Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The True Adonis on October 13, 2015, 07:04:56 PM
-
Versus Republicans?
LOLOL The Republican debate was so childish as all seem to be.
-
Maybe less people means less talking over each other? It's almost like all of these things need to be moderated different or a different format. None seem to be able to get all of what they say in with the limited amount of time allotted. If the fucking NFL draft gets three days, why not break these up into a few day event? I mean, it's only the future of your country, right?
-
Maybe less people means less talking over each other? It's almost like all of these things need to be moderated different or a different format. None seem to be able to get all of what they say in with the limited amount of time allotted. If the fucking NFL draft gets three days, why not break these up into a few day event? I mean, it's only the future of your country, right?
hmmm IQ most likely.
-
Versus Republicans?
LOLOL The Republican debate was so childish as all seem to be.
you are right. they're talking policy, and it's not "why did you say this about so-and-so's wife..."
Repubs try to "out manly" each other by being dicks that blow up brown people and execute in their state.
Dems try to "out love" each other by being super gentle and caring.
-
Republicans cater to their crowd: folks who take pride in being simple
Democrats cater to their crowd: wanna-be intellectuals and hipsters
-
Republicans cater to their crowd: folks who take pride in being simple
But they go beyond that. They have an active hatred for educated people and scientific advancement. In the 1600s, the repubs would have been the people locking up astronomers for claiming the earth wasn't the center of the universe. No doubt about it.
-
But they go beyond that. They have an active hatred for educated people and scientific advancement. In the 1600s, the repubs would have been the people locking up astronomers for claiming the earth wasn't the center of the universe. No doubt about it.
Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon, one of the best who ever lived.
Ted Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton, and magna cum laude from Harvard.
Carly Fiorina got her bachelors at Stanford and her masters at MIT.
Rand Paul earned a Doctorate from Duke.
Sounds like a bunch of science-hating, education-rejecting, moronic flat-earthers to me.
-
Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon, one of the best who ever lived.
Ted Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton, and magna cum laude from Harvard.
Carly Fiorina got her bachelors at Stanford and her masters at MIT.
Rand Paul earned a Doctorate from Duke.
Sounds like a bunch of science-hating, education-rejecting, moronic flat-earthers to me.
Ben Carson is a young earth creationst/coward.
-
Has nothing to do with IQ...Especially by today's standards...All of the republican candidates are just as qualified academically and politically to contend if not beat out ALL of the democratic party...
It is scary that these 5 Democratic nominees have been elected to Government office, already........... Not one, not one is suitable to be President.,,,Come on to America all illegal immigrants and the legal citizens of America will pay for YOUR healthcare, doctor bills, hospital bills, childcare, housing, food, for your unborn baby, etc..... to hell with our Vets!!!! homeless Americans, poverty stricken families....come on in!! Let undocumented immigrants go to college FREE and our own kids, that are American citizens, can't even get a government grant??
What kind of leaders are these? "Our wealthy will pay for paid maternity leave!!" And she is the landslide leader?? Doesn't seem too educated to me...Sounds like the dumbing down of America..
She wants Snowden to face justice?? Think about that for a second....Bernie was terrible as well....Bad bad debate...Of corse it's going to be more organized when you have 1/3 of the people running lol...It is easier to distribute camera time..
-
But they go beyond that. They have an active hatred for educated people and scientific advancement. In the 1600s, the repubs would have been the people locking up astronomers for claiming the earth wasn't the center of the universe. No doubt about it.
as a side note: it is interesting to note that all the empirical data actually does confirm that the earth, while not at the center of our solar system, is in fact at the center of the universe!
modern scientists reject this, however, because they have a philosophical presupposition which contradicts it!
but even they will admit that the evidence indicates we are at the center... they just say: well, it must look like that from every point in the universe!
Ben Carson is a young earth creationst/coward.
Am I a coward also? Because I believe the Bible?
What do you believe is the strongest evidence that the Earth is older than what the Bible claims?
-
Has nothing to do with IQ...Especially by today's standards...All of the republican candidates are just as qualified academically and politically to contend if not beat out ALL of the democratic party...
It is scary that these 5 Democratic nominees have been elected to Government office, already........... Not one, not one is suitable to be President.,,,Come on to America all illegal immigrants and the legal citizens of America will pay for YOUR healthcare, doctor bills, hospital bills, childcare, housing, food, for your unborn baby, etc..... to hell with our Vets!!!! homeless Americans, poverty stricken families....come on in!! Let undocumented immigrants go to college FREE and our own kids, that are American citizens, can't even get a government grant??
What kind of leaders are these? "Our wealthy will pay for paid maternity leave!!" And she is the landslide leader?? Doesn't seem too educated to me...Sounds like the dumbing down of America..
She wants Snowden to face justice?? Think about that for a second....Bernie was terrible as well....Bad bad debate...Of corse it's going to be more organized when you have 1/3 of the people running lol...It is easier to distribute camera time..
I don't think anyone who believes that the earth is 6000 years old is fit for office.
-
as a side note: it is interesting to note that all the empirical data actually does confirm that the earth, while not at the center of our solar system, is in fact at the center of the universe!
modern scientists reject this, however, because they have a philosophical presupposition which contradicts it!
but even they will admit that the evidence indicates we are at the center... they just say: well, it must look like that from every point in the universe!
Am I a coward also? Because I believe the Bible?
What do you believe is the strongest evidence that the Earth is older than what the Bible claims?
Coward
-
Coward
You can make fun of his faith all you want, and criticize what he believe in. It just says more about you than anything.
-
You can make fun of his faith all you want, and criticize what he believe in. It just says more about you than anything.
Yes, it says that I think anyone who believes in children's fairy tales and thinks that the earth is 6000 years old is a moron.
Did I mention he is also a coward.
Jim Webb would beat the tar off of him.
-
Yes, it says that I think anyone who believes in children's fairy tales and thinks that the earth is 6000 years old is a moron.
Did I mention he is also a coward.
Jim Webb would beat the tar off of him.
Going by that logic Hilary Clinton would beat the shit out of pussy Sanders, so why don't you support her?
-
Going by that logic Hilary Clinton would beat the shit out of pussy Sanders, so why don't you support her?
Jewish Carpenters have powers out of this world.
-
Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon, one of the best who ever lived.
Ted Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton, and magna cum laude from Harvard.
Carly Fiorina got her bachelors at Stanford and her masters at MIT.
Rand Paul earned a Doctorate from Duke.
Sounds like a bunch of science-hating, education-rejecting, moronic flat-earthers to me.
But they ACT dumb..Carson understands brain evolution, he doesn't believe the 6000 years stuff. Even huck has said we don't take it literally, we take the lessons.
The fact these HIGHLY educated people are willing to ACT dumb because it wins the most votes? Ugh.
nobody is saying carson is dumb. I think we're saying he acts dumb to win votes from dumb people.
-
But they ACT dumb..Carson understands brain evolution, he doesn't believe the 6000 years stuff. Even huck has said we don't take it literally, we take the lessons.
The fact these HIGHLY educated people are willing to ACT dumb because it wins the most votes? Ugh.
nobody is saying carson is dumb. I think we're saying he acts dumb to win votes from dumb people.
You gotta love the opposition running out of things to say so they resort to calling a renown brain surgeon dumb ::)
-
You gotta love the opposition running out of things to say so they resort to calling a renown brain surgeon dumb ::)
carson is a brilliant man who lacks common sense and embraces that 'storytelling' thing that bill oreilly does.
-
But they ACT dumb..Carson understands brain evolution, he doesn't believe the 6000 years stuff. Even huck has said we don't take it literally, we take the lessons.
The fact these HIGHLY educated people are willing to ACT dumb because it wins the most votes? Ugh.
nobody is saying carson is dumb. I think we're saying he acts dumb to win votes from dumb people.
Why do you keep saying this?
Carson has always maintained that he is a young earth creationist, way before he even considered running for any office, decades ago.
Why keep repeating something that isn't true? ???
-
But they ACT dumb..Carson understands brain evolution, he doesn't believe the 6000 years stuff. Even huck has said we don't take it literally, we take the lessons.
The fact these HIGHLY educated people are willing to ACT dumb because it wins the most votes? Ugh.
nobody is saying carson is dumb. I think we're saying he acts dumb to win votes from dumb people.
I AM saying he is a moron because he has for DECADES, maintained that the earth was created in 6 days and is 6000 years old.
This is his belief and has been for decades, well before he decided he wanted to embarrass himself as a "politician".
-
Why do you keep saying this?
Carson has always maintained that he is a young earth creationist, way before he even considered running for any office, decades ago.
Why keep repeating something that isn't true? ???
I believe that part of learning to be a brain surgeon is studying brain experimentation through the centuries. And we all know that craniotomies were being performed 8000 to 10,000 years ago, and there are bones which show this.
At some point, young pre-med student Carson would have realized 10k > 6k, and thus one of these claims is inaccurate.
-
I AM saying he is a moron because he has for DECADES, maintained that the earth was created in 6 days and is 6000 years old.
This is his belief and has been for decades, well before he decided he wanted to embarrass himself as a "politician".
You do know that in most recent polls he's the best candidate against Hilary clinton from the Republican side?? And in fact, he's estimated beating her easily. This is with MANY MANY PEOPLE voting...Funny how you're smarter then them all...A talented, genius like you was wasted..
-
You do know that in most recent polls he's the best candidate against Hilary clinton from the Republican side?? And in fact, he's estimated beating her easily. This is with MANY MANY PEOPLE voting...Funny how you're smarter then them all...A talented, genius like you was wasted..
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/donald-trump-dominates-gop-field-weakest-against-hillary/
Trump is polling #1 in the repub race, and has WAY more money to spend.
And after Carson's awful week of making up robberies and whatnot, he's going to drop soon.
Trump polling #1 in GOP, yet last against hilary.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/donald-trump-dominates-gop-field-weakest-against-hillary/
-
Versus Republicans?
LOLOL The Republican debate was so childish as all seem to be.
Really? Is this a rhetorical question? The answer is simple. Surely you know this.
-
Republicans cater to their crowd: folks who take pride in being simple
Democrats cater to their crowd: wanna-be intellectuals and hipsters
Hi,
Really glad to see you joining this conversation. Does this mean you are on the road to becoming a responsible and involved adult? If so, this old dude is proud of you.
-
You gotta love the opposition running out of things to say so they resort to calling a renown brain surgeon dumb ::)
But he is saying dumb things. Intellect is an intersection of IQ, spatial reasoning, verbal/non-verbal processing, processing speed, etc, it's to general and to nebulous to quantify accurately.
However, actions and words are often the best indicator. Rote understanding of procedure is not intelligence. He is saying things that show he is either not well read on the subjects, or willfully lying, if it's the latter, he is not that smart. Once you get into the 140's of iq silly ambitions, lies and other bullshit are non-existent, truth is usually all that matters, geniuses won't subvert, ever.
-
I honestly saw nothing impressive whatsoever, other than one candidate being a republican(webb) and one being a sesame street muppet (chafee).
the other 3 were so stale and charisma-less they made jeb bush look like a rock star by comparison
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/donald-trump-dominates-gop-field-weakest-against-hillary/
Trump is polling #1 in the repub race, and has WAY more money to spend.
And after Carson's awful week of making up robberies and whatnot, he's going to drop soon.
Trump polling #1 in GOP, yet last against hilary.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/donald-trump-dominates-gop-field-weakest-against-hillary/
-
webb bragging about grenading people was the high point of the evening.
-
The Democrat Debate in a Nutshell....
Old frail white folks..trying to outdo each others Socialist handouts, while claiming they will make the rich pay when in fact the rich will move or hide their money and the middleclass, like always will get stuck with their big government bill.....
-
Versus Republicans?
LOLOL The Republican debate was so childish as all seem to be.
Democrats have on average, a higher IQ than republicans.
-
Democrats have on average, a higher IQ than republicans.
Actually this couldn't be anymore untrue...Democratic registered voters have a higher rate of violence...probably because all of the minorities and welfare monkeys are waiting for a communist to come along so they can share their misery with everyone...More 1%ers (not to be confused with 5%ers) support the republican party, than the democratic party...You do the math
-
Actually this couldn't be anymore untrue...Democratic registered voters have a higher rate of violence...probably because all of the minorities and welfare monkeys are waiting for a communist to come along so they can share their misery with everyone...More 1%ers (not to be confused with 5%ers) support the republican party, than the democratic party...You do the math
I'm sure you can provide factual stats to back up these claims.
I'll check when I return for see what your excuses they are.
-
Democrats have on average, a higher IQ than republicans.
statistically you are correct.
But in real life, that doesn't mean much. I know just as many lazy, entitled 130 IQ people as I know lazy, entitled 90 IQ people.
Yes, Trump supporters are the lowest end of the educated spectrum, this is true.
-
I'm sure you can provide factual stats to back up these claims.
I'll check when I return for see what your excuses they are.
"Among voters earning less than $100,000 (78 percent of voters), 55 percent said they voted Democratic, 43 percent Republican. Among those earning $100,000 or more, 47 percent voted Democratic and 52 percent Republican.
And the fact that people with higher incomes are more likely to vote Republican has been consistently true since 1972, Krugman wrote."
Now that i've provided evidence and helped you out with that. Why don't you help us out by making a thread on what it feels like to be a homosexual in your day to day life?
-
"Among voters earning less than $100,000 (78 percent of voters), 55 percent said they voted Democratic, 43 percent Republican. Among those earning $100,000 or more, 47 percent voted Democratic and 52 percent Republican.
And the fact that people with higher incomes are more likely to vote Republican has been consistently true since 1972, Krugman wrote."
Now that i've provided evidence and helped you out with that. Why don't you help us out by making a thread on what it feels like to be a homosexual?
::)
Not a single word of that statement applies to what you said about violence. ::)
Make a thread on what it feels like to be a homosexual? Sure. Let me know when I can interview you for the content.
-
::)
Not a single word of that statement applies to what you said about violence. ::)
Make a thread on what it feels like to be a homosexual? Sure. Let me know when I can interview you for the content.
Pretty self explanatory....Much higher statistical voters are minorities....So much higher statistics of crime....Pretty self explanatory when 10% of the population inhabits 50+% of the prison population and most of them are democrats by far...So game, set match.
Don't forget to mention your past relationships with men including marriages if you had any. Also inform us about how you find single gay men in your area. Instead of poking you with a stick and observing you, it's better take information from you from afar. Hope you aren't offended.
-
Self explanatory? Is that what biased opinions with a generalize blanket statement is called now? The prison population has a greater % of being Christian than being atheist. Republicans are more likely to molest children. I guess those facts are "self explanatory as well".
You seemed to be obsessed with queers. People who talk a lot about gays tend to have a reason for doing so. Anything you want to tell us?
-
Self explanatory? Is that what biased opinions with a generalize blanket statement is called now? The prison population has a greater % of being Christian than being atheist. Republicans are more likely to molest children. I guess those facts are "self explanatory as well".
You seemed to be obsessed with queers. People who talk a lot about gays tend to have a reason for doing so. Anything you want to tell us?
If they're more likely to molest children, i'm sitting here by my computer wondering why you aren't one then ???
African Americans when Obama was elected (either time) were overwhelmingly in favor for the Democratic party...True? Absolutely...Not biased. just factual. Biased was what these black people were when they voted (but that's a topic for another day)...If these people that support Obama take up 50% of the prison population..This is already bad news for you libs...And all together when Obama was elected...The other minorities chose Obama not exactly overwhelmingly but easily...
Still waiting for that thread...Yeah i just wanted to say that you're taking a long time to make it!! ;D
-
This study pretty much sums up what the next reply will be.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/republicans-lie-more-than-democrats-study-finds/
Based on the evidence, it doesn't come as a surprise.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donnie-fowler/whiny-children-grow-up-to_b_17754.html
-
This study pretty much sums up what the next reply will be.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/republicans-lie-more-than-democrats-study-finds/
Based on the evidence, it doesn't come as a surprise.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donnie-fowler/whiny-children-grow-up-to_b_17754.html
Pretty sure the millions who voted that i'm using as an example to back up my claim, are more credible than a biased study group by a low budget, piece of shit website....Nice try though
-
You still haven't provided a link to where you pulled your little claim from. Why is that?
Or is this just something "you know". Much like the Trump and independents claim?
My prediction obviously was correct.
This study pretty much sums up what the next reply will be.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/republicans-lie-more-than-democrats-study-finds/
-
Still waiting for that thread...Yeah i just wanted to say that you're taking a long time to make it!! ;D
Anyone who harbors any curiosities about being homosexual can direct their questions to an obsessed expert in the matter by clicking here :
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=87718
-
You still haven't provided a link to where you pulled your little claim from. Why is that?
Or is this just something "you know". Much like the Trump and independents claim?
My prediction obviously was correct.
You're good at twisting people's words but to no avail, logic always prevails in the end. Do you think i just wrote and made that up?? You think i quoted myself?? lol...Everytime i answer you, you change to the other topic...I talk about the rich...You tell me it's not on topic...So i talk about the violence...Then you tell me i didn't give a source for the rich??? Make up your mind....You must have had a hard time coming out of the closet ::)
-
Link? Shouldn't be hard.
Or maybe it is. For you that is. Got to be a reason why you haven't provided it yet.
All homo queries (and queeries) can be directed here : http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=87718
-
Obviously you haven't mastered the complex function of links yet.
I'll give you a short demonstration before going to lunch.
For the latest updates of the Log Cabin Republicans please contact the online representative here:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=87718
-
Link? Shouldn't be hard.
Or maybe it is. For you that is. Got to be a reason why you haven't provided it yet.
All homo queries (and queeries) can be directed here : http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=87718
Do you think i need to give a link to a peasant like you?? I am not helping you with the thread about YOU being a homosexual. I will give you some advice though. But you can cancel that visit to my page. You will have to do this one on your own without daddy.
If you include about how you were molested by your uncle Benny you earn a few extra brownie points. I think it's astounding how you assume i made those statistics up....I'm sure a simple search would be able to prove me wrong ::)...You're drooling and rushing at your computer looking for links to prove what i said wrong but you can't because it's true...
You should have stayed a Lurker...Another welfare monkey
-
Obviously you haven't mastered the complex function of links yet.
I'll give you a short demonstration before going to lunch.
For the latest updates of the Log Cabin Republicans please contact the online representative here:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=87718
x2
-
Obviously you haven't mastered the complex function of links yet.
I'll give you a short demonstration before going to lunch.
For the latest updates of the Log Cabin Republicans please contact the online representative here:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=87718
You get no sympathy from me...A homosexual welfare monkey who finds his male counterparts through dating websites is not someone i would call "credible" by any means....But if the shoe fits, wear it. I will let you feel like you were special...Just like your uncle benny did when he took you out to dinner before he raped you ;D
-
go to any decent middle class suburb in America and the majority of yard signs will be for republican candidates. nice neighborhoods, same thing. military? same thing. business owners? same thing. rural americans who actually work hard for a living? same thing. engineers/applied sciences/people who actually do and make real things in the real world? same thing.
where do we find democrat strongholds?
virtually every urban slum in America, every poor neighborhood, and college and high school campuses.
those who make money, have good jobs, own businesses, have kids/families, actually do things in the real world, tend to not vote democrat.
those who are poor/dependant, young naïve kids, and academics who live in the world of 'theory' OVERWHELMINGLY vote democrat.
I think this speaks volumes and says more than anything else realistically.
-
Maybe less people means less talking over each other? It's almost like all of these things need to be moderated different or a different format. None seem to be able to get all of what they say in with the limited amount of time allotted. If the fucking NFL draft gets three days, why not break these up into a few day event? I mean, it's only the future of your country, right?
I agree. I say three reasons:
1. No Trump. He singlehandedly dumbed down the entire process with all of the personal insults, both before and during the debates.
2. The smaller number of candidates. Obviously easier to have a discussion with five as opposed to eleven, especially when the majority of the talking is done by two candidates.
3. The cooperation of both the moderators and the candidates in the Democrat debate to not attack each other, as opposed to the Republican debate that had Trump acting like an arm of the DNC on stage attacking the other candidates.
-
1. No Trump. He singlehandedly dumbed down the entire process with all of the personal insults, both before and during the debates.
Trump has made this field look like a joke.
-
Link? Shouldn't be hard.
Or maybe it is. For you that is. Got to be a reason why you haven't provided it yet.
All homo queries (and queeries) can be directed here : http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=87718
Still no links. No surprise.
Still creepy gay talk from someone who is clearly obsessed with homosexuals. No surprise.
-
I agree. I say three reasons:
1. No Trump. He singlehandedly dumbed down the entire process with all of the personal insults, both before and during the debates.
2. The smaller number of candidates. Obviously easier to have a discussion with five as opposed to eleven, especially when the majority of the talking is done by two candidates.
3. The cooperation of both the moderators and the candidates in the Democrat debate to not attack each other, as opposed to the Republican debate that had Trump acting like an arm of the DNC on stage attacking the other candidates.
Now you see why it is easy to come up with a CT that has Trump running as a Republican for the sole reason of helping the Dem party.
But yeah, all three reasons are good.
-
Now you see why it is easy to come up with a CT that has Trump running as a Republican for the sole reason of helping the Dem party.
But yeah, all three reasons are good.
when all is said and done, Trump will have either completely neutralized, or at the very least, severely damaged every Republican in the field.
They're going to have to spend it ALL in order to beat Trump in the primaries.
And they'll emerge with the Trump "brand" on them. Rubio with free drinking water, Jeb falling asleep, etc.
At some point, there's so much proof in the pudding, it's hard to look at what he's doing and deny it's helping the democrats very much. Any repub that comes out of there will be all tore up and spent out. OR, trump comes out, with a lifetime of liberal beliefs, and who knows what you get then?
-
Now you see why it is easy to come up with a CT that has Trump running as a Republican for the sole reason of helping the Dem party.
But yeah, all three reasons are good.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but he sure looks like a plant. (No, I don't think he's a plant.)
-
You get no sympathy from me...A homosexual welfare monkey who finds his male counterparts through dating websites is not someone i would call "credible" by any means....But if the shoe fits, wear it. I will let you feel like you were special...Just like your uncle benny did when he took you out to dinner before he raped you ;D
:D
-
I agree. I say three reasons:
1. No Trump. He singlehandedly dumbed down the entire process with all of the personal insults, both before and during the debates.
2. The smaller number of candidates. Obviously easier to have a discussion with five as opposed to eleven, especially when the majority of the talking is done by two candidates.
3. The cooperation of both the moderators and the candidates in the Democrat debate to not attack each other, as opposed to the Republican debate that had Trump acting like an arm of the DNC on stage attacking the other candidates.
He used the same BS that republicans has been using for many elections. He just does it better. Its the Southern strategy all over Again.
-
But he is saying dumb things. Intellect is an intersection of IQ, spatial reasoning, verbal/non-verbal processing, processing speed, etc, it's to general and to nebulous to quantify accurately.
However, actions and words are often the best indicator. Rote understanding of procedure is not intelligence. He is saying things that show he is either not well read on the subjects, or willfully lying, if it's the latter, he is not that smart. Once you get into the 140's of iq silly ambitions, lies and other bullshit are non-existent, truth is usually all that matters, geniuses won't subvert, ever.
Really smart people avoid overstatements too. Bill Clinton reportedly has an IQ of over 140. He never lied?
-
I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but he sure looks like a plant. (No, I don't think he's a plant.)
When 240 and Dos Equis agree on something (Trump sure looks like a plant), it's kinda interesting.
Bill Clinton called him about "something" right before he announced. Hilary Clinton sat front row at his wedding. He was lifetime liberal until Obama came along. Yeah, and he's done nothing but make repub candidates look like shit since summertime.
He sure LOOKS like a plant, but since it's a conspiracy theory, nobody can really admit it's a possibility.
-
When 240 and Dos Equis agree on something (Trump sure looks like a plant), it's kinda interesting.
Bill Clinton called him about "something" right before he announced. Hilary Clinton sat front row at his wedding. He was lifetime liberal until Obama came along. Yeah, and he's done nothing but make repub candidates look like shit since summertime.
He sure LOOKS like a plant, but since it's a conspiracy theory, nobody can really admit it's a possibility.
I don't agree with you about anything. You could tell me the sky is blue and I wouldn't believe you.
-
I don't agree with you about anything. You could tell me the sky is blue and I wouldn't believe you.
we both think trump is hurting the republican party, acting like an ass, and preventing actual solid candidates that worked their entire lives to develop solutions for our nations problems, from getting much airtime.
Walker could have fixed things. But Trump making fun of Megyn Kelly's bleeding orifices took all the headlines.
-
we both think trump is hurting the republican party, acting like an ass, and preventing actual solid candidates that worked their entire lives to develop solutions for our nations problems, from getting much airtime.
Walker could have fixed things. But Trump making fun of Megyn Kelly's bleeding orifices took all the headlines.
You like the fact he is hurting the Republican Party. That's partly why you have been flooding the board with Trump threads.
No, we don't agree on anything.
-
Following the debate, Trump's campaign put out an ad trashing Sanders. Not Hilary, the frontrunner by 20 points.
NBC is shitting all over Sanders today.
Sounds like Trump and the company that paid him 214 million bucks are on the same page ;)
Hurt sanders, and call hilary "formidable" as he did today.
Sheesh, how much more obvious could Trump be?
-
Following the debate, Trump's campaign put out an ad trashing Sanders. Not Hilary, the frontrunner by 20 points.
NBC is shitting all over Sanders today.
Sounds like Trump and the company that paid him 214 million bucks are on the same page ;)
Hurt sanders, and call hilary "formidable" as he did today.
Sheesh, how much more obvious could Trump be?
Interesting.
-
Interesting.
it definitely supports my belief that Trump is in this race to win and deliver his blended Rino/liberal/nationalistic belief system, OR at the very least, ensure his wedding buddy HIlary wins the race.
Think about that, everyone lol... Trump put out an ad bashing Sanders today. Sanders is 20 points back in national polls. Trump won't pick on Hilary ;)
-
He used the same BS that republicans has been using for many elections. He just does it better. Its the Southern strategy all over Again.
What is the "Southern strategy"?
-
What is the "Southern strategy"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Thanks. You are saying Trump is using the Southern Strategy? How so?
-
Does anyone have access to said ad?
-
Does anyone have access to said ad?
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trumps-brutal-new-ad-destroys-bernie-sanders/
New story published 10 hours ago
-
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trumps-brutal-new-ad-destroys-bernie-sanders/
New story published 10 hours ago
I genuinely laughed my ass off at that when the circus music started playing
-
I genuinely laughed my ass off at that when the circus music started playing
doesn't it seem odd, tho? Bernie is 20 points back in the polls. Hilary has a war chest and bernie will do HORRIBLE in the south. He is doing nicely in new england because he's from there, they dislike hilary, and they're a bunch of liberals. Imagine how Bernie does in south carolina lol.
Trump attacking Sanders... very odd. UNLESS you believe Trump is coordinating with NBC to give hilary the win and make sanders a joke. then it makes perfect sense.
-
I genuinely laughed my ass off at that when the circus music started playing
Of course you did. The ad accomplished its intent which is to lure and entertain low intelligent retards.
-
doesn't it seem odd, tho? Bernie is 20 points back in the polls. Hilary has a war chest and bernie will do HORRIBLE in the south. He is doing nicely in new england because he's from there, they dislike hilary, and they're a bunch of liberals. Imagine how Bernie does in south carolina lol.
Trump attacking Sanders... very odd. UNLESS you believe Trump is coordinating with NBC to give hilary the win and make sanders a joke. then it makes perfect sense.
Uh, 10,000 came out to see Bernie Sanders in NC the other day with only 2 days notice. The venue could not hold anymore. That is more than Barack Obama was able to muster at the same time.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/10/Screen-Shot-2015-10-05-at-2.18.51-PM.png)
-
Of course you did. The ad accomplished its intent which is to lure and entertain low intelligent retards.
This is when you know that you've lost. Resorting to insults is something i haven't seen you do yet. You were never the sharpest tool in the shed, (clearly) but you've stooped to a new low with that comment.
-
It's funny because idiocracy is the PERFECT way to describe the people following Sanders...All for selfish reasons and put the country LAST
-
Uh, 10,000 came out to see Bernie Sanders in NC the other day with only 2 days notice. The venue could not hold anymore. That is more than Barack Obama was able to muster at the same time.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/10/Screen-Shot-2015-10-05-at-2.18.51-PM.png)
I want this race to be Cruz vs Sanders.
Cause Trump vs hilary is just Rino vs Rino, nothing changes.
I just dont see how she loses. The media is LOVING her today. They want bernie pushed to the side, and it;ll happen. Bernie wrecked the online polls (like ron pail in 2008 and 2012) and we never heard about it, just the opinoin of pundits who were kissing hilarys ass for 2 decades.
-
I want this race to be Cruz vs Sanders.
Cause Trump vs hilary is just Rino vs Rino, nothing changes.
I just dont see how she loses. The media is LOVING her today. They want bernie pushed to the side, and it;ll happen. Bernie wrecked the online polls (like ron pail in 2008 and 2012) and we never heard about it, just the opinoin of pundits who were kissing hilarys ass for 2 decades.
Once Trumps campaign really kicks off...Nobody will be able to match his firepower
-
Once Trumps campaign really kicks off...Nobody will be able to match his firepower
yeah, people are celebrating Carson being in 2nd, but imagine when trump really gets creative and spending $ and showing new sides of him that people will adore, particularly the repub base who really love the guy.
-
It's funny because idiocracy is the PERFECT way to describe the people following Sanders...All for selfish reasons and put the country LAST
ya income inequality a rigged and corrupt system is best for the country.
Nothing he is saying is out of line, he is correct, factually so.
The vast majority of wealth goes to the top 1%, this will only worsen as automation and segmentation occur naturally, you have an oligarchy, better yet a plutocracy.
You are putting ideology, a failed one ahead of the country. Humans are more important then capitalism, it ultimately leads to oligarchy every time.Humans need to wake the fuck up, stop thinking about the economy, news etc and focus on real fucking problems. There is such a long way to go for humans
-
ya income inequality a rigged and corrupt system is best for the country.
Nothing he is saying is out of line, he is correct, factually so.
The vast majority of wealth goes to the top 1%, this will only worsen as automation and segmentation occur naturally, you have an oligarchy, better yet a plutocracy.
You are putting ideology, a failed one ahead of the country. Humans are more important then capitalism, it ultimately leads to oligarchy every time.Humans need to wake the fuck up, stop thinking about the economy, news etc and focus on real fucking problems. There is such a long way to go for humans
Yes, exactly. It seems we are doomed to have this happen, simply because so few people understand it.
-
ya income inequality a rigged and corrupt system is best for the country.
Nothing he is saying is out of line, he is correct, factually so.
The vast majority of wealth goes to the top 1%, this will only worsen as automation and segmentation occur naturally, you have an oligarchy, better yet a plutocracy.
You are putting ideology, a failed one ahead of the country. Humans are more important then capitalism, it ultimately leads to oligarchy every time.Humans need to wake the fuck up, stop thinking about the economy, news etc and focus on real fucking problems. There is such a long way to go for humans
What about planned parent hood, Obama's communist agenda, gay marriage, getting taxed by the federal government into poverty to help those lazy ones who choose poverty and Hillary's Emails?
Seriously Necrosis, you need to smarten up and get your priorities straight. ;D :D ;)
-
ya income inequality a rigged and corrupt system is best for the country.
Nothing he is saying is out of line, he is correct, factually so.
The vast majority of wealth goes to the top 1%, this will only worsen as automation and segmentation occur naturally, you have an oligarchy, better yet a plutocracy.
You are putting ideology, a failed one ahead of the country. Humans are more important then capitalism, it ultimately leads to oligarchy every time.Humans need to wake the fuck up, stop thinking about the economy, news etc and focus on real fucking problems. There is such a long way to go for humans
why does everyone think that expanding welfare programs will cure this income inequality?
it doesn't. all it does is open the drain on the economy a little more.
it's a band aid solution. a strong economy spreads wealth. these people need jobs and opportunity. not handouts.
the problem is people will vote for what they want right now. not what's best for the country. that's what the entire Democratic campaign has been about for the past 30 years. keeping the poor people happy but by all means necessary keeping them poor. this is hardly a new idea.
it does sound great on the campaign trail though. and a lot of you are eating it up. because these elections are simply colorful marketing campaigns promising a lot but producing very little.
-
why does everyone think that expanding welfare programs will cure this income inequality?
it doesn't. all it does is open the drain on the economy a little more.
it's a band aid solution. a strong economy spreads wealth. these people need jobs and opportunity. not handouts.
the problem is people will vote for what they want right now. not what's best for the country. that's what the entire Democratic campaign has been about for the past 30 years. keeping the poor people happy but by all means necessary keeping them poor. this is hardly a new idea.
it does sound great on the campaign trail though. and a lot of you are eating it up. because these elections are simply colorful marketing campaigns promising a lot but producing very little.
Who says that?
-
why does everyone think that expanding welfare programs will cure this income inequality?
it doesn't. all it does is open the drain on the economy a little more.
it's a band aid solution. a strong economy spreads wealth. these people need jobs and opportunity. not handouts.
the problem is people will vote for what they want right now. not what's best for the country. that's what the entire Democratic campaign has been about for the past 30 years. keeping the poor people happy but by all means necessary keeping them poor. this is hardly a new idea.
it does sound great on the campaign trail though. and a lot of you are eating it up. because these elections are simply colorful marketing campaigns promising a lot but producing very little.
By all means, please show us the way. Give your specific proposal!
-
Who says that?
are you fucking kidding? have you been following the democratic candidates at all?
-
are you fucking kidding? have you been following the democratic candidates at all?
Who says expanding welfare programs will cure income equality?
-
are you fucking kidding? have you been following the democratic candidates at all?
I think he responded like that because you quoted my post and then made up an argument I didn't make.
The way big business operates is a huge issue, did you see how much money Facebook paid in taxes? less then a middle class family, that's not fair, that's downright fucking immoral and unethical. Fairness is all that is needed, that's it.
Is is fair that a CEO earns a hundred times other employee's? is the fact that people like martine shkreli can buy a drug for a rare disease (thus a monopoly) and increase the price 3500% overnight? on the basis that comparitively so, other life saving treatments like aids medication can cost 100k, thus because it is a life saving treatment there is equity in it's effect. Sure that's good economic thinking, but is it ethical? fuck no, the system allows this, it's broke obviously.
If everyone is a community needed water and you inherited a fortune and could thus buy the lake and sell it to people. That's fucked up? it happens, the rights of those unable to purchase such things, due to circumstance, geography, age (a child) etc are usurped, because of money. That's capitalism, once you tie it to human needs, it will eventually cause what we are seeing now. The lake shouldn't be for sale, it's priceless and in reality tied to no man.
Human psychology is important as well, if you were lucky enough to be born into the a wealthy banker family, would you look to increase your gains or pull others up aka help someone. Most people are greedy by nature, altruism is fleeting, they will store the money away in offshore accounts, they can't possibly spend it. Money doesn't increase happiness (a well known fact) to a certain point, they have excess and store excess while others starve. Let that sink in, there are people dying from circumstance, living breathing humans suffering on a level we can't fathom, while a rich person has 10 billion stowed away, evading taxes, which is unfair and in turn could help those in actual need.
I understand there are people who would take advantage, I think people being lazy and taking advantage of minimal benefits (a shit home, little income) is much better then rich people taking advantage of everyone, is it not? A crackhead isn't causing issues of significant magnitude, the koch brothers are, they are raping the earth, do you not see the egregious violations of regulations at every turn? they are avoid penalty due to money, that's capitalism, what is ethical or fair about that? why would anyone support something like that? it's un-human, fuck a country, it's in direct contravention to humanity.
With money first and humans second, we will continue to spiral to our doom, it's only common sense , one painfully obvious.
Think Big Picture, what if you could start over? would you do things differently? if so, things probably need a change.
-
Who says expanding welfare programs will cure income equality?
It wouldn't, not even close, the etiology of the problem is so much deeper.
It's like pouring water into a bucket with a hole, retarded.
-
Still don't know which Democratic politician has come out in favor of expanding welfare
should be pretty easy to find that quote or quotes
-
Who says expanding welfare programs will cure income equality?
Isn't that the basis of "trickle down economics"?
Corporate welfare will give more money to the people at the bottom?
Except it didn't?
-
Isn't that the basis of "trickle down economics"?
Corporate welfare will give more money to the people at the bottom?
Except it didn't?
Yes. That is what the basis of the "principle" proposed.
We see how that turned out.
-
It's based on the idea that we have unlimited available wealth, which simply does NOT hold true.
-
I think he responded like that because you quoted my post and then made up an argument I didn't make.
That's what i thought. But i didn't watch the debates. So i am asking where does someone say: "expanding welfare programs will cure income equality?"
Because that seems retarded. It looks more like the repub propaganda machine on "auto". But i could be wrong. So, BEARS where is it?
-
It's based on the idea that we have unlimited available wealth, which simply does NOT hold true.
What is based on this idea?
I just want to make sure I know what we are talking about.
-
What is based on this idea?
I just want to make sure I know what we are talking about.
Plans like "trickle-down" economics.
-
Plans like "trickle-down" economics.
Ah. Yes... They never seem to pan out do they?
-
Ah. Yes... They never seem to pan out do they?
Even the basic idea that the wealthy have something "special" that allows them to "create jobs" is absurd. Most wealthy people I know are so disconnected from reality, it's lucky if they can do anything but plan their next super-expensive vacation or $1000+ restaurant visit.
-
The way big business operates is a huge issue, did you see how much money Facebook paid in taxes? less then a middle class family, that's not fair, that's downright fucking immoral and unethical. Fairness is all that is needed, that's it.
Is is fair that a CEO earns a hundred times other employee's? is the fact that people like martine shkreli can buy a drug for a rare disease (thus a monopoly) and increase the price 3500% overnight? on the basis that comparitively so, other life saving treatments like aids medication can cost 100k, thus because it is a life saving treatment there is equity in it's effect. Sure that's good economic thinking, but is it ethical? fuck no, the system allows this, it's broke obviously.
Assuming what you say about facebook is accurate, I'd ask how many jobs did they create and how does their overall contribution compare to the contribution of a middle class family? Nothing immoral, unethical, or unfair about it if you look at it from that perspective.
Regarding CEO vs. employee pay, who cares if it's fair? It's a private business. I understand you are used to getting raped by the Canadian government, which takes most of what you earn, but the government has no business (so to speak) regulating private sector salaries. How would you propose that be done anyway?
-
Assuming what you say about facebook is accurate, I'd ask how many jobs did they create and how does their overall contribution compare to the contribution of a middle class family? Nothing immoral, unethical, or unfair about it if you look at it from that perspective.
Regarding CEO vs. employee pay, who cares if it's fair? It's a private business. I understand you are used to getting raped by the Canadian government, which takes most of what you earn, but the government has no business (so to speak) regulating private sector salaries. How would you propose that be done anyway?
No they are not.
That's why they are incorporated in the first place right? They are able to achieve certain things and do certain things because they fall in line with government regulations and what not.
They are not private businesses on any level. Welcome to the real world.
Remember, the CEOs are not performance driven salaries. If you don't do your job well, you may get let go, but if you make 100K a year, that is not enough to coast on without a job for a bit.
If a CEO makes a few million, plus stock grants, then they get let go because of lack of performance, how are they going to be hurting?
Are you saying that the huge increase in the wage gap between CEO and employees is completely fair and not a problem at all?
Huge publicly traded companies are not the same as the small businesses that perhaps you are used to working in.
The gap in wages is a very big issue.
How much did Carly Florini make for a few years to run HP in the ground and lay off 30,000 people?
-
No they are not.
That's why they are incorporated in the first place right? They are able to achieve certain things and do certain things because they fall in line with government regulations and what not.
They are not private businesses on any level. Welcome to the real world.
Remember, the CEOs are not performance driven salaries. If you don't do your job well, you may get let go, but if you make 100K a year, that is not enough to coast on without a job for a bit.
If a CEO makes a few million, plus stock grants, then they get let go because of lack of performance, how are they going to be hurting?
Are you saying that the huge increase in the wage gap between CEO and employees is completely fair and not a problem at all?
Huge publicly traded companies are not the same as the small businesses that perhaps you are used to working in.
The gap in wages is a very big issue.
How much did Carly Florini make for a few years to run HP in the ground and lay off 30,000 people?
Before I respond to this in more detail, are you seriously saying that facebook is a government owned business because it's a corporation?
-
Before I respond to this in more detail, are you seriously saying that facebook is a government owned business because it's a corporation?
That is not what I stated at all.
I stated that they are not a "private business".
As they are a publicly traded company, they are bound by regulations set forth by the SEC as well as other government entities.
They are not "private".
-
I think he responded like that because you quoted my post and then made up an argument I didn't make.
The way big business operates is a huge issue, did you see how much money Facebook paid in taxes? less then a middle class family, that's not fair, that's downright fucking immoral and unethical. Fairness is all that is needed, that's it.
Is is fair that a CEO earns a hundred times other employee's? is the fact that people like martine shkreli can buy a drug for a rare disease (thus a monopoly) and increase the price 3500% overnight? on the basis that comparitively so, other life saving treatments like aids medication can cost 100k, thus because it is a life saving treatment there is equity in it's effect. Sure that's good economic thinking, but is it ethical? fuck no, the system allows this, it's broke obviously.
If everyone is a community needed water and you inherited a fortune and could thus buy the lake and sell it to people. That's fucked up? it happens, the rights of those unable to purchase such things, due to circumstance, geography, age (a child) etc are usurped, because of money. That's capitalism, once you tie it to human needs, it will eventually cause what we are seeing now. The lake shouldn't be for sale, it's priceless and in reality tied to no man.
Human psychology is important as well, if you were lucky enough to be born into the a wealthy banker family, would you look to increase your gains or pull others up aka help someone. Most people are greedy by nature, altruism is fleeting, they will store the money away in offshore accounts, they can't possibly spend it. Money doesn't increase happiness (a well known fact) to a certain point, they have excess and store excess while others starve. Let that sink in, there are people dying from circumstance, living breathing humans suffering on a level we can't fathom, while a rich person has 10 billion stowed away, evading taxes, which is unfair and in turn could help those in actual need.
I understand there are people who would take advantage, I think people being lazy and taking advantage of minimal benefits (a shit home, little income) is much better then rich people taking advantage of everyone, is it not? A crackhead isn't causing issues of significant magnitude, the koch brothers are, they are raping the earth, do you not see the egregious violations of regulations at every turn? they are avoid penalty due to money, that's capitalism, what is ethical or fair about that? why would anyone support something like that? it's un-human, fuck a country, it's in direct contravention to humanity.
With money first and humans second, we will continue to spiral to our doom, it's only common sense , one painfully obvious.
Think Big Picture, what if you could start over? would you do things differently? if so, things probably need a change.
Yeah ok "Doc".....sorry but that's capitalism. You want socialism...with Ol Bernie or Hil telling us who is allowed to get rich? Has Hillary forgone any luxuries? How does she get to her vacations...does she cook her meals? Nope she is the 1% dipshit. This crap will never ever change. And you blame the Koch brothers?!!! Because George fucking Soros made his billions feeding the poor and commuting on a 10 speed.You silly libs.
-
That is not what I stated at all.
I stated that they are not a "private business".
As they are a publicly traded company, they are bound by regulations set forth by the SEC as well as other government entities.
They are not "private".
As are all companies both public and private. Facebook is beholden to its stock owners to make a profit....its easy for billionaires to lecture us. They don't have to ever worry about a thing. That kid will spend far more time rich then he ever did struggling or hustling.
-
That is not what I stated at all.
I stated that they are not a "private business".
As they are a publicly traded company, they are bound by regulations set forth by the SEC as well as other government entities.
They are not "private".
I am distinguishing a private business from the government. I am not making a distinction between companies that are publicly traded. In this context, it doesn't matter whether facebook is a publicly traded company or not. The government still has no right or business regulating facebook company salaries. Which is why it doesn't.
But I do recall Obama talking about something along these lines when he first ran for office. Typical socialist mentality.
-
I am distinguishing a private business from the government. I am not making a distinction between companies that are publicly traded. In this context, it doesn't matter whether facebook is a publicly traded company or not. The government still has no right or business regulating facebook company salaries. Which is why it doesn't.
But I do recall Obama talking about something along these lines when he first ran for office. Typical socialist mentality.
I didn't say that the government has a right to regulate salaries.
What I am stating, and this is where no one can possibly argue, is that the wage gap between CEOs and average employees has skyrocketed since the 80s.
Now, I'm not saying some CEOs are not worth that money, SOME certainly are, however a large percentage are not.
Take for instance some CEOs such as Carly Florini, or John Sculley were pretty terrible.
They make a crazy salary to do things that are without a doubt, sub par, yet are paid like they are superior to others when it is just not true.
Do you believe that CEOs of these corporations should be making 354:1 compared to the average worker? I can't possibly believe that you do. While some may and I emphasize "MAY" be worth that, certainly most are not.
The average CEO salary is over 12.5 Million dollars... AVERAGE.
-
I am distinguishing a private business from the government. I am not making a distinction between companies that are publicly traded. In this context, it doesn't matter whether facebook is a publicly traded company or not. The government still has no right or business regulating facebook company salaries. Which is why it doesn't.
But I do recall Obama talking about something along these lines when he first ran for office. Typical socialist mentality.
That's about the extent of it with him. Toss out a scrap or two to keep up appearances, while he worked with Mr. Wall Street the AG.
-
I didn't say that the government has a right to regulate salaries.
What I am stating, and this is where no one can possibly argue, is that the wage gap between CEOs and average employees has skyrocketed since the 80s.
Now, I'm not saying some CEOs are not worth that money, SOME certainly are, however a large percentage are not.
Take for instance some CEOs such as Carly Florini, or John Sculley were pretty terrible.
They make a crazy salary to do things that are without a doubt, sub par, yet are paid like they are superior to others when it is just not true.
Do you believe that CEOs of these corporations should be making 354:1 compared to the average worker? I can't possibly believe that you do. While some may and I emphasize "MAY" be worth that, certainly most are not.
The average CEO salary is over 12.5 Million dollars... AVERAGE.
And like you say, they KNOW they can afford to fuck people over. High relative number of psychopaths in those positions.
-
I didn't say that the government has a right to regulate salaries.
What I am stating, and this is where no one can possibly argue, is that the wage gap between CEOs and average employees has skyrocketed since the 80s.
Now, I'm not saying some CEOs are not worth that money, SOME certainly are, however a large percentage are not.
Take for instance some CEOs such as Carly Florini, or John Sculley were pretty terrible.
They make a crazy salary to do things that are without a doubt, sub par, yet are paid like they are superior to others when it is just not true.
Do you believe that CEOs of these corporations should be making 354:1 compared to the average worker? I can't possibly believe that you do. While some may and I emphasize "MAY" be worth that, certainly most are not.
The average CEO salary is over 12.5 Million dollars... AVERAGE.
I believe businesses should pay its leaders whatever the owners of the business believe is fair and reasonable.
I don't really care what other people make. If an employee doesn't like the fact his or her boss makes more money, the employee needs to work harder, climb the ladder, work to make changes within the company, or go work someplace else.
What should not happen is government interference in this process.
-
You gotta love the opposition running out of things to say so they resort to calling a renown brain surgeon dumb ::)
Book smarts doesn't equate to every day intelligence. Dr. Carson was born with two gifts. Understanding the human brain and a steady hand. That's it.
In every other facet of life, he is Sarah Palin, at best.
-
Book smarts doesn't equate to every day intelligence. Dr. Carson was born with two gifts. Understanding the human brain and a steady hand. That's it.
In every other facet of life, he is Sarah Palin, at best.
+1
-
And Obama used to be able to give a speech and can run a campaign....that's about the limit of his talents.
-
And Obama used to be able to give a speech and can run a campaign....that's about the limit of his talents.
dude, it's 2015.
In 2008 and 2012, repubs on getbig tried the line "but obama is stupider.."
And they lost 2 elections cause they were willing to nominate a dumbass, assuming their dumbass would be better than the dem dumbass.
My ideas is the repubs DONT run a dumbass this time. Instead, they run someone like cruz or rand with a BRAIN, and they win the election. "obama is just as bad" didn't get many repubs to bother to vote.
-
Book smarts doesn't equate to every day intelligence. Dr. Carson was born with two gifts. Understanding the human brain and a steady hand. That's it.
In every other facet of life, he is Sarah Palin, at best.
Only stupid people make statements like this. People.that are smarter are generally smarter in every facet of study. That guy would run circles around you in whatever field of study he chose. He didn't just study a book on surgery to get where he is at. The criteria for med school involves a bit more than that, but then again, it's not like you will have to worry with that.
If you misunderstood any of that, what I'm saying is you would be intellectually inferior to him in every way, just as you would be physically inferior to a pro athlete in every way
Next you will say he lacks street smarts. Give me a break....
-
Only stupid people make statements like this. People.that are smarter are generally smarter in every facet of study. That guy would run circles around you in whatever field of study he chose. He didn't just study a book on surgery to get where he is at. The criteria for med school involves a bit more than that, but then again, it's not like you will have to worry with that.
If you misunderstood any of that, what I'm saying is you would be intellectually inferior to him in every way, just as you would be physically inferior to a pro athlete in every way
Next you will say he lacks street smarts. Give me a break....
Ben Carson thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Explain that please.
-
Ben Carson thinks the earth is 6000 years old. Explain that please.
Pretty damn easy. I thought you were smarter than that. If he actually claims to think that, he is lying just like all the other candidates.
-
Only stupid people make statements like this. People.that are smarter are generally smarter in every facet of study. That guy would run circles around you in whatever field of study he chose. He didn't just study a book on surgery to get where he is at. The criteria for med school involves a bit more than that, but then again, it's not like you will have to worry with that.
If you misunderstood any of that, what I'm saying is you would be intellectually inferior to him in every way, just as you would be physically inferior to a pro athlete in every way
Next you will say he lacks street smarts. Give me a break....
Ouch. You got me there. Listen close this time, moron. I acknowledged his "book smarts". Yes, he could have probably studied just about anything and never got less than an A. Doesn't change the fact that he
is a retard outside of medicine. Hope this helps.
-
Ouch. You got me there. Listen close this time, moron. I acknowledged his "book smarts". Yes, he could have probably studied just about anything and never got less than an A. Doesn't change the fact that he
is a retard outside of medicine. Hope this helps.
Yes, that is actually exactly what it does. It defies everything you just said. When all the other kids were better than you at math, science, english, social studies, history, and pretty much anything that involved using your brain, it was because you were dumber than they were. I know you thought you were better at sniffing glue and eating paint chips. That wasn't it at all. They just didn't wanna engage in it so they let you Have at it.
Tell me exactly what metric you quantify intelligence by, because you can bet your ass he has a high iq or any other test that would measure intelligence
-
Yes, that is actually exactly what it does. It defies everything you just said. When all the other kids were better than you at math, science, english, social studies, history, and pretty much anything that involved using your brain, it was because you were dumber than they were. I know you thought you were better at sniffing glue and eating paint chips. That wasn't it at all. They just didn't wanna engage in it so they let you Have at it.
Tell me exactly what metric you quantify intelligence by, because you can bet your ass he has a high iq or any other test that would measure intelligence
You obviously love the moron, so nothing I say will change your mind. I love the whole earth being 6000 years old belief. Or how he would have went Jackie Chan on the Oregon college shooter. Nothing has changed. He is still a moron and you are a butt hurt little person.
-
You obviously love the moron, so nothing I say will change your mind. I love the whole earth being 6000 years old belief. Or how he would have went Jackie Chan on the Oregon college shooter. Nothing has changed. He is still a moron and you are a butt hurt little person.
Good rebuttle. You proved my point about being unintelligent, because you Cleary didn't comprehend my post in response to true adonis. I said there is no chance he believes that, and if he says he does, he is a liar. Would it be the first time an intelligent person used religion to manipulate the intellectually inferior people like you? It happend all the time.
I get that you think your daddy was a smarter mechanic than guys like carson. Quite the opposite. Carson would have turned a wrench way better than your daddy and diagnosed that engine problem much quicker. Those jobs don't challenge guys of higher intelligence. Guys like that end up designing the engine that your daddy worked on
-
Pretty damn easy. I thought you were smarter than that. If he actually claims to think that, he is lying just like all the other candidates.
i think he was also lying about that popeyes robbery.
vegetarian heart surgeon sidesteps armed robbery that never gets reported, and it only comes to surface just as he wants to seem 'in touch' with gun owners, after saying he doesn't believe people that live in cities need semi-auto guns.
All truth. he said it.
-
i think he was also lying about that popeyes robbery.
vegetarian heart surgeon sidesteps armed robbery that never gets reported, and it only comes to surface just as he wants to seem 'in touch' with gun owners, after saying he doesn't believe people that live in cities need semi-auto guns.
All truth. he said it.
You won't catch me disagreeing with you on any of that. However, given your disdain for telling the truth, it makes you quite the hypocrit. Not only that, you only cite republican dishonesty and always seem to forget the democrats.
-
i think he was also lying about that popeyes robbery.
vegetarian heart surgeon sidesteps armed robbery that never gets reported, and it only comes to surface just as he wants to seem 'in touch' with gun owners, after saying he doesn't believe people that live in cities need semi-auto guns.
All truth. he said it.
Why are you convinced that he made up a story that made him look like a coward? Not all robberies are recorded or reported things happen everyday in the world that are illegal that nobody knows about....
-
Why are you convinced that he made up a story that made him look like a coward? Not all robberies are recorded or reported things happen everyday in the world that are illegal that nobody knows about....
Popeye's is a national chain. This was an armed robbery?
Think it thru... Cain witnesses the robbery, the armed man then robs the place... then what? The clerk just *explains away* the missing cash?
If only for "i'm gonna be fired if I cannot explain this missing money..." the police would be called.
It's shady. He's shady. If he'll just make up a robbery for street credibility on an issue... Well, I think he just made it up on the fly.
-
Good rebuttle. You proved my point about being unintelligent, because you Cleary didn't comprehend my post in response to true adonis. I said there is no chance he believes that, and if he says he does, he is a liar. Would it be the first time an intelligent person used religion to manipulate the intellectually inferior people like you? It happend all the time.
I get that you think your daddy was a smarter mechanic than guys like carson. Quite the opposite. Carson would have turned a wrench way better than your daddy and diagnosed that engine problem much quicker. Those jobs don't challenge guys of higher intelligence. Guys like that end up designing the engine that your daddy worked on
LOL. All this coming from a dishwasher.
-
You are the pseudo-intellectual the pseudo-intellectuals target. That is why you and 240 gave us what we have now.
Versus Republicans?
LOLOL The Republican debate was so childish as all seem to be.
-
Why are you convinced that he made up a story that made him look like a coward? Not all robberies are recorded or reported things happen everyday in the world that are illegal that nobody knows about....
Yeah, because it is company policy only to report every other robbery.
-
Yeah ok "Doc".....sorry but that's capitalism. You want socialism...with Ol Bernie or Hil telling us who is allowed to get rich? Has Hillary forgone any luxuries? How does she get to her vacations...does she cook her meals? Nope she is the 1% dipshit. This crap will never ever change. And you blame the Koch brothers?!!! Because George fucking Soros made his billions feeding the poor and commuting on a 10 speed.You silly libs.
That's my point, capitalism doesn't work in it's current incarnation. I don't blame anyone in particular, you are unable to understand my point. I will cease responding to you. I said nothing along the lines of what you are suggesting.
-
That's my point, capitalism doesn't work in it's current incarnation. I don't blame anyone in particular, you are unable to understand my point. I will cease responding to you. I said nothing along the lines of what you are suggesting.
Of course it does.
-
That's my point, capitalism doesn't work in it's current incarnation.
the country is 18 trillion in debt and borrowing from our enemies to stay afloat.
yeah, i'd say a slight tweaking is in order. Anyone saying "of course it does" just doesn't care about the future of our nation.
-
the country is 18 trillion in debt and borrowing from our enemies to stay afloat.
yeah, i'd say a slight tweaking is in order. Anyone saying "of course it does" just doesn't care about the future of our nation.
Or someone who claims that the country was better off in 2008 than it is now.
-
Of course it does.
Ya it's working perfectly ::)
You can't possibly fathom improvements? to sit back and say the system is working is hilarious, it's great for progress, but we are actively destroying our home to make money, how retarded do you have to be?
Complete lack of foresight.
-
We need another Reagan-esque time in our country where we all make a few years of sacrifice for the betterment and improvement of the economy moving forward. The republicans take the bad statistics en-route to making the economy better for future years while democrats take advantage and advantage until we need to make sacrifices again. Trumps plan is very similar and would bring great success to the economy for the next 30-40 years if we can get past a small hump of a few years...There is always a time you need to reset...Not necessarily change
-
We need another Reagan-esque time in our country where we all make a few years of sacrifice for the betterment and improvement of the economy moving forward. The republicans take the bad statistics en-route to making the economy better for future years while democrats take advantage and advantage until we need to make sacrifices again. Trumps plan is very similar and would bring great success to the economy for the next 30-40 years if we can get past a small hump of a few years...There is always a time you need to reset...Not necessarily change
ya the great recession was perfect, thanks Repubs!
or looked at another way.
The repubs come in a fuck up everything with their retarded economics (trickle down into offshore accounts)which then has to be cleaned up.
Which theory seems correct?
Bush had a surplus, how the fuck is that bad stats? he literally did the opposite of what you are stating, he took good stats and shit all over them, only then to be cleaned up by Obama.
-
ya the great recession was perfect, thanks Repubs!
or looked at another way.
The repubs come in a fuck up everything with their retarded economics (trickle down into offshore accounts)which then has to be cleaned up.
Which theory seems correct?
Bush had a surplus, how the fuck is that bad stats? he literally did the opposite of what you are stating, he took good stats and shit all over them, only then to be cleaned up by Obama.
You might as well find a wall to bang your head against. You can't teach stupid.
-
ya the great recession was perfect, thanks Repubs!
or looked at another way.
The repubs come in a fuck up everything with their retarded economics (trickle down into offshore accounts)which then has to be cleaned up.
Which theory seems correct?
Bush had a surplus, how the fuck is that bad stats? he literally did the opposite of what you are stating, he took good stats and shit all over them, only then to be cleaned up by Obama.
Ive asked many people and never got a response, in what way were the republicans responsible for the recession?
-
Ive asked many people and never got a response, in what way were the republicans responsible for the recession?
(http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Tax-Cuts-Wars-Debt-e1339684050194.jpg)
1. Deregulated Wall Street: It was a great time to be a Wall Street executive during the Bush administration. Sweeping financial deregulation helped build the housing bubble and allowed financial institutions to pursue risky trades unchecked. In fact, Bush eliminated the rules that allowed Wall Street to cause the financial crash that plunged the nation into the Great Recession.
2. Cut Taxes For The Wealthy: The Bush tax cuts — over 50 percent of which benefited the richest 5 percent of American taxpayers — cost about $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were enacted. Ten years later, Bush’s tax cuts are still the main driving factor of the national debt:
3. Ran Up A Tab On Two Wars: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the country trillions of dollars. Combined with Bush’s tax cuts, war spending was a main factor in blowing up the deficit and spending the surplus accumulated under Clinton. Lawmakers now use the deficit as an excuse for inaction.
4. Left Homeowners In A Lurch: While Bush was happy to help out the banks in the wake of the housing crisis, he did little to assist struggling homeowners. Hope For Homeowners, Bush’s proposal to assist those struggling with their mortgages, was a colossal failure; in its first six months, it helped just one homeowner renegotiate his mortgage. Many mortgage holders — 15.7 million or, one in three — are still underwater today.
5. Weakened Workers: Bush weakened worker safety regulations and collective bargaining rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Department of Labor throughout his time in office. Today, corporations are back to making record profits, while workers’ incomes are falling.
-
Ive asked many people and never got a response, in what way were the republicans responsible for the recession?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession
"You think you're so smart cuz you know words".
:)
-
(http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Tax-Cuts-Wars-Debt-e1339684050194.jpg)
1. Deregulated Wall Street: It was a great time to be a Wall Street executive during the Bush administration. Sweeping financial deregulation helped build the housing bubble and allowed financial institutions to pursue risky trades unchecked. In fact, Bush eliminated the rules that allowed Wall Street to cause the financial crash that plunged the nation into the Great Recession.
2. Cut Taxes For The Wealthy: The Bush tax cuts — over 50 percent of which benefited the richest 5 percent of American taxpayers — cost about $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were enacted. Ten years later, Bush’s tax cuts are still the main driving factor of the national debt:
3. Ran Up A Tab On Two Wars: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the country trillions of dollars. Combined with Bush’s tax cuts, war spending was a main factor in blowing up the deficit and spending the surplus accumulated under Clinton. Lawmakers now use the deficit as an excuse for inaction.
4. Left Homeowners In A Lurch: While Bush was happy to help out the banks in the wake of the housing crisis, he did little to assist struggling homeowners. Hope For Homeowners, Bush’s proposal to assist those struggling with their mortgages, was a colossal failure; in its first six months, it helped just one homeowner renegotiate his mortgage. Many mortgage holders — 15.7 million or, one in three — are still underwater today.
5. Weakened Workers: Bush weakened worker safety regulations and collective bargaining rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Department of Labor throughout his time in office. Today, corporations are back to making record profits, while workers’ incomes are falling.
1. please tell me what regulations youre talking about, LOL dems passed regulations too that led to the housing crisis...so what ones for the republicans do you believe led to the housing crisis?
2. How did the national debt contribute to the crisis? I agree its expanded rapidly under bush and OBAMA but how did it contribute to the recession?
3. Same as question 2
4. LOL we were literally days away from the country going to shit if the banks didnt get help...take it for what its worth but it was absolutely a necessary evil. You think the recession was bad b/c the banks got bailed out? you cant even imagine what if would have been like if they had been allowed to fail. The homeowners share no responsibility in your mind? the people who took out mortgages on homes they knew they couldnt afford?
5. LOL corporations are making record profits b/c they had to become alot more efficient as a result of the recession. Please post your proof that this lead to a deeper recession.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Recession
from your own link, not that I trust wiki links ::)
The origin of these housing bubbles involves two major factors: 1) Low interest rates in the U.S. and Europe following the 2000-2001 U.S. recession; and 2) Significant growth in savings available from developing nations due to ongoing trade imbalances.[9] These factors drove a large increase in demand for high-yield investments. Large investment banks connected the housing markets to this large supply of savings via innovative new securities, fueling housing bubbles in the U.S. and Europe.[10]
-
from your own link, not that I trust wiki links ::)
The origin of these housing bubbles involves two major factors: 1) Low interest rates in the U.S. and Europe following the 2000-2001 U.S. recession; and 2) Significant growth in savings available from developing nations due to ongoing trade imbalances.[9] These factors drove a large increase in demand for high-yield investments. Large investment banks connected the housing markets to this large supply of savings via innovative new securities, fueling housing bubbles in the U.S. and Europe.[10]
the eyes see what the heart tells it to.
-
Again from your own link TA...
There are several "narratives" attempting to place the causes of the crisis into context, with overlapping elements. Five such narratives include:
There was the equivalent of a bank run on the shadow banking system, which includes investment banks and other non-depository financial entities. This system had grown to rival the depository system in scale yet was not subject to the same regulatory safeguards.[3]
The economy was being driven by a housing bubble. When it burst, private residential investment (i.e., housing construction) fell by nearly 4%. GDP and consumption enabled by bubble-generated housing wealth also slowed. This created a gap in annual demand (GDP) of nearly $1 trillion. Government was unwilling to make up for this private sector shortfall.[15][16]
Record levels of household debt accumulated in the decades preceding the crisis resulted in a "balance sheet recession" once housing prices began falling in 2006. Consumers began paying down debt, which reduces their consumption, slowing down the economy for an extended period while debt levels are reduced.[3][17]
Government policies that encouraged home ownership even for those who could not afford it, contributing to lax lending standards, unsustainable housing price increases, and indebtedness.[18]
The financial turmoil induced an increase in money demand (precautionary hoarding). This increase in money demand triggered a corresponding decline in commodity demand.[19]
-
from your own link, not that I trust wiki links ::)
The origin of these housing bubbles involves two major factors: 1) Low interest rates in the U.S. and Europe following the 2000-2001 U.S. recession; and 2) Significant growth in savings available from developing nations due to ongoing trade imbalances.[9] These factors drove a large increase in demand for high-yield investments. Large investment banks connected the housing markets to this large supply of savings via innovative new securities, fueling housing bubbles in the U.S. and Europe.[10]
Why would you not trust wiki links? Do you not realize that its all sourced and that you can click on the sources which take you to the information directly? ???
-
Again from your own link TA...
There are several "narratives" attempting to place the causes of the crisis into context, with overlapping elements. Five such narratives include:
There was the equivalent of a bank run on the shadow banking system, which includes investment banks and other non-depository financial entities. This system had grown to rival the depository system in scale yet was not subject to the same regulatory safeguards.[3]
The economy was being driven by a housing bubble. When it burst, private residential investment (i.e., housing construction) fell by nearly 4%. GDP and consumption enabled by bubble-generated housing wealth also slowed. This created a gap in annual demand (GDP) of nearly $1 trillion. Government was unwilling to make up for this private sector shortfall.[15][16]
Record levels of household debt accumulated in the decades preceding the crisis resulted in a "balance sheet recession" once housing prices began falling in 2006. Consumers began paying down debt, which reduces their consumption, slowing down the economy for an extended period while debt levels are reduced.[3][17]
Government policies that encouraged home ownership even for those who could not afford it, contributing to lax lending standards, unsustainable housing price increases, and indebtedness.[18]
The financial turmoil induced an increase in money demand (precautionary hoarding). This increase in money demand triggered a corresponding decline in commodity demand.[19]
Keep reading. ;)
-
Keep reading. ;)
plenty of info their, why dont you post the relevant parts in your mind.
-
That's my point, capitalism doesn't work in it's current incarnation. I don't blame anyone in particular, you are unable to understand my point. I will cease responding to you. I said nothing along the lines of what you are suggesting.
im reminded of the quote "capitalism is the worst form of government, except for all the rest"
-
im reminded of the quote "capitalism is the worst form of government, except for all the rest"
I'm reminded of the quote "capitalism run a muck is called fascism".
-
We need another Reagan-esque time in our country where we all make a few years of sacrifice for the betterment and improvement of the economy moving forward. The republicans take the bad statistics en-route to making the economy better for future years while democrats take advantage and advantage until we need to make sacrifices again. Trumps plan is very similar and would bring great success to the economy for the next 30-40 years if we can get past a small hump of a few years...There is always a time you need to reset...Not necessarily change
I prefer Ben Carson, but Cruz would be good too. :)
-
ya the great recession was perfect, thanks Repubs!
or looked at another way.
The repubs come in a fuck up everything with their retarded economics (trickle down into offshore accounts)which then has to be cleaned up.
Which theory seems correct?
Bush had a surplus, how the fuck is that bad stats? he literally did the opposite of what you are stating, he took good stats and shit all over them, only then to be cleaned up by Obama.
lol do you ever look back and see the sources of everything??? Like how not allowing a woman to have an abortion is making population issues in a lot of areas and having children grow up in poverty...Like how it's making it so we have to chop down more forests to build more living space for the humans...Like how our oil consumption is not sustainable and if it was we wouldn't have thousands and thousands being killed over time in the middle east...You think we need anymore people??
Next time you talk it would be nice if you found the root of things...Not just the lighting after the storm...For example instead of looking at the recession itself as negativity..Why don't you think of it as a time where Americans came together for one and other and made sacrifices themselves for the betterment of their children, and their children's children etc moving forward?? I see Reagan as a mentor of mine even if i don't know him/never knew him...America might be "statistically" more united now...(but we know 90% of media is liberal, i don't fall for bullshit easily just like the phony unemployment numbers) but it was NEVER more united in hard times than it was back then...We have to re-up now..We've had our booms and it's time to make sacrifices for future generations...You see "statistically" how the economy got better after Reagan for years and lots of people were able to live the American dream...To bail out on capitalism because we have incompetent leaders is NOT what makes America great...You don't just change the whole basis of the country...Plus if you have dreams of being a millionaire you're going to have to pay for close-minded people who think like you...
With socialism, why even wake up in the morning to go to work?? You'll never be able to bath in your riches if you get multiple promotions...All your taxes will be going to the less fortunate...Because we couldn't have a competent leader that couldn't fix things...UNLESS Trump is elected...
-
What the fuck are you going on about, your first sentence is barely readable, women should have access to abortion obviously.
As for your last sentence David, this is the root of the problem, your only motivation is money? riches? a sad life you must lead.
What about making a name for yourself in the world by being an expert or having a unique skill? mastery of an art, craft or process? riches are fleeting and when facing eternity pretty pointless.
I understand you won't agree, but we are racing towards oblivion and it's hilarious how humans deflect reality for non-sense like day to day "work", dinner plans etc.
-
What the fuck are you going on about, your first sentence is barely readable, women should have access to abortion obviously.
As for your last sentence David, this is the root of the problem, your only motivation is money? riches? a sad life you must lead.
What about making a name for yourself in the world by being an expert or having a unique skill? mastery of an art, craft or process? riches are fleeting and when facing eternity pretty pointless.
I understand you won't agree, but we are racing towards oblivion and it's hilarious how humans deflect reality for non-sense like day to day "work", dinner plans etc.
Don't you think getting rich means in most cases that you're an expert at something and have a unique skill?? ::)
-
Don't you think getting rich means in most cases that you're an expert at something and have a unique skill?? ::)
Depending on your perspective sure.
-
Don't you think getting rich means in most cases that you're an expert at something and have a unique skill?? ::)
No. You don't know many rich people do you? :D
-
Depending on your perspective sure.
No. You don't know many rich people do you? :D
the majority of millionaires are self made, so yea that probably means they have some unique skill set or an expertise they can leverage...
-
Don't you think getting rich means in most cases that you're an expert at something and have a unique skill?? ::)
Is it really in most cases? Seems to me, in many cases wealth is inherited. In many other cases it results from incredible luck. Sure lot's folks work for their wealth. On the other hand, being expert at something and having a unique skill certainly does not guarantee one they will become monetarily wealthy. There are a multitude of people with one or both those qualities who are financially poor or at least decidedly middleclass. There are wealthy people who got were they are on the backs of people with unique skills or expertise.
-
Is it really in most cases? Seems to me, in many cases wealth is inherited.
thats a liberal talking point and is just plain false, most millionaires are self made and if Im not mistaken first generation. Transfer of wealth doesnt create as many rich people as you thin. If two parents die off and pass on their wealth to a single kid you have less rich people, if they pass it on to 2 you have the same number
-
the majority of millionaires are self made, so yea that probably means they have some unique skill set or an expertise they can leverage...
Forbes takes a different view on this.
The ‘Self-Made’ Myth: Our Hallucinating Rich Posted on September 23, 2012 by Sam Pizzigati
In real life, working hard only takes you so far. Those who go all the way — to grand fortune — typically get a substantial head start. So documents a new analysis of the Forbes 400.
- See more at: http://inequality.org/selfmade-myth-hallucinating-rich/#sthash.ranmVxuy.dpuf
-
the majority of millionaires are self made, so yea that probably means they have some unique skill set or an expertise they can leverage...
I know someone who is about the best blacksmith in the United States. His ability to to use his hands is incredible. He told me he usually spends around 14 hours a day making things. He has made things for the queen of England even. However, he is not a millionaire. :-\
-
All I know is that if Donald Trump just invested the money he inherited, he would have made a lot more than he has now. :D
http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
Donald Trump would be richer if he'd have invested in index funds
-
Forbes takes a different view on this.
- See more at: http://inequality.org/selfmade-myth-hallucinating-rich/#sthash.ranmVxuy.dpuf
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/financial-services/publications/assets/pwc-ubs-billionaire-report.pdf
" In 2000, the number of self-made billionaires overtook the number of multigenerational
billionaires for the first time since the first ‘Gilded Age’. And, in 2014, entrepreneur billionaires made
up 66% of the total billionaire population"
that is patently false prime and again a talking point of the left. I agree that those with a stable supportive family life and more opportunities due to their parents success tend have a leg up but that is completely false.
-
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/financial-services/publications/assets/pwc-ubs-billionaire-report.pdf
" In 2000, the number of self-made billionaires overtook the number of multigenerational
billionaires for the first time since the first ‘Gilded Age’. And, in 2014, entrepreneur billionaires made
up 66% of the total billionaire population"
that is patently false prime and again a talking point of the left. I agree that those with a stable supportive family life and more opportunities due to their parents success tend have a leg up but that is completely false.
The truth to the bullshit is that there are more highly skilled people who are NOT millionaires than there are highly skilled people who ARE millionaires.
Hope this helps.
-
I know someone who is about the best blacksmith in the United States. His ability to to use his hands is incredible. He told me he usually spends around 14 hours a day making things. He has made things for the queen of England even. However, he is not a millionaire. :-\
All about the ability to scale his operations, he makes hand made products which I love but he is limited to what he can produce...tough to get rich as a one man operation.
-
All about the ability to scale his operations, he makes hand made products which I love but he is limited to what he can produce...tough to get rich as a one man operation.
What makes you think he even wants a million dollars? ???
-
The truth to the bullshit is that there are more highly skilled people who are NOT millionaires than there are highly skilled people who ARE millionaires.
Hope this helps.
Depends on your view I guess, business sense is in itself a skill set. Your friend for example could hire people to train and help create his furniture but chooses not to...this costs him monetarily supposing that he has enough business to warrant extra staff.
Probably wont go over well with the liberals on the board but I truly believe one of the biggest differences in "rich" people and the "middle class" is working smarter. Both groups work hard but those that make it to the next level generally look for ways to move up, work more efficiently, or expand their operations.
-
What makes you think he even wants a million dollars? ???
LOL youre the one that seemed upset/confused by the situation, I was just offering my point of view. If he is happy with his current life then more power to him, i think being content in your life is something we all could try and do a little bit more.
-
thats a liberal talking point and is just plain false, most millionaires are self made and if Im not mistaken first generation. Transfer of wealth doesnt create as many rich people as you thin. If two parents die off and pass on their wealth to a single kid you have less rich people, if they pass it on to 2 you have the same number
It is a point of view that is neither liberal or conservative.
Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats. Charles and David Koch, notorious for their support of right-wing causes, donated more than $2.2 million during the 2012 election, nearly all to Republican candidates.
Does it matter how many rich people there are? It seems not applicable to this discussion. Why you may ask? Because fewer wealthy people does not diminish overall wealth. It makes those few people wealthier.
-
Depends on your view I guess, business sense is in itself is a skill set. Your friend for example could hire people to train and help create his furniture but chooses not to...this costs him monetarily supposing that he has enough business to warrant extra staff.
Probably wont go over well with the liberals on the board but I truly believe one of the biggest differences in "rich" people and the "middle class" is working smarter. Both groups work hard but those that make it to the next level generally look for ways to move up, work more efficiently, or expand their operations.
I'm not so sure that everyone wants a million dollars really. Most just want to be able to live without worry. Making millions of dollars is a goal, only few people really wish to seek. Luckily, there are ways to get there by default and there are millions of different ways to get there if one wants to, but we must recognize not everyone cares for that end goal.
-
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/financial-services/publications/assets/pwc-ubs-billionaire-report.pdf
" In 2000, the number of self-made billionaires overtook the number of multigenerational
billionaires for the first time since the first ‘Gilded Age’. And, in 2014, entrepreneur billionaires made
up 66% of the total billionaire population"
that is patently false prime and again a talking point of the left. I agree that those with a stable supportive family life and more opportunities due to their parents success tend have a leg up but that is completely false.
What is patently false?
-
Forbes takes a different view on this.
- See more at: http://inequality.org/selfmade-myth-hallucinating-rich/#sthash.ranmVxuy.dpuf
Just to correct this post, that point of view wasnt from Forbes, it was from a left wing think tank called "United for a Fair Economy" who says that Forbes is spinning the trust by saying most billionaires are self made....
Again this has become one of those liberal talking points where they say it enough times and people think its true...I highly encourage you to read that report from Price Waterhouse Prime they are a big 5 accounting firm and reputable source. It was also I believe created for UBS who manages money so you would assume they would want a non biased view of who is becoming rich b/c they need to attract and retain them as clients
-
It is a point of view that is neither liberal or conservative.
Of the 50 richest families, 28 mainly donate to Republicans and only seven contribute mainly to Democrats. Charles and David Koch, notorious for their support of right-wing causes, donated more than $2.2 million during the 2012 election, nearly all to Republican candidates.
Does it matter how many rich people there are? It seems not applicable to this discussion. Why you may ask? Because fewer wealthy people does not diminish overall wealth. It makes those few people wealthier.
The number of rich people does matter in the context of how many are self made, which is how this conversation started. The talking point is that most wealthy people inherit their money which is false. If you go from two rich parent to one super rich heir then yes the number of rich wealthy people has decreased....
-
Probably wont go over well with the liberals on the board but I truly believe one of the biggest differences in "rich" people and the "middle class" is working smarter. Both groups work hard but those that make it to the next level generally look for ways to move up, work more efficiently, or expand their operations.
Do you have facts to support this or is it just your beliefs that count?
-
There is not enough money anyways for everyone to become a millionaire or billionaire.
The single best thing that has ever happened to the economy is abortion. Imagine if all of those abortions were instead brought to term how much more fucked everything would be. Republicans would love to do away with abortion so the value of the dollar could steadily plummet further as the birth rates increase.
-
I'm not so sure that everyone wants a million dollars really. Most just want to be able to live without worry. Making millions of dollars is a goal, only few people really wish to seek. Luckily, there are ways to get there by default and there are millions of different ways to get there if one wants to, but we must recognize not everyone cares for that end goal.
Agreed on all points
-
What is patently false?
did you read the quote from price waterhouse? did you click the link to see any of their report?
-
Do you have facts to support this or is it just your beliefs that count?
As I stated in my post it was my belief but if you read the report from Price Waterhouse they do go into traits that they feel are synonymous with billionaires
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/financial-services/publications/assets/pwc-ubs-billionaire-report.pdf
-
I personally think the most realistic and best goal for an individual to strive for is making themselves debt free lifestyle (without making anyone else in debt) and one that they can continue to the end of their days . That could take a million dollars or just a few thousand, but that should be the real goal.
Someone making 30,000 a year, debt free with no liabilities is better off than someone like those broke football players with 10 million dollar salary but 300 million in the hole with no ability to mathematically ever catch up to the debt or to preserve the lifestyle they envisioned (debt free, lolol)
-
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/financial-services/publications/assets/pwc-ubs-billionaire-report.pdf
" In 2000, the number of self-made billionaires overtook the number of multigenerational
billionaires for the first time since the first ‘Gilded Age’. And, in 2014, entrepreneur billionaires made
up 66% of the total billionaire population"
that is patently false prime and again a talking point of the left. I agree that those with a stable supportive family life and more opportunities due to their parents success tend have a leg up but that is completely false.
Because of tech?
-
The number of rich people does matter in the context of how many are self made, which is how this conversation started. The talking point is that most wealthy people inherit their money which is false. If you go from two rich parent to one super rich heir then yes the number of rich wealthy people has decreased....
Again, can you substantiate this or is it just your belief we are talking about here?
In Reality, the Wealthy Inherit Ungodly Sums of Money
Posted by Matt Bruenig on January 21, 2014
"At the National Review, Kevin Williamson tells us that the rich and wealthy are hard workers, not people who just inherit a bunch of money. It's not clear who exactly he thinks he is responding to, but someone must have really irked him on this. In any case, the reality is that the wealthy, whether they work hard or not, are generally inheritors of enormous sums of money. On average, the wealthiest 1 percent of households have inherited 447 times more money than households with wealth below $25,000."
http://www.demos.org/blog/1/21/14/reality-wealthy-inherit-ungodly-sums-money
-
I personally think the most realistic and best goal for an individual to strive for is making themselves debt free lifestyle (without making anyone else in debt) and one that they can continue to the end of their days . That could take a million dollars or just a few thousand, but that should be the real goal.
Someone making 30,000 a year, debt free with no liabilities is better off than someone like those broke football players with 10 million dollar salary but 300 million in the hole with no ability to mathematically ever catch up to the debt or to preserve the lifestyle they envisioned (debt free, lolol)
I think living within your means is a big part of being happy in life but I also understand the drive to want a nicer lifestyle as well.
-
I think living within your means is a big part of being happy in life but I also understand the drive to want a nicer lifestyle as well.
The Witcher 3 is the same game if you have 100 billion dollars or just 100.
-
Because of tech?
Im sure thats a big part of it, being more efficient using technology to help scale your business while a the same time drive costs down and margins up has surely created more wealth for those business owners.
-
Again, can you substantiate this or is it just your belief we are talking about here?
In Reality, the Wealthy Inherit Ungodly Sums of Money
Posted by Matt Bruenig on January 21, 2014
"At the National Review, Kevin Williamson tells us that the rich and wealthy are hard workers, not people who just inherit a bunch of money. It's not clear who exactly he thinks he is responding to, but someone must have really irked him on this. In any case, the reality is that the wealthy, whether they work hard or not, are generally inheritors of enormous sums of money. On average, the wealthiest 1 percent of households have inherited 447 times more money than households with wealth below $25,000."
http://www.demos.org/blog/1/21/14/reality-wealthy-inherit-ungodly-sums-money
Again your talking apples and oranges Prime, the original conversation started around whether or not most wealthy people inherit their money or earn it.
Is it really in most cases? Seems to me, in many cases wealth is inherited. In many other cases it results from incredible luck. Sure lot's folks work for their wealth.
are you kidding me prime? do i need to substantiate that there is a liberal talking point that is perpetuated to create animosity towards "wealthy" people? You posted a link that supports my statement? Your post about Forbes was wrong, it wasnt forbes that said that but a left wing think tank saying how forbes spins the truth to get to that conclusion....
-
I can agree with you prime that the wealthy inherit a lot more than middle class people but virtue of...BEING WEALTHY!!!
I think that you as a parent can understand wanting to provide for you family and children. Do you think there should be a cap on how much you can transfer to your children?
-
Im sure thats a big part of it, being more efficient using technology to help scale your business while a the same time drive costs down and margins up has surely created more wealth for those business owners.
Yep, there is that and also from internet companies and apps. Made owner-billionaires and the worth of the companies made millionaires out of some of their employees.
Last time so many became "new rich" was from industrial production in 1870s and couple decades after. Running factories before unionization was able to form.
-
As I stated in my post it was my belief but if you read the report from Price Waterhouse they do go into traits that they feel are synonymous with billionaires
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/financial-services/publications/assets/pwc-ubs-billionaire-report.pdf
UBS is formerly known as the Union Bank of Switzerland. UBS is headquartered in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland. Their perspectives are focused on investors.
-just saying
https://www.ubs.com/global/en/about_ubs/investor_relations/faq/about.html
PwC to pay $25 million to settle money laundering report allegations
“We are continuing to find examples of improper influence and misconduct in the bank consulting industry,” said Benjamin M. Lawsky, who heads the New York department. “When bank executives pressure a consultant to whitewash a supposedly ‘objective’ report to regulators – and the consultant goes along with it – that can strike at the very heart of our system of prudential oversight.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2014/08/18/pwc-to-pay-25-million-to-settle-money-laundering-report-allegations
While the articles you posted from UBS/PWC may be right, do you really believe you can trust these financial corporations to give you accurate information?
-
the majority of millionaires are self made, so yea that probably means they have some unique skill set or an expertise they can leverage...
Sixty-seven percent of high-net-worth Americans are self-made millionaires
-
UBS is formerly known as the Union Bank of Switzerland. UBS is headquartered in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland. Their perspectives are focused on investors.
-just saying
https://www.ubs.com/global/en/about_ubs/investor_relations/faq/about.html
PwC to pay $25 million to settle money laundering report allegations
“We are continuing to find examples of improper influence and misconduct in the bank consulting industry,” said Benjamin M. Lawsky, who heads the New York department. “When bank executives pressure a consultant to whitewash a supposedly ‘objective’ report to regulators – and the consultant goes along with it – that can strike at the very heart of our system of prudential oversight.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2014/08/18/pwc-to-pay-25-million-to-settle-money-laundering-report-allegations
While the articles you posted from UBS/PWC may be right, do you really believe you can trust these financial corporations to give you accurate information?
I dont know why you keep missing the points of my posts but maybe its my fault to let me clarify. I know what UBS is, I used to work for them. Their perspective is focused on investors, which is my point!!! They more than anybody need to know their clients so YES, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY trust a report from Price Waterhouse for UBS b/c their agenda is to use that information to make more money...The Fair economy or whatever their name is has an agenda that is to push a certain talking point, so what do you think they are going to say???
This report wasnt for the general public is was so that the FAs could know how and where the wealth was being created to help them find and acquire those people as clients...So yea I trust the price waterhouse report over the fair economy bs
-
Sixty-seven percent of high-net-worth Americans are self-made millionaires
Nobody is doubting the self-made part (at least I am not). What I do KNOW is the highly skilled part. There are more Highly Skilled Non-Millionaires than highly skilled millionaires.
-
Nobody is doubting the self-made part (at least I am not). What I do KNOW is the highly skilled part. There are more Highly Skilled Non-Millionaires than highly skilled millionaires.
true being highly skilled doesnt mean you will be successful but that doesnt mean that the majority of millionaires arent highly skilled, both can be true.
-
I dont know why you keep missing the points of my posts but maybe its my fault to let me clarify. I know what UBS is, I used to work for them. Their perspective is focused on investors, which is my point!!! They more than anybody need to know their clients so YES, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY trust a report from Price Waterhouse for UBS b/c their agenda is to use that information to make more money...The Fair economy or whatever their name is has an agenda that is to push a certain talking point, so what do you think they are going to say???
This report wasnt for the general public is was so that the FAs could know how and where the wealth was being created to help them find and acquire those people as clients...So yea I trust the price waterhouse report over the fair economy bs
It is probably safe to say that it makes little difference, looking at the big picture, whether folks inherit their wealth or earn it. If folks believe anyone can make it, it gives those who are struggling hope for the future. My hope for them is that the future won't disappoint them.
-
It is probably safe to say that it makes little difference, looking at the big picture, whether folks inherit their wealth or earn it. If folks believe anyone can make it, it gives those who are struggling hope for the future. My hope for them is that the future won't disappoint them.
It makes a difference when you use the false idea that the majority of the "wealthy" inherit their wealth as a way to drive animosity and push tax increases that dont effect the majority of the country. It also serves to dismiss your hopes that those struggling for hope may have and may very well lead to people not trying bc they believe it doesnt matter....with a lie might I add.
I agree with you for the most part on the belief part, I think you should work hard no matter what you do. I could have ended up being a janitor or something if I had made different decisions in my life but I would have been the best damn janitor there was. No matter what your station in life you should work hard and look for opportunities to improve if youre not satisfied. By virtue of the way economics works though if many of the people struggling for hope want to be "wealthy" they are going to be disappointed...just the way it works, not everyone can be successful.
-
It makes a difference when you use the false idea that the majority of the "wealthy" inherit their wealth as a way to drive animosity and push tax increases that dont effect the majority of the country. It also serves to dismiss your hopes that those struggling for hope may have and may very well lead to people not trying bc they believe it doesnt matter....with a lie might I add.
I agree with you for the most part on the belief part, I think you should work hard no matter what you do. I could have ended up being a janitor or something if I had made different decisions in my life but I would have been the best damn janitor there was. No matter what your station in life you should work hard and look for opportunities to improve if youre not satisfied. By virtue of the way economics works though if many of the people struggling for hope want to be "wealthy" they are going to be disappointed...just the way it works, not everyone can be successful.
Other than those two times (gilded age and tech/internet boom) hasn't it stayed true, though?? I don't know.
-
hmmm IQ most likely.
Republican have far far higher IQ than dems. Hillary, was just someones wife....
-
No. You don't know many rich people do you? :D
I don't know what you would categorize as rich....I have money myself (self made) but i wouldn't say i'm rich...I know people on both sides of the stick...Self made or inherited...Either way in EVERY CASE the ones who inherited the riches have good jobs and went to good colleges and are quite smart....I don't have a bias but i'd lean towards the people getting rich to be from their own hard work...I mean you look at all the athletes as a good example...Nobody performs for them night in and night out...Their are tons of athletes worth over 100m just here in the states...
-
Other than those two times (gilded age and tech/internet boom) hasn't it stayed true, though?? I don't know.
not sure, though it would make sense that in the eras in which a lot of wealth is created the majority of wealth created goes to those who dont have any.
It would also make sense that in eras where not a lot of wealth is created the majority of wealthy people get their wealth from inheritance.
Again dont know for sure though.
-
It makes a difference when you use the false idea that the majority of the "wealthy" inherit their wealth as a way to drive animosity and push tax increases that dont effect the majority of the country. It also serves to dismiss your hopes that those struggling for hope may have and may very well lead to people not trying bc they believe it doesnt matter....with a lie might I add.
I agree with you for the most part on the belief part, I think you should work hard no matter what you do. I could have ended up being a janitor or something if I had made different decisions in my life but I would have been the best damn janitor there was. No matter what your station in life you should work hard and look for opportunities to improve if youre not satisfied. By virtue of the way economics works though if many of the people struggling for hope want to be "wealthy" they are going to be disappointed...just the way it works, not everyone can be successful.
I guess it makes a difference if one is inclined to feel animosity toward the wealthy regardless of how they achieved their wealth, which certainly does not describe me.
As for tax increases, which is really a whole other issue, my opinion is that everyone should be taxed the same, meaning the same percentage of their gross income, regardless of whether they are dead broke of incredibly rich. I believe this is known as a true flat tax. Like most folks, I take advantage of any deductions allowed me within the tax codes. With a true flat tax, there are no deductions, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
Believe it or not, there are many ways that people both honestly and dishonestly reduce their gross income which subsequently reduces their taxes. My stepdad was self-employed. Knowing that there was no way the government could track his income aside from looking at his lifestyle verses what he claimed to earn which would not have begun to support the lifestyle he, my mom and I enjoyed.
One of my best friends, a staunch Republican, owned her own business before she sold it and retired. She'd often complained about having to pay around $10,000 in quarterly taxes. It made me laugh. If she was paying $40,000 a year in taxes, imagine how much money she was making? It was really hard to feel sorry for her. Most of her work time consisted of schmoosing her clientele on the golf course, with expensive business lunches, or tickets to expensive venues. It "hard work" if you can get it. She is still a great friend, although her retirement isn't as flush as mine and I made nowhere near what she made when we worked. Funny how that works out sometimes.
-
I don't know what you would categorize as rich....I have money myself (self made) but i wouldn't say i'm rich...I know people on both sides of the stick...Self made or inherited...Either way in EVERY CASE the ones who inherited the riches have good jobs and went to good colleges and are quite smart....I don't have a bias but i'd lean towards the people getting rich to be from their own hard work...I mean you look at all the athletes as a good example...Nobody performs for them night in and night out...Their are tons of athletes worth over 100m just here in the states...
[/b]
Which is somewhat ridiculous. But then, if the public didn't support them by paying the exorbitant prices charged for tickets to watch them play, they wouldn't be earning what they are.
I guess I am a snob. There are people who earn gross amounts of money and remain low class, whether it is the Kardashians with their pointless reality show or famous sports figures who can't seem to stay out of jail. Having wealth certainly isn't synonymous with being a good person. There's something about the phrase "the weak shall inherit the earth" which doesn't ring true.
-
I guess it makes a difference if one is inclined to feel animosity toward the wealthy regardless of how they achieved their wealth, which certainly does not describe me.
As for tax increases, which is really a whole other issue, my opinion is that everyone should be taxed the same, meaning the same percentage of their gross income, regardless of whether they are dead broke of incredibly rich. I believe this is known as a true flat tax. Like most folks, I take advantage of any deductions allowed me within the tax codes. With a true flat tax, there are no deductions, regardless of how rich or poor you are.
Believe it or not, there are many ways that people both honestly and dishonestly reduce their gross income which subsequently reduces their taxes. My stepdad was self-employed. Knowing that there was no way the government could track his income aside from looking at his lifestyle verses what he claimed to earn which would not have begun to support the lifestyle he, my mom and I enjoyed.
One of my best friends, a staunch Republican, owned her own business before she sold it and retired. She'd often complained about having to pay around $10,000 in quarterly taxes. It made me laugh. If she was paying $40,000 a year in taxes, imagine how much money she was making? It was really hard to feel sorry for her. Most of her work time consisted of schmoosing her clientele on the golf course, with expensive business lunches, or tickets to expensive venues. It "hard work" if you can get it. She is still a great friend, although her retirement isn't as flush as mine and I made nowhere near what she made when we worked. Funny how that works out sometimes.
What's wrong with your friend being upset about the government taking so much of her money? Do you think she has less of an entitlement to her own money simply because she might earn more than the typical American?
-
Ya it's working perfectly ::)
You can't possibly fathom improvements? to sit back and say the system is working is hilarious, it's great for progress, but we are actively destroying our home to make money, how retarded do you have to be?
Complete lack of foresight.
You initially said: "capitalism doesn't work in it's current incarnation." You didn't say it needs improvement. Or that it was working perfectly. I do agree that any system, including capitalism, could always improve, but to say it isn't working is silly.
-
You initially said: "capitalism doesn't work in it's current incarnation." You didn't say it needs improvement. Or that it was working perfectly. I do agree that any system, including capitalism, could always improve, but to say it isn't working is silly.
There has never been a purely capitalist nation. So how can you say it's working?
I'm not against it, but to say it's working is false as there has never been any such thing.
-
You initially said: "capitalism doesn't work in it's current incarnation." You didn't say it needs improvement. Or that it was working perfectly. I do agree that any system, including capitalism, could always improve, but to say it isn't working is silly.
Obviously change is implied if it's current incarnation is faulty, didn't think I needed to state that explicitly. Very odd thing to go on about.
Capitalism is not working, how could you suggst it is?
-
There has never been a purely capitalist nation. So how can you say it's working?
I'm not against it, but to say it's working is false as there has never been any such thing.
What do you mean by "purely capitalist nation"?
Look around you. There is a free market. People have unlimited potential. You can work wherever you want. Start your own business. Save. Invest. Own property. To say it isn't working is false.
-
Obviously change is implied if it's current incarnation is faulty, didn't think I needed to state that explicitly. Very odd thing to go on about.
Capitalism is not working, how could you suggst it is?
Dude. You said it isn't working, without qualification. You realize there is a big difference between saying something doesn't work at all, and saying something needs improvement?
See my previous post about how it's working.
-
What do you mean by "purely capitalist nation"?
Look around you. There is a free market. People have unlimited potential. You can work wherever you want. Start your own business. Save. Invest. Own property. To say it isn't working is false.
There is no such thing... There is no "free market"
There are regulations and a host of other things.
There has NEVER... in the history of the world, been a society or nation that has had a purely capitalist economy.
-
There is no such thing... There is no "free market"
There are regulations and a host of other things.
There has NEVER... in the history of the world, been a society or nation that has had a purely capitalist economy.
Of course the market is regulated. That doesn't prevent businesses from competing with each other. That's what free market is all about.
Do you know what pure capitalism is? We obviously don't have pure capitalism.
-
Of course the market is regulated. That doesn't prevent businesses from competing with each other. That's what free market is all about.
Do you know what pure capitalism is? We obviously don't have pure capitalism.
I do know what pure capitalism, hence why I stated it has NEVER occurred.
So my initial statement is still valid.
There has never been a purely capitalist nation. So how can you say it's working?
I'm not against it, but to say it's working is false as there has never been any such thing.
As pure capitalism has NEVER occurred, you can't say it's "working", because it doesn't exist.
-
I do know what pure capitalism, hence why I stated it has NEVER occurred.
So my initial statement is still valid.
As pure capitalism has NEVER occurred, you can't say it's "working", because it doesn't exist.
We were not talking about pure capitalism.
-
Dude. You said it isn't working, without qualification. You realize there is a big difference between saying something doesn't work at all, and saying something needs improvement?
See my previous post about how it's working.
It's implied, that's obvious, current incarnation indicates there are other incarnations that are possible. There is a large IQ difference between us, we are having issues communicating.
Define how it's "working"?
It does make perfect sense, capitalism causes competition which ultimately motivates our species. However, it has a shitty end game, a plutocracy, the evidence of one is right in front of you.
There is a different law for the rich and powerful, capitalism (profit, money first motives) create this. Sure the standard of living is great here, but what about the places being raped and mined for resources by companies solely due to how much money they have. The earth is a finite resource, everyone wanting everything will lead to ruin and those with wealth can dictate politics which is absurd.
We won't survive another 100 years of the current system, we are seeing purposeful disinformation spread regarding potential catastrophe on a global scale, all for more money. Wealth invariably ends up in the hands of the few, the problem with this is that instead of lifting others up to help build, they keep others down, there is no altruism in capitalism, business is business. Human first policies, humanity first policies need to be the focus, who cares about your wealth or mine, in 100 years you will be dust, humanity not individuals needs to progress.
In a hundred years we may have achieved supraluminal travel, in that context it seems petty to argue over gay rights and other bullshit driven by money (aka lobbyists).
-
It's implied, that's obvious, current incarnation indicates there are other incarnations that are possible. There is a large IQ difference between us, we are having issues communicating.
Define how it's "working"?
It does make perfect sense, capitalism causes competition which ultimately motivates our species. However, it has a shitty end game, a plutocracy, the evidence of one is right in front of you.
There is a different law for the rich and powerful, capitalism (profit, money first motives) create this. Sure the standard of living is great here, but what about the places being raped and mined for resources by companies solely due to how much money they have. The earth is a finite resource, everyone wanting everything will lead to ruin and those with wealth can dictate politics which is absurd.
We won't survive another 100 years of the current system, we are seeing purposeful disinformation spread regarding potential catastrophe on a global scale, all for more money. Wealth invariably ends up in the hands of the few, the problem with this is that instead of lifting others up to help build, they keep others down, there is no altruism in capitalism, business is business. Human first policies, humanity first policies need to be the focus, who cares about your wealth or mine, in 100 years you will be dust, humanity not individuals needs to progress.
In a hundred years we may have achieved supraluminal travel, in that context it seems petty to argue over gay rights and other bullshit driven by money (aka lobbyists).
Yes, there are very distinct differences between us. Me = understand the English language, try and avoid overstatements, live in the greatest country on planet earth, an American. You = Canadian.
I understand you struggle with how to express yourself. Here is one example from this same thread:
Once you get into the 140's of iq silly ambitions, lies and other bullshit are non-existent, truth is usually all that matters, geniuses won't subvert, ever.
This is a categorical statement that people with an IQ over 140 never lie. Anyone with a room temperature IQ, who isn't Canadian, however, understands that is not true. Or maybe you think it's "implied" in your statement that people with an IQ over 140 do lie? (Rhetorical question.)
Regarding capitalism, if you are now talking about "pure capitalism," that is a red herring, because we don't have pure capitalism in this country. We have a highly regulated marketplace. But it is a successful free market.
And what do you mean by "we" won't survive? You don't live in the United States. Is this you living vicariously through Americans thriving in the greatest country on earth?
Regarding what works in our great country, as I said earlier in the thread:
Look around you. There is a free market. People have unlimited potential. You can work wherever you want. Start your own business. Save. Invest. Own property. To say it isn't working is false.
You don't have those things in Canada. You work for the government. They take what you earn and redistribute it to the rest of your fellow Canadians. Maybe you are having trouble separating what happens in your country from the United States. It's understandable.
-
We were not talking about pure capitalism.
Then why talk about capitalism if it's not actually capitalism?
-
Then why talk about capitalism if it's not actually capitalism?
I'm not talking about pure capitalism, which does not exist in this country. I'm not sure pure capitalism exists anywhere? I never brought it up.
The form of capitalism we have in this country works. That was/is my point.
-
I'm not talking about pure capitalism, which does not exist in this country. I'm not sure pure capitalism exists anywhere? I never brought it up.
The form of capitalism we have in this country works. That was/is my point.
But we don't have capitalism.
We have a mixed economy.
We don't have a "form of capitalism". Capitalism is one thing... completely free market. That is not what the US has.
As I stated. Capitalism doesn't exist and never actually has. It is a theoretical economic environment that has never been put to practice in the history of mankind.
-
But we don't have capitalism.
We have a mixed economy.
We don't have a "form of capitalism". Capitalism is one thing... completely free market. That is not what the US has.
As I stated. Capitalism doesn't exist and never actually has. It is a theoretical economic environment that has never been put to practice in the history of mankind.
I disagree. We do indeed have capitalism, but not pure capitalism. We don't live in a socialist country, yet.
-
I disagree. We do indeed have capitalism, but not pure capitalism. We don't live in a socialist country, yet.
Well, I understand that economics isn't your forte, but according to economics, we are in a mixed economy, not a capitalist one and not a socialist one.
You can have something in between. It's not just A or B.
-
Well, I understand that economics isn't your forte, but according to economics, we are in a mixed economy, not a capitalist one and not a socialist one.
You can have something in between. It's not just A or B.
Economics definitely isn't your forte.
-
Economics definitely isn't your forte.
-
Economics definitely isn't your forte.
Apparently it's better than yours though.
Since you know... I'm factually accurate about this, and you are not.
-
Apparently it's better than yours though.
Since you know... I'm factually accurate about this, and you are not.
Funny. :)
All you did was set up a straw man and knock it down. Good job.
-
Funny. :)
All you did was set up a straw man and knock it down. Good job.
No, I showed where you are incorrect in regards to definitions, but that's pretty common.
-
No, I showed where you are incorrect in regards to definitions, but that's pretty common.
Actually you started harping about "pure capitalism," which I never brought up. But it's common for you to fuss about silly things.
-
Actually you started harping about "pure capitalism," which I never brought up. But it's common for you to fuss about silly things.
It's just capitalism... I said pure capitalism as a focus on the fact that no country in the history of the world has ever truly been a capitalist economy.
I don't consider being factual, "silly", but then again, being factual is not exactly high on your list of priorities.
-
It's just capitalism... I said pure capitalism as a focus on the fact that no country in the history of the world has ever truly been a capitalist economy.
I don't consider being factual, "silly", but then again, being factual is not exactly high on your list of priorities.
You said pure capitalism to distinguish it from the form of capitalism that exists in this country. Or least that's if you were trying to be smart about.
This is so stupid. lol Ok. I'm done. :)
-
You said pure capitalism to distinguish it from the form of capitalism that exists in this country. Or least that's if you were trying to be smart about.
This is so stupid. lol Ok. I'm done. :)
We do not have "capitalism" in this country... Period. The free market does not rule.
We would never be that lucky.