Fixing Inequality

[Bombur]

So pointing out income inequality causing problems isn't an example of someone telling you why income inequality is a problem. Got it.

Are you ever going to say something worth reading?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Fortunately new polls say 67% recognize we have a problem. She will never get it, but she is in the minority.

Oh, look, the day is saved! Bombur and Brain can now go back to Mom's basement and pump each other, thus keeping them from being inutterably bored by the discussing of facts and common sense and reality, and keeping the rest of us from laughing ourselves into hernias at their empty posturing.

And leftists say there's no God.

Have you actually been on topic in this thread yet? I know you post a lot but everything has been childish blustering like the post above.

How is this juvenile posting style working out for you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sweet cheeks, aside from saying, "I'm not interested", I didn't say a word about my feelings. Interpreting my posts through your prism of "everything's about my emotions" is a waste of everyone's time.

Not only did you hypocritically bathe me in your own emotions after criticizing me for sharing mine, you’re now denying it ever happened. Just stop while you’re ahead. I’ll move on if you do too.

Bathe? Look up the word "hyperbole", drama queen, and then quit sniveling at me.

The only thing you got right is that I AM ahead. SOOO funny to watch leftists being unable to say what they think they're saying. Since you've admitted that you lost, though, we'll move on.

Meanwhile, Chuckles, what you've just told me isn't that income inequality is bad, but that a sense of unjustified entitlement is. This is not a point I've ever argued.

Have you ever heard the phrase “putting words in someone’s mouth”? Look it up, because that’s what you’re doing.

No, that would require me to attribute something you didn't say to you. What I did was paraphrase exactly what you DID say. You may not LIKE the meaning of what you said, but that doesn't make it any less correct.

I simply said drastic & growing differences in wealth between rich/poor in a society often leads to instabilities. This is a historical fact, not opinion. I thought that’s what you wanted. I never said that a ‘sense of unjustified entitlement is good’, or that the protestors were morally justified for the violent upheaval. I’m just saying “this is what happens” – sort of like a journalist.

Yeah, amazingly enough, restating it isn't going to make it mean anything different than it did, or make my paraphrasing any less accurate, however much you hate that.

By the way, I never said you said a sense of unjustified entitlement was good. On the contrary, I very clearly said that what you had told me was that it was bad. I merely also pointed out that you're too simpleminded to realize that that's actually what you were saying.

Also, I never mentioned "morally justified" at all. I will say, however, that you do resemble modern journalists, in that your "reporting" bears a remarkable resemblance to trying to justify things.

What you just said was "In short, everyone should stop being successful lest lazy pieces of shit become violent and try to take things away from you."

You wanted fact, not opinion, so I agave you fact. This is what happens when income inequality grows - people eventually start to become violent. Why is that? I don't know, I'm not a psychologist. However I do know it does happen.

Well, see, here's the thing. When one has common sense, and doesn't know why something happens, one does not run around making statements about why that thing happens, and about how it should be prevented. So why is it that you are in here blathering about how violence is a reason that income inequality is bad when you just now said you have no idea why they're violent? Which is it, Punkinhead? Are they violent because of the badness of income inequality, or not?

And I'm still puzzling over why you seem to think the undesirability of Syria is due to income inequality, or the greater desirability of the United States is because incomes are so even and "fair" here. Do you not know much about the nation of Syria?

"Syria sucks; therefore, income and wealth inequality are bad things." Is that seriously the argument you want to go with?

I said that income inequality could lead to civil war, and then went onto say that civil war is an undesirable state to be in (so I used Syria as an example). I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality, I simply was using that country as an example of why civil war might be undesirable for business, innovation, etc.

Make sense?

No. No, it doesn't. Look at your own ******* paragraph, and you might be able to see WHY it doesn't make sense.

"I said that income inequality could lead to civil war . . . so I used Syria as an example." Try and stay with me here, but using something as an example means that you CONSIDER IT TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. So if you're saying that income inequality is a bad thing because it can lead to civil war, and then you say, "Look at Syria", then you've just used Syria as an example of income inequality being a bad thing and leading to civil war.

With me so far?

Then you turn around and say, "I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality". THEN WHAT THE **** WERE YOU USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF?!

English is your mother tongue, isn't it? Learn to ******* use it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the answer is no, I will not be saying anything that you consider worth reading.

You're applauding your ability to fraudulently cut and paste quotes to make them say something they didn't actually say? While this will admittedly help you get a job at any mainstream media outlet or managing Democrat political campaigns, human beings don't actually consider it a praiseworthy practice, pusbag.

Or were you applauding yourself for admitting the only debates you can win are the ones held in your own head against what you imagine you'd like people to say?

 

[ScienceRocks]

How to close the gap
-Free 4 years of college for all making less then 100,000/year
-Internship from college to corporations/businesses for fast college to work.
-Craft schools...Same as the 4 years of college for there non-college skill.

End all welfare if they don't do it. This would increase education and pull more people into the middle class.

Work to limit inflation of prices within the business world.

 

[KevinWestern]

Sweet cheeks, aside from saying, "I'm not interested", I didn't say a word about my feelings. Interpreting my posts through your prism of "everything's about my emotions" is a waste of everyone's time.

Not only did you hypocritically bathe me in your own emotions after criticizing me for sharing mine, you’re now denying it ever happened. Just stop while you’re ahead. I’ll move on if you do too.

Bathe? Look up the word "hyperbole", drama queen, and then quit sniveling at me.

The only thing you got right is that I AM ahead. SOOO funny to watch leftists being unable to say what they think they're saying. Since you've admitted that you lost, though, we'll move on.



No, that would require me to attribute something you didn't say to you. What I did was paraphrase exactly what you DID say. You may not LIKE the meaning of what you said, but that doesn't make it any less correct.



Yeah, amazingly enough, restating it isn't going to make it mean anything different than it did, or make my paraphrasing any less accurate, however much you hate that.

By the way, I never said you said a sense of unjustified entitlement was good. On the contrary, I very clearly said that what you had told me was that it was bad. I merely also pointed out that you're too simpleminded to realize that that's actually what you were saying.

Also, I never mentioned "morally justified" at all. I will say, however, that you do resemble modern journalists, in that your "reporting" bears a remarkable resemblance to trying to justify things.



Well, see, here's the thing. When one has common sense, and doesn't know why something happens, one does not run around making statements about why that thing happens, and about how it should be prevented. So why is it that you are in here blathering about how violence is a reason that income inequality is bad when you just now said you have no idea why they're violent? Which is it, Punkinhead? Are they violent because of the badness of income inequality, or not?

And I'm still puzzling over why you seem to think the undesirability of Syria is due to income inequality, or the greater desirability of the United States is because incomes are so even and "fair" here. Do you not know much about the nation of Syria?

"Syria sucks; therefore, income and wealth inequality are bad things." Is that seriously the argument you want to go with?

I said that income inequality could lead to civil war, and then went onto say that civil war is an undesirable state to be in (so I used Syria as an example). I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality, I simply was using that country as an example of why civil war might be undesirable for business, innovation, etc.

Make sense?

No. No, it doesn't. Look at your own ******* paragraph, and you might be able to see WHY it doesn't make sense.

"I said that income inequality could lead to civil war . . . so I used Syria as an example." Try and stay with me here, but using something as an example means that you CONSIDER IT TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. So if you're saying that income inequality is a bad thing because it can lead to civil war, and then you say, "Look at Syria", then you've just used Syria as an example of income inequality being a bad thing and leading to civil war.

With me so far?

Then you turn around and say, "I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality". THEN WHAT THE **** WERE YOU USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF?!

English is your mother tongue, isn't it? Learn to ******* use it.

Few quick things:

1.) I'm not a leftist. You have no reason to assume that.
2.) My argument is that a highly stratified society (with regards to wealth) has often proved - historically - to be an unstable one.
3.) Unstable societies (like Syria) generally do not attract new business, innovation, and thus can be considered a "bad" state to be in.

It's simple. And watch your lip, young lady.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Come on. YOU said, "However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. "

I replied with a set of rich people. Some EARN it fair and square. Some inherit it. Others acquire it illegally. (As to the latter, I don't give a shit what your views on drug laws are. The money is still earned illegally.)

That being the case, the QUESTION is: what do YOU propose to DO about the fact that people have wealth from different sources?

Do they require your permission to retain their own wealth? Do they require ANYBODY'S permission? Are there "standards" by which we may consistently assess who is to be allowed to retain their wealth and who isn't?

Put aside those who 'earn" their wealth illegally. They are a class of people who don't get the protection of this analysis. But the POINT is that YOU said, " . . . I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because . . . ."

If you are AGAINST it, then what do you propose should be DONE about it?

Let me try to rephrase my original statement to clarify my views.

What I'm trying to get at - whether or not I clearly communicated it - was that I am against Crony Capitalism. I am against folks who get richer simply because they were able to bribe a congressperson to tweak a law in their favor. I don't think that's right, and I think we have an epidemic of it in America.

Does that help?

I have nothing against an individual becoming wildly rich because they sold a useful product or service to society, and the free market decided they were valuable. I have no problem with people who came from rich families, or married into wealth. I have no problem with people being successful. But when they cross the line and manipulate our government in a malicious way for the sole purpose of personal gain, that is when I get upset.

Seems like most would be against that sort of thing - right?

I wasn't trying to be obtuse. (Sometimes it comes naturally.)

I am opposed to CRONY Capitalism too. (It appears to me, sadly, that the national Chamber of Commerce is presently very PRO Crony Capitalism.)

I am just not clear on how opposition to crony capitalism addresses the larger issue of present day income inequality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not only did you hypocritically bathe me in your own emotions after criticizing me for sharing mine, you’re now denying it ever happened. Just stop while you’re ahead. I’ll move on if you do too.

Bathe? Look up the word "hyperbole", drama queen, and then quit sniveling at me.

The only thing you got right is that I AM ahead. SOOO funny to watch leftists being unable to say what they think they're saying. Since you've admitted that you lost, though, we'll move on.



No, that would require me to attribute something you didn't say to you. What I did was paraphrase exactly what you DID say. You may not LIKE the meaning of what you said, but that doesn't make it any less correct.



Yeah, amazingly enough, restating it isn't going to make it mean anything different than it did, or make my paraphrasing any less accurate, however much you hate that.

By the way, I never said you said a sense of unjustified entitlement was good. On the contrary, I very clearly said that what you had told me was that it was bad. I merely also pointed out that you're too simpleminded to realize that that's actually what you were saying.

Also, I never mentioned "morally justified" at all. I will say, however, that you do resemble modern journalists, in that your "reporting" bears a remarkable resemblance to trying to justify things.



Well, see, here's the thing. When one has common sense, and doesn't know why something happens, one does not run around making statements about why that thing happens, and about how it should be prevented. So why is it that you are in here blathering about how violence is a reason that income inequality is bad when you just now said you have no idea why they're violent? Which is it, Punkinhead? Are they violent because of the badness of income inequality, or not?

I said that income inequality could lead to civil war, and then went onto say that civil war is an undesirable state to be in (so I used Syria as an example). I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality, I simply was using that country as an example of why civil war might be undesirable for business, innovation, etc.

Make sense?

No. No, it doesn't. Look at your own ******* paragraph, and you might be able to see WHY it doesn't make sense.

"I said that income inequality could lead to civil war . . . so I used Syria as an example." Try and stay with me here, but using something as an example means that you CONSIDER IT TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. So if you're saying that income inequality is a bad thing because it can lead to civil war, and then you say, "Look at Syria", then you've just used Syria as an example of income inequality being a bad thing and leading to civil war.

With me so far?

Then you turn around and say, "I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality". THEN WHAT THE **** WERE YOU USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF?!

English is your mother tongue, isn't it? Learn to ******* use it.

Few quick things:

1.) I'm not a leftist. You have no reason to assume that.
2.) My argument is that a highly stratified society (with regards to wealth) has often proved - historically - to be an unstable one.
3.) Unstable societies (like Syria) generally do not attract new business, innovation, and thus can be considered a "bad" state to be in.

It's simple. And watch your lip, young lady.

Assume? I don't have to "assume" anything. I just have to read your posts and recognize the left-leaning bias. It's not exactly rocket magic.

Thank you for restating your absurdly simplistic arguments yet again in the incorrect assumption that I disagree with you because I just don't comprehend what you're saying, as opposed to comprehending it and STILL disagreeing. Please move on. No amount of repeating is going to make me go, "Oh, is THAT what you were saying? Gosh, that's brilliant." Give it up.

I'm thinking your description and perception of why Syria is a "bad" place to be is an overwhelming understatement. Just sayin'.

As to your last:

1) It's entirely possible that I'm older than you are.
2) Whether I am older than you or not, I have been an adult for more years of my life than not at this point, and live in a society where women are considered completely free citizens and equal to men.
3) I already had a father, thanks, and you are neither him, nor fit to clean his boots.
4) I also have a husband, and you are also not him. My ACTUAL husband would never dream of telling me what to say, or how to say it.
5) You are therefore qualified in absolutely no way, shape, or form to correct me or tell me what to do.
6) So take your condescending orders, shove them up your ass sideways, and twist.

 

[Brain357]

Bathe? Look up the word "hyperbole", drama queen, and then quit sniveling at me.

The only thing you got right is that I AM ahead. SOOO funny to watch leftists being unable to say what they think they're saying. Since you've admitted that you lost, though, we'll move on.



No, that would require me to attribute something you didn't say to you. What I did was paraphrase exactly what you DID say. You may not LIKE the meaning of what you said, but that doesn't make it any less correct.



Yeah, amazingly enough, restating it isn't going to make it mean anything different than it did, or make my paraphrasing any less accurate, however much you hate that.

By the way, I never said you said a sense of unjustified entitlement was good. On the contrary, I very clearly said that what you had told me was that it was bad. I merely also pointed out that you're too simpleminded to realize that that's actually what you were saying.

Also, I never mentioned "morally justified" at all. I will say, however, that you do resemble modern journalists, in that your "reporting" bears a remarkable resemblance to trying to justify things.



Well, see, here's the thing. When one has common sense, and doesn't know why something happens, one does not run around making statements about why that thing happens, and about how it should be prevented. So why is it that you are in here blathering about how violence is a reason that income inequality is bad when you just now said you have no idea why they're violent? Which is it, Punkinhead? Are they violent because of the badness of income inequality, or not?



No. No, it doesn't. Look at your own ******* paragraph, and you might be able to see WHY it doesn't make sense.

"I said that income inequality could lead to civil war . . . so I used Syria as an example." Try and stay with me here, but using something as an example means that you CONSIDER IT TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. So if you're saying that income inequality is a bad thing because it can lead to civil war, and then you say, "Look at Syria", then you've just used Syria as an example of income inequality being a bad thing and leading to civil war.

With me so far?

Then you turn around and say, "I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality". THEN WHAT THE **** WERE YOU USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF?!

English is your mother tongue, isn't it? Learn to ******* use it.

Few quick things:

1.) I'm not a leftist. You have no reason to assume that.
2.) My argument is that a highly stratified society (with regards to wealth) has often proved - historically - to be an unstable one.
3.) Unstable societies (like Syria) generally do not attract new business, innovation, and thus can be considered a "bad" state to be in.

It's simple. And watch your lip, young lady.

Assume? I don't have to "assume" anything. I just have to read your posts and recognize the left-leaning bias. It's not exactly rocket magic.

Thank you for restating your absurdly simplistic arguments yet again in the incorrect assumption that I disagree with you because I just don't comprehend what you're saying, as opposed to comprehending it and STILL disagreeing. Please move on. No amount of repeating is going to make me go, "Oh, is THAT what you were saying? Gosh, that's brilliant." Give it up.

I'm thinking your description and perception of why Syria is a "bad" place to be is an overwhelming understatement. Just sayin'.

As to your last:

1) It's entirely possible that I'm older than you are.
2) Whether I am older than you or not, I have been an adult for more years of my life than not at this point, and live in a society where women are considered completely free citizens and equal to men.
3) I already had a father, thanks, and you are neither him, nor fit to clean his boots.
4) I also have a husband, and you are also not him. My ACTUAL husband would never dream of telling me what to say, or how to say it.
5) You are therefore qualified in absolutely no way, shape, or form to correct me or tell me what to do.
6) So take your condescending orders, shove them up your ass sideways, and twist.

Nice to see you continue to completely avoid the topic and anything that comes close to an intelligent thought. Why don't you go back and debate us on some of the data we have posted? You continue to just post a lot of nothing. Is that because you have no real counter? Seems like all you have is extremely lame insults but nothing that adds to this conversation.

 

[Bombur]

the answer is no, I will not be saying anything that you consider worth reading.

You're applauding your ability to fraudulently cut and paste quotes to make them say something they didn't actually say? While this will admittedly help you get a job at any mainstream media outlet or managing Democrat political campaigns, human beings don't actually consider it a praiseworthy practice, pusbag.

Or were you applauding yourself for admitting the only debates you can win are the ones held in your own head against what you imagine you'd like people to say?

I quoted the only part that was true. This is called cutting through the BS.

 

[KevinWestern]

Bathe? Look up the word "hyperbole", drama queen, and then quit sniveling at me.

The only thing you got right is that I AM ahead. SOOO funny to watch leftists being unable to say what they think they're saying. Since you've admitted that you lost, though, we'll move on.



No, that would require me to attribute something you didn't say to you. What I did was paraphrase exactly what you DID say. You may not LIKE the meaning of what you said, but that doesn't make it any less correct.



Yeah, amazingly enough, restating it isn't going to make it mean anything different than it did, or make my paraphrasing any less accurate, however much you hate that.

By the way, I never said you said a sense of unjustified entitlement was good. On the contrary, I very clearly said that what you had told me was that it was bad. I merely also pointed out that you're too simpleminded to realize that that's actually what you were saying.

Also, I never mentioned "morally justified" at all. I will say, however, that you do resemble modern journalists, in that your "reporting" bears a remarkable resemblance to trying to justify things.



Well, see, here's the thing. When one has common sense, and doesn't know why something happens, one does not run around making statements about why that thing happens, and about how it should be prevented. So why is it that you are in here blathering about how violence is a reason that income inequality is bad when you just now said you have no idea why they're violent? Which is it, Punkinhead? Are they violent because of the badness of income inequality, or not?



No. No, it doesn't. Look at your own ******* paragraph, and you might be able to see WHY it doesn't make sense.

"I said that income inequality could lead to civil war . . . so I used Syria as an example." Try and stay with me here, but using something as an example means that you CONSIDER IT TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. So if you're saying that income inequality is a bad thing because it can lead to civil war, and then you say, "Look at Syria", then you've just used Syria as an example of income inequality being a bad thing and leading to civil war.

With me so far?

Then you turn around and say, "I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality". THEN WHAT THE **** WERE YOU USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF?!

English is your mother tongue, isn't it? Learn to ******* use it.

Few quick things:

1.) I'm not a leftist. You have no reason to assume that.
2.) My argument is that a highly stratified society (with regards to wealth) has often proved - historically - to be an unstable one.
3.) Unstable societies (like Syria) generally do not attract new business, innovation, and thus can be considered a "bad" state to be in.

It's simple. And watch your lip, young lady.

Assume? I don't have to "assume" anything. I just have to read your posts and recognize the left-leaning bias. It's not exactly rocket magic.

Thank you for restating your absurdly simplistic arguments yet again in the incorrect assumption that I disagree with you because I just don't comprehend what you're saying, as opposed to comprehending it and STILL disagreeing. Please move on. No amount of repeating is going to make me go, "Oh, is THAT what you were saying? Gosh, that's brilliant." Give it up.

I'm thinking your description and perception of why Syria is a "bad" place to be is an overwhelming understatement. Just sayin'.

As to your last:

1) It's entirely possible that I'm older than you are.
2) Whether I am older than you or not, I have been an adult for more years of my life than not at this point, and live in a society where women are considered completely free citizens and equal to men.
3) I already had a father, thanks, and you are neither him, nor fit to clean his boots.
4) I also have a husband, and you are also not him. My ACTUAL husband would never dream of telling me what to say, or how to say it.
5) You are therefore qualified in absolutely no way, shape, or form to correct me or tell me what to do.
6) So take your condescending orders, shove them up your ass sideways, and twist.

Wow, you really seemed to take that playful comment about crass language to heart. Six points/responses on it? I was just joking around.

Do you disagree with my statement that vast wealth disparities between rich/poor can lead to an unstable society? How about we try to have an adult conversation here, lady.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Few quick things:

1.) I'm not a leftist. You have no reason to assume that.
2.) My argument is that a highly stratified society (with regards to wealth) has often proved - historically - to be an unstable one.
3.) Unstable societies (like Syria) generally do not attract new business, innovation, and thus can be considered a "bad" state to be in.

It's simple. And watch your lip, young lady.

Assume? I don't have to "assume" anything. I just have to read your posts and recognize the left-leaning bias. It's not exactly rocket magic.

Thank you for restating your absurdly simplistic arguments yet again in the incorrect assumption that I disagree with you because I just don't comprehend what you're saying, as opposed to comprehending it and STILL disagreeing. Please move on. No amount of repeating is going to make me go, "Oh, is THAT what you were saying? Gosh, that's brilliant." Give it up.

I'm thinking your description and perception of why Syria is a "bad" place to be is an overwhelming understatement. Just sayin'.

As to your last:

1) It's entirely possible that I'm older than you are.
2) Whether I am older than you or not, I have been an adult for more years of my life than not at this point, and live in a society where women are considered completely free citizens and equal to men.
3) I already had a father, thanks, and you are neither him, nor fit to clean his boots.
4) I also have a husband, and you are also not him. My ACTUAL husband would never dream of telling me what to say, or how to say it.
5) You are therefore qualified in absolutely no way, shape, or form to correct me or tell me what to do.
6) So take your condescending orders, shove them up your ass sideways, and twist.

Wow, you really seemed to take that playful comment about crass language to heart. Six points/responses on it? I was just joking around.

Do you disagree with my statement that vast wealth disparities between rich/poor can lead to an unstable society? How about we try to have an adult conversation here, lady.

Wow, you really seem to think condescending to women is okay and "playful". Typical leftist.

And then you compound the insult by thinking you can airily dismiss your misogyny with "just a joke", skip over the entire preceding discussion like it didn't happen, and redefine the parameters of the debate to suit your simplistic talking point, and I'll happily follow along.

I realize you've been taught that "respecting women" just requires you to mouth the phrase "I respect the right to choose!" to the dumb twats every so often, but conservative women don't play that way. We have actual, three-digit IQs, and we expect to have them addressed. So far, you have sadly fallen short.

If you want me to agree with you about something, Chuckles, I'd suggest you start making a cogent, persuasive argument to convince me to do so.

 

[KevinWestern]

Assume? I don't have to "assume" anything. I just have to read your posts and recognize the left-leaning bias. It's not exactly rocket magic.

Thank you for restating your absurdly simplistic arguments yet again in the incorrect assumption that I disagree with you because I just don't comprehend what you're saying, as opposed to comprehending it and STILL disagreeing. Please move on. No amount of repeating is going to make me go, "Oh, is THAT what you were saying? Gosh, that's brilliant." Give it up.

I'm thinking your description and perception of why Syria is a "bad" place to be is an overwhelming understatement. Just sayin'.

As to your last:

1) It's entirely possible that I'm older than you are.
2) Whether I am older than you or not, I have been an adult for more years of my life than not at this point, and live in a society where women are considered completely free citizens and equal to men.
3) I already had a father, thanks, and you are neither him, nor fit to clean his boots.
4) I also have a husband, and you are also not him. My ACTUAL husband would never dream of telling me what to say, or how to say it.
5) You are therefore qualified in absolutely no way, shape, or form to correct me or tell me what to do.
6) So take your condescending orders, shove them up your ass sideways, and twist.

Wow, you really seemed to take that playful comment about crass language to heart. Six points/responses on it? I was just joking around.

Do you disagree with my statement that vast wealth disparities between rich/poor can lead to an unstable society? How about we try to have an adult conversation here, lady.

Wow, you really seem to think condescending to women is okay and "playful". Typical leftist.

And then you compound the insult by thinking you can airily dismiss your misogyny with "just a joke", skip over the entire preceding discussion like it didn't happen, and redefine the parameters of the debate to suit your simplistic talking point, and I'll happily follow along.

I realize you've been taught that "respecting women" just requires you to mouth the phrase "I respect the right to choose!" to the dumb twats every so often, but conservative women don't play that way. We have actual, three-digit IQs, and we expect to have them addressed. So far, you have sadly fallen short.

If you want me to agree with you about something, Chuckles, I'd suggest you start making a cogent, persuasive argument to convince me to do so.

My goodness, Cecile. Apparently you can dish out all the rude, crass language you want at me but when (God forbid) someone dares to call you "a lady" - of all wicked and horrible things - lol, it's grounds to reciprocate by calling them a "misogynist leftist". Grow up.

For the record, it wasn't my intention to make fun of the fact you are a woman, it was to jokingly treat you like a child because you were seemingly unable to hold an adult conversation with me. Every comment of mine was met with a defensive, rude response. It was like I was talking to a 14 year old. Again, grow up.

I have absolutely no reason to carry on this conversation with you. I provided my point of view about three times now, and you failed to respond with anything constructive to the conversation.

 

[KevinWestern]

Assume? I don't have to "assume" anything. I just have to read your posts and recognize the left-leaning bias. It's not exactly rocket magic.

Thank you for restating your absurdly simplistic arguments yet again in the incorrect assumption that I disagree with you because I just don't comprehend what you're saying, as opposed to comprehending it and STILL disagreeing. Please move on. No amount of repeating is going to make me go, "Oh, is THAT what you were saying? Gosh, that's brilliant." Give it up.

I'm thinking your description and perception of why Syria is a "bad" place to be is an overwhelming understatement. Just sayin'.

As to your last:

1) It's entirely possible that I'm older than you are.
2) Whether I am older than you or not, I have been an adult for more years of my life than not at this point, and live in a society where women are considered completely free citizens and equal to men.
3) I already had a father, thanks, and you are neither him, nor fit to clean his boots.
4) I also have a husband, and you are also not him. My ACTUAL husband would never dream of telling me what to say, or how to say it.
5) You are therefore qualified in absolutely no way, shape, or form to correct me or tell me what to do.
6) So take your condescending orders, shove them up your ass sideways, and twist.

Wow, you really seemed to take that playful comment about crass language to heart. Six points/responses on it? I was just joking around.

Do you disagree with my statement that vast wealth disparities between rich/poor can lead to an unstable society? How about we try to have an adult conversation here, lady.

Wow, you really seem to think condescending to women is okay and "playful". Typical leftist.

And then you compound the insult by thinking you can airily dismiss your misogyny with "just a joke", skip over the entire preceding discussion like it didn't happen, and redefine the parameters of the debate to suit your simplistic talking point, and I'll happily follow along.

I realize you've been taught that "respecting women" just requires you to mouth the phrase "I respect the right to choose!" to the dumb twats every so often, but conservative women don't play that way. We have actual, three-digit IQs, and we expect to have them addressed. So far, you have sadly fallen short.

If you want me to agree with you about something, Chuckles, I'd suggest you start making a cogent, persuasive argument to convince me to do so.

[MENTION=14617]Cecilie1200[/MENTION] - wanted to share this with you:

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553018/alesina_incomedistribution.pdf?sequence=2

It's a Harvard Study conducted by their dept. of Economics that concludes (after analyzing a pool of data from over 70 countries, over a 25 year timeline) that the greater the income inequality is in a particular region, the more unstable (socially) that region becomes, which results in less investment and (ultimately) less growth of the economy.

This backs up the claims I was making earlier. You wanted to know why "income inequality is bad", and the answer is because it apparently will reduce investment in a region and ultimate stunt the growth of the local economy (according to this study by a very reputable institution).



.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow, you really seemed to take that playful comment about crass language to heart. Six points/responses on it? I was just joking around.

Do you disagree with my statement that vast wealth disparities between rich/poor can lead to an unstable society? How about we try to have an adult conversation here, lady.

Wow, you really seem to think condescending to women is okay and "playful". Typical leftist.

And then you compound the insult by thinking you can airily dismiss your misogyny with "just a joke", skip over the entire preceding discussion like it didn't happen, and redefine the parameters of the debate to suit your simplistic talking point, and I'll happily follow along.

I realize you've been taught that "respecting women" just requires you to mouth the phrase "I respect the right to choose!" to the dumb twats every so often, but conservative women don't play that way. We have actual, three-digit IQs, and we expect to have them addressed. So far, you have sadly fallen short.

If you want me to agree with you about something, Chuckles, I'd suggest you start making a cogent, persuasive argument to convince me to do so.

My goodness, Cecile. Apparently you can dish out all the rude, crass language you want at me but when (God forbid) someone dares to call you "a lady" - of all wicked and horrible things - lol, it's grounds to reciprocate by calling them a "misogynist leftist". Grow up.

No, asshole, you didn't "call me a lady"; you condescended to TELL me what YOU think a lady should be, and demand that I meet your standards. And you're still doing it. "Grow up" = you aren't what I think you should be; get back in your place.

Truth is, Chuckles, that I don't post any different from most of the males on this board, and a damned sight better than many of them. But you find it offensive coming from me, because I'm a female, and you can't handle strong, independent, intelligent women who aren't on the plantation. God only knows what sort of paternalistic crap you'd be handing me if I was a BLACK female.

For the record, it wasn't my intention to make fun of the fact you are a woman, it was to jokingly treat you like a child because you were seemingly unable to hold an adult conversation with me. Every comment of mine was met with a defensive, rude response. It was like I was talking to a 14 year old. Again, grow up.

Oh, I'm quite sure you didn't realize what you were doing, because you were just mindlessly parroting what you've been taught to think and believe about women. I'd be highly surprised if you've had much contact in your life with conservative females outside of TV stereotypes.

Furthermore, Spanky, getting your panties in a twist because someone uses bad language isn't "adult"; it's kindergarten. There's a reason they call it "adult language". If you're too delicate to see past the naughty words to the context of the post or to handle being challenged instead of applauded for your every breath, Princess, might I suggest that political debate is not the right forum for you? I hear there are some nice Justin Bieber message boards out there.

I have absolutely no reason to carry on this conversation with you. I provided my point of view about three times now, and you failed to respond with anything constructive to the conversation.

How would you know WHAT I responded with? You were so caught on being outraged and compelled to try to control me and order me around, you didn't even notice the entire rest of the post. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming you aren't actually just using your offended sensibilities as a dodge to keep from having to address the meat of what I've said.

I stand by what I've said: you're a misogynist who's determined not to even recognize how offensive his attitude toward women who dare to step outside his narrow box really is.

I'll believe otherwise when I see you taking after a man for being "ungentlemanly", you hypocrite.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow, you really seemed to take that playful comment about crass language to heart. Six points/responses on it? I was just joking around.

Do you disagree with my statement that vast wealth disparities between rich/poor can lead to an unstable society? How about we try to have an adult conversation here, lady.

Wow, you really seem to think condescending to women is okay and "playful". Typical leftist.

And then you compound the insult by thinking you can airily dismiss your misogyny with "just a joke", skip over the entire preceding discussion like it didn't happen, and redefine the parameters of the debate to suit your simplistic talking point, and I'll happily follow along.

I realize you've been taught that "respecting women" just requires you to mouth the phrase "I respect the right to choose!" to the dumb twats every so often, but conservative women don't play that way. We have actual, three-digit IQs, and we expect to have them addressed. So far, you have sadly fallen short.

If you want me to agree with you about something, Chuckles, I'd suggest you start making a cogent, persuasive argument to convince me to do so.

[MENTION=14617]Cecilie1200[/MENTION] - wanted to share this with you:

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553018/alesina_incomedistribution.pdf?sequence=2

It's a Harvard Study conducted by their dept. of Economics that concludes (after analyzing a pool of data from over 70 countries, over a 25 year timeline) that the greater the income inequality is in a particular region, the more unstable (socially) that region becomes, which results in less investment and (ultimately) less growth of the economy.

This backs up the claims I was making earlier. You wanted to know why "income inequality is bad", and the answer is because it apparently will reduce investment in a region and ultimate stunt the growth of the local economy (according to this study by a very reputable institution).



.

Learn this phrase, dimwit: Correlation does not equal causation.

Your little study backs up nothing. It says that the two things sometimes happen in the same place. This doesn't prove that one is necessarily the cause of the other. If that was all it took, you'd have to admit that Obama being President in the United States is the cause of the lousy economy, and you certainly not going to do THAT, are you?

By the way, you should really "grow up" and learn not to be so impressed by fancy names and titles. Ooh, HARVARD authored the study. Yeah, and Harvard also awarded a degree to George W. Bush, but I'm betting you aren't nearly as awestruck by THAT, are you?

 

[Bombur]

wow, you really seem to think condescending to women is okay and "playful". Typical leftist.

And then you compound the insult by thinking you can airily dismiss your misogyny with "just a joke", skip over the entire preceding discussion like it didn't happen, and redefine the parameters of the debate to suit your simplistic talking point, and i'll happily follow along.

I realize you've been taught that "respecting women" just requires you to mouth the phrase "i respect the right to choose!" to the dumb twats every so often, but conservative women don't play that way. We have actual, three-digit iqs, and we expect to have them addressed. So far, you have sadly fallen short.

If you want me to agree with you about something, chuckles, i'd suggest you start making a cogent, persuasive argument to convince me to do so.

[mention=14617]cecilie1200[/mention] - wanted to share this with you:

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553018/alesina_incomedistribution.pdf?sequence=2

it's a harvard study conducted by their dept. Of economics that concludes (after analyzing a pool of data from over 70 countries, over a 25 year timeline) that the greater the income inequality is in a particular region, the more unstable (socially) that region becomes, which results in less investment and (ultimately) less growth of the economy.

This backs up the claims i was making earlier. You wanted to know why "income inequality is bad", and the answer is because it apparently will reduce investment in a region and ultimate stunt the growth of the local economy (according to this study by a very reputable institution).



.

learn this phrase, dimwit: Correlation does not equal causation.

Your little study backs up nothing. It says that the two things sometimes happen in the same place. This doesn't prove that one is necessarily the cause of the other. If that was all it took, you'd have to admit that obama being president in the united states is the cause of the lousy economy, and you certainly not going to do that, are you?

By the way, you should really "grow up" and learn not to be so impressed by fancy names and titles. Ooh, harvard authored the study. Yeah, and harvard also awarded a degree to george w. Bush, but i'm betting you aren't nearly as awestruck by that, are you?

lol

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not only did you hypocritically bathe me in your own emotions after criticizing me for sharing mine, you’re now denying it ever happened. Just stop while you’re ahead. I’ll move on if you do too.

Bathe? Look up the word "hyperbole", drama queen, and then quit sniveling at me.

The only thing you got right is that I AM ahead. SOOO funny to watch leftists being unable to say what they think they're saying. Since you've admitted that you lost, though, we'll move on.



No, that would require me to attribute something you didn't say to you. What I did was paraphrase exactly what you DID say. You may not LIKE the meaning of what you said, but that doesn't make it any less correct.



Yeah, amazingly enough, restating it isn't going to make it mean anything different than it did, or make my paraphrasing any less accurate, however much you hate that.

By the way, I never said you said a sense of unjustified entitlement was good. On the contrary, I very clearly said that what you had told me was that it was bad. I merely also pointed out that you're too simpleminded to realize that that's actually what you were saying.

Also, I never mentioned "morally justified" at all. I will say, however, that you do resemble modern journalists, in that your "reporting" bears a remarkable resemblance to trying to justify things.



Well, see, here's the thing. When one has common sense, and doesn't know why something happens, one does not run around making statements about why that thing happens, and about how it should be prevented. So why is it that you are in here blathering about how violence is a reason that income inequality is bad when you just now said you have no idea why they're violent? Which is it, Punkinhead? Are they violent because of the badness of income inequality, or not?

I said that income inequality could lead to civil war, and then went onto say that civil war is an undesirable state to be in (so I used Syria as an example). I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality, I simply was using that country as an example of why civil war might be undesirable for business, innovation, etc.

Make sense?

No. No, it doesn't. Look at your own ******* paragraph, and you might be able to see WHY it doesn't make sense.

"I said that income inequality could lead to civil war . . . so I used Syria as an example." Try and stay with me here, but using something as an example means that you CONSIDER IT TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. So if you're saying that income inequality is a bad thing because it can lead to civil war, and then you say, "Look at Syria", then you've just used Syria as an example of income inequality being a bad thing and leading to civil war.

With me so far?

Then you turn around and say, "I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality". THEN WHAT THE **** WERE YOU USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF?!

English is your mother tongue, isn't it? Learn to ******* use it.

Few quick things:

1.) I'm not a leftist. You have no reason to assume that.
2.) My argument is that a highly stratified society (with regards to wealth) has often proved - historically - to be an unstable one.
3.) Unstable societies (like Syria) generally do not attract new business, innovation, and thus can be considered a "bad" state to be in.

It's simple. And watch your lip, young lady.

Cecilie wasn't the only one who saw this invariable link you made between Syria and income inequality, Kevin.

Answer me these questions:

How do wealthy people contribute to societal instability? You are making these wild links and correlations between two entirely disparate scenarios. America for now is the richest country on the planet, and so far we are the most stable society in the world.

You use a false correlation fallacy to make your argument, cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because there are wealthy people in an unstable society, does not mean that wealthy people elsewhere will contribute to destabilizing another. That is an utterly preposterous claim, Kevin.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[mention=14617]cecilie1200[/mention] - wanted to share this with you:

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553018/alesina_incomedistribution.pdf?sequence=2

it's a harvard study conducted by their dept. Of economics that concludes (after analyzing a pool of data from over 70 countries, over a 25 year timeline) that the greater the income inequality is in a particular region, the more unstable (socially) that region becomes, which results in less investment and (ultimately) less growth of the economy.

This backs up the claims i was making earlier. You wanted to know why "income inequality is bad", and the answer is because it apparently will reduce investment in a region and ultimate stunt the growth of the local economy (according to this study by a very reputable institution).



.

learn this phrase, dimwit: Correlation does not equal causation.

Your little study backs up nothing. It says that the two things sometimes happen in the same place. This doesn't prove that one is necessarily the cause of the other. If that was all it took, you'd have to admit that obama being president in the united states is the cause of the lousy economy, and you certainly not going to do that, are you?

By the way, you should really "grow up" and learn not to be so impressed by fancy names and titles. Ooh, harvard authored the study. Yeah, and harvard also awarded a degree to george w. Bush, but i'm betting you aren't nearly as awestruck by that, are you?

lol

Brilliant riposte. You have cut me to the quick with your incisive, rapier wit.

 

[KevinWestern]

Bathe? Look up the word "hyperbole", drama queen, and then quit sniveling at me.

The only thing you got right is that I AM ahead. SOOO funny to watch leftists being unable to say what they think they're saying. Since you've admitted that you lost, though, we'll move on.



No, that would require me to attribute something you didn't say to you. What I did was paraphrase exactly what you DID say. You may not LIKE the meaning of what you said, but that doesn't make it any less correct.



Yeah, amazingly enough, restating it isn't going to make it mean anything different than it did, or make my paraphrasing any less accurate, however much you hate that.

By the way, I never said you said a sense of unjustified entitlement was good. On the contrary, I very clearly said that what you had told me was that it was bad. I merely also pointed out that you're too simpleminded to realize that that's actually what you were saying.

Also, I never mentioned "morally justified" at all. I will say, however, that you do resemble modern journalists, in that your "reporting" bears a remarkable resemblance to trying to justify things.



Well, see, here's the thing. When one has common sense, and doesn't know why something happens, one does not run around making statements about why that thing happens, and about how it should be prevented. So why is it that you are in here blathering about how violence is a reason that income inequality is bad when you just now said you have no idea why they're violent? Which is it, Punkinhead? Are they violent because of the badness of income inequality, or not?



No. No, it doesn't. Look at your own ******* paragraph, and you might be able to see WHY it doesn't make sense.

"I said that income inequality could lead to civil war . . . so I used Syria as an example." Try and stay with me here, but using something as an example means that you CONSIDER IT TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. So if you're saying that income inequality is a bad thing because it can lead to civil war, and then you say, "Look at Syria", then you've just used Syria as an example of income inequality being a bad thing and leading to civil war.

With me so far?

Then you turn around and say, "I never once claimed that Syria was in a war BECAUSE of income inequality". THEN WHAT THE **** WERE YOU USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF?!

English is your mother tongue, isn't it? Learn to ******* use it.

Few quick things:

1.) I'm not a leftist. You have no reason to assume that.
2.) My argument is that a highly stratified society (with regards to wealth) has often proved - historically - to be an unstable one.
3.) Unstable societies (like Syria) generally do not attract new business, innovation, and thus can be considered a "bad" state to be in.

It's simple. And watch your lip, young lady.

Cecilie wasn't the only one who saw this invariable link you made between Syria and income inequality, Kevin.

Answer me these questions:

How do wealthy people contribute to societal instability? You are making these wild links and correlations between two entirely disparate scenarios. America for now is the richest country on the planet, and so far we are the most stable society in the world.

You use a false correlation fallacy to make your argument, cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because there are wealthy people in an unstable society, does not mean that wealthy people elsewhere will contribute to destabilizing another. That is an utterly preposterous claim, Kevin.

Templar - I never claimed Syria was destable BECAUSE of wealth inequality. I was using Syria as an example because it is a well known WAR TORN country. I claimed that wealth inequality can lead to revolution (ie civil war), creating an environment similar to the one in Syria currently. I've said this over, and over, and over again. With that said...

Wealth inequality, when it becomes extreme/well known within a society, will create instability, which will in turn hurt investment and ultimately economic growth. This is a common sense assumption. A society of 5 where 4 people have $2 each and the 5th has $4 will likely be more stable than a society of 5 where 4 people have $2 each and the 5th has $1,000.

Humans are jealous - by nature - and the 4 people will (at some point) likely conspire and force the 5th to share some of the wealth. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just ******* saying THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS, lol. If you were on an island with 10 people, and you all knew that 1 was hoarding 90% of the food, wouldn't eventually (out of desperation) you go and force that person to share? I don't care if that one person earned the food validly; when people get hungry, they will revolt REGARDLESS. This is a fact.

On top of all this, I provided a reputable Harvard Study that validates my claim. Do you have a study, etc, that shows otherwise? I'd love to see it (really). I'm open for a debate. But you simply expressing your opinion and not backing that opinion with any research or statistics whatsoever is not going to get you very far.

 

[Bombur]

learn this phrase, dimwit: Correlation does not equal causation.

Your little study backs up nothing. It says that the two things sometimes happen in the same place. This doesn't prove that one is necessarily the cause of the other. If that was all it took, you'd have to admit that obama being president in the united states is the cause of the lousy economy, and you certainly not going to do that, are you?

By the way, you should really "grow up" and learn not to be so impressed by fancy names and titles. Ooh, harvard authored the study. Yeah, and harvard also awarded a degree to george w. Bush, but i'm betting you aren't nearly as awestruck by that, are you?

lol

Brilliant riposte. You have cut me to the quick with your incisive, rapier wit.

Please keep posts like the one above coming. Your particular brand of trolling is amusing to me.