outsidethebox Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 How did I insult you? Pointing out that your post demonstrates a lack of understanding of economics isn't an insult, it's a constructive criticism. You currently don't understand how markets function. It doesn't mean you can't learn. Personally, I think you come off as very close minded. You've created this paradigm in your head where the greedy rich people and corporations have all the power and are holding our economy hostage, and you accept it as unquestioned reality. You can continue to believe that if it gives you some sort of satisfaction, or you can choose to open your mind and learn to understand that which up to now you've rejected out of hand. It's up to you. You actually think I am the rude one? Not your trio of little buddies tytt, meazza and 3rd? You guys are nothing but rude, condescending and pompous snobs. You guys may be smart, but you lack the common sense God gave a dog! I am done with you and your ilk. Good riddence to bad trash!
Rob's House Posted November 13, 2012 Author Posted November 13, 2012 You actually think I am the rude one? Not your trio of little buddies tytt, meazza and 3rd? You guys are nothing but rude, condescending and pompous snobs. You guys may be smart, but you lack the common sense God gave a dog! I am done with you and your ilk. Good riddence to bad trash! I don't recall whether you were rude, exactly, but you certainly come off as arrogant. If you were to come in with some humility you might find that people will engage you in similar fashion. I'm still not sure what was said that you were so offended by, but if it had that much affect on you perhaps it is best that you leave before DC Tom comes back. He's not as nice as I am.
outsidethebox Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I don't recall whether you were rude, exactly, but you certainly come off as arrogant. If you were to come in with some humility you might find that people will engage you in similar fashion. I'm still not sure what was said that you were so offended by, but if it had that much affect on you perhaps it is best that you leave before DC Tom comes back. He's not as nice as I am. I have thick skin. But to have the audacity to suggest I was rude and don't say crap about your three buddies speaks volumes about your character . You four not knowing the difference between disagreement and intelligence tells me you lack the ability to comprehend. You four are nothing more than mouth breathers.
3rdnlng Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I have thick skin. But to have the audacity to suggest I was rude and don't say crap about your three buddies speaks volumes about your character . You four not knowing the difference between disagreement and intelligence tells me you lack the ability to comprehend. You four are nothing more than mouth breathers. Ducky, is that you? I took the time to try to explain to you why I felt you and your talking points were wrong. I even posted charts for you to look at without even mentioning your name. I was hoping you were a thinking person that with a little nudging might see how wrong you really are. So, I'm rude and a mouth breather? Classic.
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) Rob: I can't speak for the others but westside doesn't approve of the amount of my personal household budget I've allocated towards two employee positions, and proceeded to attack me over it personally, and then moved on to attack Republicans in general. My guess is that what qualified me as "rude" was the gall I had to not simply sit there and receive his impotent attempts at lashes. Edited November 13, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
Rob's House Posted November 13, 2012 Author Posted November 13, 2012 Rob: I can't speak for the others but westside doesn't approve of the amount of my personal household budget I've allocated towards two employee positions, and proceeded to attack me over it personally, and then moved on to attack Republicans in general. My guess is that what qualified me as "rude" was the gall I had to not simply sit there and receive his impotent attempts at lashes. Well maybe if your skin was as thick as his you wouldn't have a message board melt down. Oh wait...
3rdnlng Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 Rob: I can't speak for the others but westside doesn't approve of the amount of my personal household budget I've allocated towards two employee positions, and proceeded to attack me over it personally, and then moved on to attack Republicans in general. My guess is that what qualified me as "rude" was the gall I had to not simply sit there and receive his impotent attempts at lashes. You're such an arrogant mouth breather, you just don't have a clue as to what it takes to run a successful business. Someday my seaglass polishing business will flourish to the point that I'll be lunching with Bill Gates.
Oxrock Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) Off topic, but if the Johnson voters and the Ron Paul sit outs had gone ahead and voted for Romney, we'd be discussing who would be in his cabinet. Instead, we're going to relive the Swiftboating of the most vile person to use the wearing of a Navy uniform for political gain. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-considers-john-kerry-for-job-of-defense-secretary/2012/11/12/8a0e973a-2d02-11e2-a99d-5c4203af7b7a_story.html John "he served in Vietnam" Kerry for SecDef! Edited November 13, 2012 by Oxrock
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 And, easily predicted, wealth begins to flee markets: http://m.cnbc.com//id/49792979
Keukasmallies Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I continue to revisit the session where Romney first talked about the 47%. As I recall it, he was talking about strategy for getting elected, mentioning the fact that 47% of the electorate appeared to be locked up by BO, so Romney would concentrate his campaign on the others. From there his comments took on the misinterpretation that he was turning his back on the 47% for all time. Just politics as we've come to know it.
Juror#8 Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) While I don't think this is wrong (people wanting to be led), I do think there are enough people that could be swayed with reason and, with the divide being as tight as it is, that could be enough. There are a lot of people who just don't get the debt crisis we're racing up on and no one is explaining the issues for them. And I know a lot of people who do understand, but vote D because of bogus issues like gay marriage and abortion. I'm not saying Rep's need to sell out their values on those issues, just prioritize correctly, and take realistic steps rather than idealistic ones. Another example is immigartion. Hispanics, in particular, tend to be conservative people, but they vote Dem b/c Republicans haven't been able to articulate a logical immigration policy. I do think the biggest problem is that they need a candidate who can break the stereotypes. And I don't mean someone who's black or Hispanic, although I'd vote for Walter Williams, but I mean someone who's down to earth, likeable, and has a cool demeanor, and who the average Joe can relate to. Like me. Examples? Rob, I think that you have more confidence in body politic than I do. Maybe it's political cynicism from reading the inanity in constituent letters. Either way, I've come to the consclusion that body politic are largely dolts, and that they don't really care about making the right decision; they're just looking for the person who can better convince them of what the right decision should be. I think that that explains stockholm syndrome, Eugenics, Milgram's experiment, slavery, Japanese internment, 1922 - 1945 Germany, 1980s stylistic androgyny, etc. Seriously, check out Milgram's experiement and the "agentic state theory." That may change your opinion on the capacity of ordinary people to make rational decisions - especially en masse. I think that if a large portion of the electorate could be swayed by reason, it would be because they were convinced by the personality of the one communicating it that they should be swayed by reason - and what is "reasonable" would then be dictated by that governing, and now more trusted, personality. This doesn't apply to all, but it applies to most. Edited November 13, 2012 by Juror#8
birdog1960 Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I have thick skin. But to have the audacity to suggest I was rude and don't say crap about your three buddies speaks volumes about your character . You four not knowing the difference between disagreement and intelligence tells me you lack the ability to comprehend. You four are nothing more than mouth breathers. i had a minor epiphany saturday. went to a formal dinner and across the room saw a very conservative colleague with whom i'd had animated political discussions before. never anywhere near as animated as some "debates" here but aggressive enough that we both heard from our wives later. so i walked towards him at the dinner and saw his back stiffen. and i shook hands and congratulated him on a major recent publication and we talked amicably for quite a while. the election never came up. it was a win -win.then i came home (too tired these days to party late into the night) and sparred with tytt for a bit. and endured the slings and arrows and threw some less pointed ones back. but the epiphany was that the internet seems to enable if not encourage bad behavior and that the worst behavior on this board seems to come from the right. repeatedly. and i don't see that as much in the real world in face to face dealings even from my far right friends and aquaintances of whom there are many.. and that's just sad and makes me wonder who we're really debating.so westside, i can understand your reticence to continue here. but as far as i'm concerned, come back any time. you're input is more than welcome.
Rob's House Posted November 13, 2012 Author Posted November 13, 2012 Rob, I think that you have more confidence in body politic than I do. Maybe it's political cynicism from reading the inanity in constituent letters. Either way, I've come to the consclusion that body politic are largely dolts, and that they don't really care about making the right decision; they're just looking for the person who can better convince them of what the right decision should be. I think that that explains stockholm syndrome, Eugenics, Milgram's experiment, slavery, Japanese internment, 1922 - 1945 Germany, 1980s stylistic androgyny, etc. Seriously, check out Milgram's experiement and the "agentic state theory." That may change your opinion on the capacity of ordinary people to make rational decisions - especially en masse. I think that if a large portion of the electorate could be swayed by reason, it would be because they were convinced by the personality of the one communicating it that they should be swayed by reason - and what is "reasonable" would then be dictated by that governing, and now more trusted, personality. This doesn't apply to all, but it applies to most. I should have put the disclaimer on my last post that I always expect the Bills to win too. I'm familiar with Milgram, & I must admit, the realization of how programmable we all are makes me a bit of a misanthrope. When it comes down to it, our brains have not evolved with our times b/c evolution works slowly, so we live in a modern society with primitive brains. I myself have bought into nationalistic programming that had no objective basis, which is a product of a programmable mind with shortcuts that allow us to bypass thought circuits once we've developed our conclusions. That's why we have a lot of otherwise intelligent adults operating on premises they concluded when they were children, & never reevaluated with any appreciable level of self awareness, after growing up. It's all so !@#$ing futile, & the futility upsets me, so I maintain optimism that maybe with logic & reasoning we can convince enough to reopen those closed circuits & rewire them with the benefit of knowledge. I know it's a longshot, but I'm not sure what else to do.
Juror#8 Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I should have put the disclaimer on my last post that I always expect the Bills to win too. I'm familiar with Milgram, & I must admit, the realization of how programmable we all are makes me a bit of a misanthrope. When it comes down to it, our brains have not evolved with our times b/c evolution works slowly, so we live in a modern society with primitive brains. I myself have bought into nationalistic programming that had no objective basis, which is a product of a programmable mind with shortcuts that allow us to bypass thought circuits once we've developed our conclusions. That's why we have a lot of otherwise intelligent adults operating on premises they concluded when they were children, & never reevaluated with any appreciable level of self awareness, after growing up. It's all so !@#$ing futile, & the futility upsets me, so I maintain optimism that maybe with logic & reasoning we can convince enough to reopen those closed circuits & rewire them with the benefit of knowledge. I know it's a longshot, but I'm not sure what else to do. Well said and I'll toast to that.
meazza Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I should have put the disclaimer on my last post that I always expect the Bills to win too. That ship has sailed for me. Seems I always root for the losers, presidential candidates included.
Rob's House Posted November 13, 2012 Author Posted November 13, 2012 i had a minor epiphany saturday. went to a formal dinner and across the room saw a very conservative colleague with whom i'd had animated political discussions before. never anywhere near as animated as some "debates" here but aggressive enough that we both heard from our wives later. so i walked towards him at the dinner and saw his back stiffen. and i shook hands and congratulated him on a major recent publication and we talked amicably for quite a while. the election never came up. it was a win -win.then i came home (too tired these days to party late into the night) and sparred with tytt for a bit. and endured the slings and arrows and threw some less pointed ones back. but the epiphany was that the internet seems to enable if not encourage bad behavior and that the worst behavior on this board seems to come from the right. repeatedly. and i don't see that as much in the real world in face to face dealings even from my far right friends and aquaintances of whom there are many.. and that's just sad and makes me wonder who we're really debating.so westside, i can understand your reticence to continue here. but as far as i'm concerned, come back any time. you're input is more than welcome. I see it as similar to road rage. B/c you don't see the other person & hear their inflection, it's easy to fill in those blanks with preconceptions. Kind of like thinking the guy that cut you off did it to be an ass hole when maybe he just didn't see you in his blind spot. The lack of inflection is key. I call my liberal friends commies all the time & ridicule they're feel good European Santa Clause government, & no one gets upset. I do take issue with you claiming it's all coming from the right. Neither side has exclusivity over this. It's not uncommon for a lib to pop in out of the blue, accuse everyone to the right of him to be a complete POS, and then cry like a pu$$y because people are giving him some of his own medicine. You yourself have, on many occasions, attributed our disagreements to character flaws & lack of morality, when the disagreement is merely over what we believe would do the most good for the most people.
meazza Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 I do take issue with you claiming it's all coming from the right. Neither side has exclusivity over this. It's not uncommon for a lib to pop in out of the blue, accuse everyone to the right of him to be a complete POS, and then cry like a pu$$y because people are giving him some of his own medicine. You yourself have, on many occasions, attributed our disagreements to character flaws & lack of morality, when the disagreement is merely over what we believe would do the most good for the most people. Anyone who says most of the bad behavior comes from the right has obviously missed the 10 + threads a day by BF4E, DIN and his clones and a few others.
Juror#8 Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 i had a minor epiphany saturday. went to a formal dinner and across the room saw a very conservative colleague with whom i'd had animated political discussions before. never anywhere near as animated as some "debates" here but aggressive enough that we both heard from our wives later. so i walked towards him at the dinner and saw his back stiffen. and i shook hands and congratulated him on a major recent publication and we talked amicably for quite a while. the election never came up. it was a win -win.then i came home (too tired these days to party late into the night) and sparred with tytt for a bit. and endured the slings and arrows and threw some less pointed ones back. but the epiphany was that the internet seems to enable if not encourage bad behavior and that the worst behavior on this board seems to come from the right. repeatedly. and i don't see that as much in the real world in face to face dealings even from my far right friends and aquaintances of whom there are many.. and that's just sad and makes me wonder who we're really debating.so westside, i can understand your reticence to continue here. but as far as i'm concerned, come back any time. you're input is more than welcome. You're absolutely right in that people will mention things here that they would never say to you in person. Tom wouldn't call you an idiot to your face; I wouldn't call LABillzfan a "nutsack" to his face; Doc wouldn't call the president "Barry" to his face; etc. Though it can be frustrating at times, you kind of sign up for the discourteousness when you join and participate in this forum. The folks here don't really feign altruism. I think that Westside brings an interesting perspective that gives depth to the dialog. I hope that he doesn't allow some ribbing to run him off. All anyone can do is state their position and move on to the next topic of conversation. If it gets a little contentious, at least people are paying attention. Westside: Don't take any guff from these swines. You came in here in search of the American Dream. Now that you're in the vortex, you want to quit? You must realize that they're ganging up on you because you've found the main nerve.
meazza Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 You're absolutely right in that people will mention things here that they would never say to you in person. Tom wouldn't call you an idiot to your face; I wouldn't call LABillzfan a "nutsack" to his face; Doc wouldn't call the president "Barry" to his face; etc. It depends, really. If someone repeatedly said the asinine **** the lefty clones repeatedly say, then yes, most of us would call him an idiot to his face * *Unless he is 6 feet 4, 250 pounds and studied Krav Maga.
Juror#8 Posted November 13, 2012 Posted November 13, 2012 It depends, really. If someone repeatedly said the asinine **** the lefty clones repeatedly say, then yes, most of us would call him an idiot to his face * *Unless he is 6 feet 4, 250 pounds and studied Krav Maga. Or Deebo.
Recommended Posts