jjamie12 Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Wow, splitting hairs. When you make hyperbolic statements like "Most people are struggling to save their home...," you are continuing to spread a falsehood. It is not even close to 'Most people'. Not even close! And it bothers me, because when you play fast and loose with the truth and then later dismiss it as 'splitting hairs', you're doing nothing at all to bring anything of substance to a debate. You're completely wrong, yet, instead of learning something today, you've dismissed the education as 'splitting hairs'. And do you know why I can be pretty confident that this is true? Because I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you'll say, in another debate and another time with someone else, something along the lines of "...most people in this country are losing their homes!" again and not think twice about it. Because it fits your political ideology / agenda. That sucks. edited for clarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 When you make hyperbolic statements like "Most people are struggling to save their home...," you are continuing to spread a falsehood. It is not even close to 'Most people'. Not even close! And it bothers me, because when you play fast and loose with the truth and then later dismiss it as 'splitting hairs', you're doing nothing at all to bring anything of substance to a debate. You're completely wrong, yet, instead of learning something today, you've dismissed the education as 'splitting hairs'. And do you know why I can be pretty confident that this is true? Because I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you'll say, in another debate and another time with someone else, something along the lines of "...most people in this country are losing their homes!" again and not think twice about it. Because it fits your political ideology / agenda. That sucks. edited for clarity Play fast and loose with the truth. Really I could give two craps if it's many, most, some, whatever... people are losing their homes and struggling to keep them. To debate the use of the word "most" is a waste of time. I say that people are losing their homes because it's true, not because of where my vote may lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 As usual the typical a-hole response because someone disagrees with you. It's a matter of painting him as an elitist (same as he WAS trying to do to Obama) because they lots of zeros in their bank account or because of their 8 homes. Most people can not relate to that kind of wealth... can make the voter think that McCain is better than them or not on the same level. How can he understand their problems. What exactly are you disagreeing with me about? Your understanding of the definition of the word "elitist"? The fact that you actually think all wealthy people are elitist? Really....I'd love to hear you explain your inference that being wealthy = being elitist without trying to weasel out of it. Since when are most people struggling to save their home? Damn, I guess there isn't a foreclosure problem in the country right now? Damn, I guess those people in my neighborhood that lost their homes weren't struggling to keep them. "Most" of your neighbors have lost their homes? Really? Greater than 50% of the houses in your neighborhood are empty and in foreclosure? After you finish looking up the word 'elitist' in the dictionary, perhaps you should flip over and find out what "most" means. And no, it's not 'splitting hairs'. It's your usual MO of posting something that is completely false to support your idiotic argument. Here's an article about home foreclosures in San Diego. Excerpt: Nationally, RealtyTrac reported foreclosure filings on 272,171 properties in July. That marked an 8 percent increase from the previous month and a 55 percent increase from a year earlier. The report showed that one in every 464 U.S. households received a foreclosure filing in July. Yeah...'splitting hairs'. Don't worry, nobody expects you to admit that you are full of sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Wow, splitting hairs. Most of what you post is complete bull sh--. Split that hair now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Bolded emphasis mine. pBills- 'Most' people are not struggling to save their home. 'Some' people are struggling to save their home. For example: There are several (ie more than 20) trillion dollars worth of mortgages outstanding. Most estimates have the foreclosure numbers at something less than $5 trillion. How does that = 'Most'? Edit: Don't know, for sure, the updated estimated foreclosure numbers. Pretty sure it's less than $5 trillion The mortgage crisis is something the government should stay away from to the extent it can. Banks took on risky loans. Let them suffer a bit. People overborrowed. Let them lose their homes. To the extent I can, I don't want to foot the bill for this mess. "Struggling" to save homes they couldn't afford for the most part. Too effing bad. I could have bought a home worth triple what I did. And you know what? I still wish I hadn't spent as much as I did. It's the over-extended who are getting sacked. Color me not sorry for them. Somehow, I get by on my .25 acre 1900sf home. And another guy in Brooklyn gets by in his 500sf walk-up, while Joey Jerkoff who makes 80K/year lives in a 600K 300sf McMansion that boo hoo, he can't make a payment on. Guess what Joey Jerkoff: time to downsize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Play fast and loose with the truth. Really I could give two craps if it's many, most, some, whatever... people are losing their homes and struggling to keep them. To debate the use of the word "most" is a waste of time. I say that people are losing their homes because it's true, not because of where my vote may lie. Quite honestly, it sucks to be right about you... I was sincerely hoping that you would take a step back and think about what you were saying and how framing things in that manner broke down discussion more than added to it. Instead, I (we all did, though, I suppose because we're all watching this) got exactly what I predicted from you. Dismissively waving away factual inaccuracies because: To debate the use of the word "most" is a waste of time. Unfortunately, inasumch as this debate pertains to you, I must, with sincere sadness, wholeheartedly agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 To debate the use of the word "most" is a waste of time. It's not a debate, it's simply proving that you are completely full of sh--. And it's making this boring marketing meeting much more enjoyable. I say that people are losing their homes because it's true, not because of where my vote may lie. Newsflash: Home foreclosures existed before 2008 and will continue forever, no matter how many houses McCain has or who is elected POTUS. Still waiting for your explanation how ownership of > 1 house = elitism. The least elitist guy I've ever met owns 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 What exactly are you disagreeing with me about? Your understanding of the definition of the word "elitist"? The fact that you actually think all wealthy people are elitist? Really....I'd love to hear you explain your inference that being wealthy = being elitist without trying to weasel out of it. "Most" of your neighbors have lost their homes? Really? Greater than 50% of the houses in your neighborhood are empty and in foreclosure? After you finish looking up the word 'elitist' in the dictionary, perhaps you should flip over and find out what "most" means. And no, it's not 'splitting hairs'. It's your usual MO of posting something that is completely false to support your idiotic argument. Here's an article about home foreclosures in San Diego. Excerpt: Yeah...'splitting hairs'. Don't worry, nobody expects you to admit that you are full of sh--. Expect me to admit I am full of sh--. Again, nice. As stated earlier, the campaigns are attempting to paint each other candidate as an elitist by using wealth to create a disconnect with the voter. Now again with the use of the word "most", fine for you.... some people in my neighborhood. How about you acting as though there aren't people struggling to save their home. Hey, they just used the word elitist on the radio. I'd better call them up now!!! Also from RealtyTrac:Top Metro Rates in California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona The Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla., metro area registered the highest foreclosure rate among the 230 metro areas tracked in the July report. One in every 64 households in the metro area received a foreclosure filing during the month — more than seven times the national average. Three California cities followed in the metro foreclosure rate rankings: Merced was at No. 2 with one in every 73 households receiving a foreclosure filing; and Stockton and Modesto were in a virtual tie, each with one in every 82 households receiving a foreclosure filing. With one in every 85 households receiving a foreclosure filing, the Las Vegas metro area’s foreclosure rate ranked No. 5, followed by three more California metros: Riverside-San Bernardino, Bakersfield and Vallejo-Fairfield. Fort Lauderdale, Fla., documented the ninth highest metro foreclosure rate, and the foreclosure rate in Phoenix took the No. 10 spot. Nope, no one is struggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 It's not a debate, it's simply proving that you are completely full of sh--. And it's making this boring marketing meeting much more enjoyable. Newsflash: Home foreclosures existed before 2008 and will continue forever, no matter how many houses McCain has or who is elected POTUS. Still waiting for your explanation how ownership of > 1 house = elitism. The least elitist guy I've ever met owns 3. Newsflash: It's not a debate that you are an a-hole. Marketing meeting? Such a tool. WORD OF THE DAY 'Elitist': The Rarefied Term That's a Low Blow Washington Post Other than being called a criminal, a philanderer or a terrorist sympathizer, is there an accusation in American politics worse than being branded an "elitist"? The word supposes something fundamentally effete and out of touch, a whiff of brie and latte.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Expect me to admit I am full of sh--. Again, nice. As stated earlier, the campaigns are attempting to paint each other candidate as an elitist by using wealth to create a disconnect with the voter. Now again with the use of the word "most", fine for you.... some people in my neighborhood. How about you acting as though there aren't people struggling to save their home. Hey, they just used the word elitist on the radio. I'd better call them up now!!! Nope, no one is struggling. So. What. Am I supposed to foot the bill for that? McCain can afford his homes. Obama may or may not be overextended on his 1.5 million dollar house. Either way, how is it my problem that people are going to have to sell their homes? Tough sh--. That's life. We all have to deal with our money problems--why do I have to foot the bill for your financial irresponsibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 As stated earlier, the campaigns are attempting to paint each other candidate as an elitist by using wealth to create a disconnect with the voter. Yes, I understand that candidates do that as a way to sway simpleton voters by telling them that wealth equals elitism. Naturally you are the only one on this board to have regurgitate that message. How about you acting as though there aren't people struggling to save their home.Nope, no one is struggling. Where exactly have I suggested that "no one" is stuggling to save their home? Oh that's right, I haven't. I merely pointed out that significantly less than "most" people are struggling. Just more pBills bullsh-- (aka 'splitting hairs') as he continues to run for cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Newsflash: It's not a debate that you are an a-hole. Marketing meeting? Such a tool. WORD OF THE DAY 'Elitist': The Rarefied Term That's a Low Blow Washington Post Other than being called a criminal, a philanderer or a terrorist sympathizer, is there an accusation in American politics worse than being branded an "elitist"? The word supposes something fundamentally effete and out of touch, a whiff of brie and latte.... It is really comical how your own definition of the word contradicts what you've posted earlier. It bears repeating: Elitist is a state of mind, NOT a wealth measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Nope, no one is struggling. Yeah...and referring to the top five metro regions in foreclosures, that among them have less than a 2% foreclosure rate, certainly reaffirms your statement that "most" homeowners are having trouble holding on to their homes. Other than being called a criminal, a philanderer or a terrorist sympathizer, is there an accusation in American politics worse than being branded an "elitist"? "Racist" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 22, 2008 Author Share Posted August 22, 2008 It is really comical how your own definition of the word contradicts what you've posted earlier. It bears repeating: Elitist is a state of mind, NOT a wealth measure. Doesn't a state of mind where you're not considered rich unless you have 5 million dollars sound like elitism to you? What about wearing 500$ Italian loafers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 So. What. Am I supposed to foot the bill for that? McCain can afford his homes. Obama may or may not be overextended on his 1.5 million dollar house. Either way, how is it my problem that people are going to have to sell their homes? Tough sh--. That's life. We all have to deal with our money problems--why do I have to foot the bill for your financial irresponsibility? Did I say that you had to foot the bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Doesn't a state of mind where you're not considered rich unless you have 5 million dollars sound like elitism to you? What about wearing 500$ Italian loafers? No, it actually doesn't, especially if you know what 'elitist' means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted August 22, 2008 Author Share Posted August 22, 2008 No, it actually doesn't, especially if you know what 'elitist' means. Do you even know what effete means? 500$ loafers is the very definition of effete. Your definition also used "out of touch", isn't not knowing how many homes you own and thinking that you need to make 5 million dollars in order to be considered rich a little out of touch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Did I say that you had to foot the bill? No, but your government is making it so. All these government bailout plans are exactly that. Making me foot the bill. Is there some relevant point to be made by pointing out that McCain is rich? I'm just trying to get the thread back on target. He's rich. Obama's rich (even by the McCain definition). Who gives a sh--? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Doesn't a state of mind where you're not considered rich unless you have 5 million dollars sound like elitism to you? What about wearing 500$ Italian loafers? What is it with your obsession with other's material wealth? Some rich people are good people--I'm guessing you like JFK for example. Some rich people are cocks. Same goes for poor people. 5 Million sounds good but it doesn't sound wealthy to me. If you have 5 mil, living on the 6% interest a year--300K/year--you could have a fair but not nice apartment in Manhattan. Or you could have a nice 3,000sf home in a suburban east coast city and more modest one near (but not beachfront) the shore. You could take a couple nice vacations a year--maybe 2-2 week trips abroad. With 5 million in the bank, you'd have to budget. You'd have to make responsible money decisions. You'd have to manage your money. Life would be good, but you wouldn't be living without a care. McCain and his wife are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He can afford $10,000 shoes, 25 houses, 14 yachts, and a lot more. How he governs is all that matters to me. You think Obama buys off the rack K-Mart shoes--and even if he does, do you think it's particularly relevant? No wonder you're obsessed with taking my money--your jealousy consumes you. jjamie12 can keep saying it. Elitism is a state of mind. I don't think either candidate is an elitist. Both are pretty well off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Really I could give two craps if it's many, most, some, whatever... people are losing their homes and struggling to keep them. To debate the use of the word "most" is a waste of time. I say that people are losing their homes because it's true, not because of where my vote may lie. The use of the terms "many", "most", "some", are important, since at any given time regardless of overall economic circumstances, there are some people losing their homes. The debate on the economy is always degree, not whether some people are maying their mortgages or not. Anyway, back to the original post: McCain got "SFOWNED" (in Billdoze language) by Obama on the whole elitist thing, but... Didn't Obama call the politicians using elitist attacks as participating in "Silly Season", and insinuating that they aren't his brand of politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts