Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I agree: What I said was that it can't be completely self-serving. Customers do not part with their money for nothing.Sorry, but I don't see the correlation. To me running or working for a business is usually self serving which is different from 'making the world a better place'.
(However, paraphrased from Adam Smith, looking to one's own interests in a free market economy, usually results in the world being a better place.)
It can't be completely self-serving. Customers don't give you money because they like you; they do it because of what you do for them.
But to the original point, I'd say that 100 people working together under a plan to improve the world (assuming the plan makes sense) is much more effective than 100 individuals doing whatever each chose to be best, and perhaps working at cross-purposes. In other words, the leftists (as you're describing them) have a major advantage here.
News Flash: giving money for services or products rendered IS self serving. Hiring people to do a job you need done is self serving. Working for somebody to do a job they need to be done is self serving.
In the words of Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Nobility has nothing to do with it. I was talking about effectiveness.And I don't know that 100 (leftist) people working to improve the world are doing one damn thing more noble than are 100 (conservative) people going to work, raising their kids to be responsible productive citizens, putting in their time at the local church or charity or whatever, buying, selling, and just going about their daily lives without intruding on the lives of others.
I would be, if that were indeed what they were working for. However, as far as I can tell, all they're doing is ranting and screaming.Tell me, when a thousand people show up at a Tea Party rally for the purpose of working for a better government/country/world, are you appreciative? Or contemptuous?
I'm not, you freaking moron.Yeah. Did you read this paragraph?
They're not sorry they said it; they're sorry they got caught saying it.
So what are you accusing NPR of lying about?
Idiot OP said the WSJ was lying. Using what he's using instead of logic, NPR is lying as well.
I'm applying the standard he's using. But for some stupid reason, he doesn't think the standard should apply to liberal media.
However, since AARP did indeed say what the WSJ said they said, WSJ is NOT lying. NPR is NOT lying. AARP is sorry their comment was publicized; they're not sorry they said it.
Get it now, you moron?
I'm curious -- why is it, exactly, that you consider yourself to be intelligent? I can see no evidence.
Speaking of loathsome, hateful comments...there's Carby right on time.As I said above, NY takes offence that I refer to Rinata as a fat ass. But, I've never seen him criticize her for telling me my deceased fiance 'dodged a bullet' for dying instead of marrying me. Personally, I think her comment was far more insulting than mine.... but, of course, he defends her...... just goes to show that shit sticks together.
He's a fucking little shit... and Rinata is a fat bitch.
Wow, the dead fiance card. You can go years on an anonymous internet forum and never see that one played.
What a piece of human-shaped crap you are.
Since you're one of the idiots who chooses to wallow, what are you bitching about?Let me quote daveman for the perfect response to that:
So, instead of rising above the behavior you condemn, you choose to wallow in it.
Daveman posted that??
So the WSJ did it, and it's a lie.
ABC, NPR, NYT and CNN report the same story.....and it's just good old honest reporting?
Very well said.Thanks for your concern. I can take care of myself. Perhaps you should place your concern in a more inward direction.
One should do both. You must be concerned about improving yourself and the world around you to be more than just a waste of oxygen.
Back to the theme of 'left' and 'right, as a 'rightist' I would see it as my responsibility as to what I choose to do to make the world a better place. A 'leftist' would see it as his responsibility to tell me what I had to do to make the world a better place.
I prefer being a 'rightist'.
Skippy, I've seen some of the things you believe in.I'm not, you freaking moron.So what are you accusing NPR of lying about?
Idiot OP said the WSJ was lying. Using what he's using instead of logic, NPR is lying as well.
I'm applying the standard he's using. But for some stupid reason, he doesn't think the standard should apply to liberal media.
However, since AARP did indeed say what the WSJ said they said, WSJ is NOT lying. NPR is NOT lying. AARP is sorry their comment was publicized; they're not sorry they said it.
Get it now, you moron?
I'm curious -- why is it, exactly, that you consider yourself to be intelligent? I can see no evidence.
Ah, someone who thinks that believing the earth is 6000 years old is intelligent now wants to be an authority on what is or isn't evidence of intelligence.
Indeed.
Speaking of loathsome, hateful comments...there's Carby right on time.Wow, the dead fiance card. You can go years on an anonymous internet forum and never see that one played.
What a piece of human-shaped crap you are.
CaliforniaGirl is a proven pathological liar on an anonymous internet forum. she could claim she was in the CIA and i'd give it as much credence.
She's entitled to her opinion. You're entitled to yours. And I'm entitled to mine.Since you're one of the idiots who chooses to wallow, what are you bitching about?Daveman posted that??
Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument.
oh, I should point out, I'm quoting this poster:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1622775-post110.html
Since you're one of the idiots who chooses to wallow, what are you bitching about?Daveman posted that??
Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument.
oh, I should point out, I'm quoting this poster:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1622775-post110.html
No, no -- when a righty calls names, it's because he's out of credible argument.Since you're one of the idiots who chooses to wallow, what are you bitching about?
Namecalling is the sign of a lost argument.
oh, I should point out, I'm quoting this poster:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1622775-post110.html
You must lose a lot of arguments.
The only thing good about the Wall Street Journal is that you get a lot of pages for the price of the paper and it's good to wrap fish in.
"Hypocrisy: Something a leftist doesn't like."I'd bet that you can find at least 15,253 times on this forum.You rarely see such blatant hypocrisy so proudly displayed.
Is that how you retards define all your words?
Liar. I've shown you personally where I've condemned people on the right.daveman has no enemies to his Right. This has been proven time and time again.And what did you call it when CG was insulting a female poster's appearance for weeks on end?
Keep reading. Then condemn Rinata's comment to CG. Then you won't be such a hypocrite.
But you won't condemn it, and you will be a hypocrite.
What I do have a problem with (and the Times has been guilty of it a lot recently) is letting bits of editorialization seep into the news articles.
I would love to see examples of the NYTimes doing this. I ask the wingnuts here all the time to give me examples of NYTimes bias in their news stories, and they have failed miserably, batting .000 (when they even take a swing at it).
Read this story and ask yourself why they never mention religion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/us/24seattle.html?_r=1
Uh oh. Now he'll label you a "faux conservative", and expect your feelings to be hurt.Care to join me in meditation?
You know, it seems to me that for one to declare themselves a pundit they should know at least a bare minimum of what they are opining upon. You failed utterly with this particular thread. However, your intention to meditate on your navel is probably a great idea...it seems that may be an item you can actually be a pundit upon. Time will tell.
My goodness, you're not very bright."Hypocrisy: Something a leftist doesn't like."I'd bet that you can find at least 15,253 times on this forum.
Is that how you retards define all your words?
Hypocrisy: is that like when the Right is OUTRAGED!!!! over Rahm Emanuel using the word 'retard', but then casually throws it around when you want to insult Democrats?
Palin: Rahm Emanuel should be axed for 'retarded' comment
Rahm Emanuel on defensive over "retarded" comment
Yeah, hypocrisy - that's Right.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/rahm_emanuel_on_defensive_over.html
Exactly. You wouldn't. No enemies on the left.Liar. I've shown you personally where I've condemned people on the right.daveman has no enemies to his Right. This has been proven time and time again.
Keep reading. Then condemn Rinata's comment to CG. Then you won't be such a hypocrite.
But you won't condemn it, and you will be a hypocrite.
Why would I do that?
Uh oh. Now he'll label you a "faux conservative", and expect your feelings to be hurt.You know, it seems to me that for one to declare themselves a pundit they should know at least a bare minimum of what they are opining upon. You failed utterly with this particular thread. However, your intention to meditate on your navel is probably a great idea...it seems that may be an item you can actually be a pundit upon. Time will tell.
You forgot your trademarked "widdle".
Because that's what 50 year old men do.
I would love to see examples of the NYTimes doing this. I ask the wingnuts here all the time to give me examples of NYTimes bias in their news stories, and they have failed miserably, batting .000 (when they even take a swing at it).
Read this story and ask yourself why they never mention religion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/us/24seattle.html?_r=1
The 38-page criminal complaint filed against the two suggested that they had not made final plans to carry out the alleged plot. They were frustrated, it said, by American war policies and discussed how to make an attack last as long as possible in order to get the most media attention for their actions..
If Chinese invaders were swarming all over the U.S., should every story about Americans trying to blow shit up in China include the fact that they are Christians? What's the relevence? We would be wanting to attack at the heartland of the people who are occupying our country.
I see no difference here.
That's the problem with you NeoCons: you are incapable of putting the shoe on the other foot. Iraqis - in their own fucking country - lay IEDs and land mines to kill the invaders, and you call them terrorists! Even though you would do the exact same thing if you were invaded.
You have failed to show bias. And what would the bias even be?
