy. Oh, and by the way, when governments get powerful enough, that whole "we can vote them out" thing goes by the wayside. Dictators don't have elections... at least fair ones. And they tend to slaughter political opponents, along with the useful idiots who put them in power in the first place. If a person can revolt once, they can do it again, so it's more efficient to just kill them -- they served their purpose.
 
2012-09-12 09:37:47 AM
rewind2846:
Hope you keep that armor nice and shiny, you White Knight kinda guy you. Let us all know how the sex went after they promised to give you some, okay?

These people wouldn't piss dom Perignon on you if you were on fire, yet you're swinging from the sack like a starving deer tick. Sad.

Oh, FFS. You morons just have a list of insults, don't you, and pick the one that seems to fit... right?

You're herping and derping about how all rich people are evil greedy bastidges, blah, blah, blah. I point out that rich people are like other people, a mix of bad and good, only with more money, and that suggests sex to you? Pervert.
 
2012-09-12 09:48:03 AM
rewind2846:
Plenty of good rich folks, folks that actually give more than money to charities and do good work. Those aren't the ones that get the grief... in fact they frequently get praise from us evil democrats.

Now you're singing a bit of a different tune. Could it be that I convinced you your previous stand, expressed HERE, was pants-on-head stupid? 'Cause that would be super.

Hopefully you'll pardon my skepticism about Democrats praising the rich at all, let alone "frequently." The reaction is generally like that huge pustule, Michael Moore, who reached out to choke a reporter that pointed out that he was in the 1%. It appears that the only way to be acceptably rich to Democrats is to be rich from media, AND to diss other rich people.
 
2012-09-12 05:46:17 PM

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: You're sure doing a lot of white-knighting for people who have proclaimed time and time again that their listeners need to start a war to take back America while outright attacking and slandering people they disagree with. If you're convinced they'll sleep with you in gratitude, knock yourself out. I'll continue to hold them as the evil filth they are.

You might also want to try responding to one post with one post, you're looking a lot like I drunk what.
First off, about you telling me how to post -- Fark you. I prefer one idea per post; if you don't like it, tough.

Second, YOU are "black knighting" anyone with money. It makes you look petty and venal, as well as envious. And then this business with radio shock jocks. Surely you can't think that anyone rich is evil, and that anyone talking shiat on the radio believes everything they are saying? Well, maybe you DO believe anything anyone says on the radio is their heartfelt belief, and that they would NEVER exaggerate, or rabble-rouse, just because it's their freaking JOB. I keep trying to give you credit for being smarter than that, and you keep insisting that you ARE that clueless. For example, do you think Howard Stern is the flaming jackass he plays on his show?/font>


Oh, you think this is about money? I couldn't give more of a rat's ass about how much cash is up their asses. This is about them, either reality or fantasy (and if they truly are doing it as an act, then it's even worse), spreading fear, hatred, and an "us vs them" mentality among Americans. I think what they're doing is reprehensible, evil, and trash. They could be using their amazing acting abilities to brong the country together, to tell us we should work more closely and in unity to get the country out of the mire it's fallen into. Instead they've preaching to people to hate others for not thinking like they do, to fear others for being different from them, to go to war with each other, all with lies and mangled truths. They chose to be actors in a very ugly and filthy play. I'm one of the critics telling it like it is about their "performance". You give them a standing ovation if that's how you roll. I'll give them a few crates of rotten tomatoes and the hook.
 
2012-09-12 10:11:45 PM

GeneralJim:
"His was also a simple goal - to end the animosity between the two major political and religious factions in his country. Simple goal, complicated execution which resulted in the formation of an entirely new nation, Pakistan."


Where in my posts did I say that Ghandi's goal was the formation of Pakistan? His goal was peace in the nation that was, but to achieve it the people who were fighting split into two nations.

Remember:
Goal = peace
What actually happened = peace by separation.

Also, go back and read my post at 2012-09-11 09:17:19 PM. Did I use the word "all"? Did I use the word "most"? Did I use the phrase "every one of them"? Yet you somehow feel the compelling need to stick up for the bad rich people as well as the good ones, just because they're rich? You would actually stick up for societal cancers Like Adeslon?

Maybe if you read more slowly and out loud... not that you probably don't anyway... you could understand what I wrote and not what you wanted to see.  Hope that armor doesn't get too hot.
 
Displayed 34 of 434 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report