Republicans: I WARNED YOU.

Stonewall · Jan 18, 2013

Who is this "we" I keep 'hearing' about?

And I wouldn't go as far as calling likely hood ineptitude, you merely slaughtered the english language, I do it all the time.

I, Sir......am questioning the premise of the thread. It was opened with what I thought was error, I merely pointed out my 180 of the thread start's opinion......meaning it's you who just blew your own rule up by not considering that an invitation to discussion.

Now.....again. I spoke with many examples. Henry Ford was mentioned. Our Founders were mentioned. Innovation from the internal combustion engine to todays smart phone aren't bottom up processes. The industrial revolution was driven by industrious men not the masses who became labor for these industries and thus thrived as well. Wealth in this nation has historically and to this present day stacked into the top tiny percentile, the massive corporations......let's merely take one. Walmart.

Is Walmart a bottom up retail business? Doesn't the original founding family still own the monstrosity that is Walmart?

Exxon Mobil. The Dutch Shell corporation. Britian's BP. France's Total.......bottom driving to the top? Please.

tecoyah · Jan 18, 2013

While I will admit my use of a separation between the words Likely...and hood are an incorrect use of English, I would also like to suggest my reply had nothing to do with the OP but was instead directed at your more current tangent concerning the trickle down discussion.

I suggested something other than this based on the 180 yrs. prior to the introduction of this theory due to the historical record and data suggesting otherwise. My use of "Likely hood" rather than "Likelihood" seems a rather petty attempt to belittle, much as my own debasement of your inability to spell the word we use to define the concept in the first place.

I would prefer we do not soil this forum with such things.

Grog · Jan 19, 2013

Protectionist said:
Allowing you to keep MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more

So the government "allows" the citizenry to keep their money? Interesting.

David · Jan 19, 2013

Stonewall said:
Most people in "history" are dead, that is correct and why would a leftist be upset about Karl Marx?

Quick exit in the Iraq thread, you're much better at addressing members, content it seems, ain't your bag.

Oh well.

I can address content, you just need to provide some. Calling people names (and actual names, not even derogatory terms :giggle

isn't content, it's trolling and I'm calling you on it.

misterveritis · Jan 20, 2013

Thief decides how much his victim can keep

Protectionist said:
Allowing you to keep MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more than the average citizen makes, is some kind of special favor or benefit. Absolutely. ANd one which is damaging to the whole society,

For the economic benefit of a society it is always better to have large amounts of money going to the bottom rungs of the class structure than to the top. At the bottom, people who have nothing, go to the stores (AKA the economy) to buy the things they don't have. At the top, the rich who already have all these things, don't go to the stores to buy what they already have.

Making it even worse, when the rich DO go out spending their money, they do a very large percentage of it OUTSIDE THE US (mostly Europe and the Caribbean), taking $$$ out of the US economy (similar to the destructive remittances$$$ of immigrants) (whereas the poorer people spend their money in their own local communities, helping the US and their local communities)

Eventually the Marxists reveal themselves. What is a reasonable amount to steal from someone, in your opinion?
I despise thieves. You are a thief.

misterveritis · Jan 20, 2013

Peas in a pod

Protectionist said:
It's not only possible that I don't believe you should be able to decide (entirely) for yourself...all without government intervention, it's a FACT that I most certainly don't believe that. Without government intervention (from regulatory agencies) we wouldn't have to worry about crazed gunmen killing people in schools and movie theaters. We'd have people dying like flies from bad food, unsafe cars, flammable clothing, dangerous pharmaceuticals, unsafe construction materials and methods, etc.

This tells me I am right. You are a Marxist and happy to be one. You probably believe you are smarter than everyone else and should decide for all of us how we ought to live our lives. Tyrants are tyrants. Thieves are thieves. Marxists are Marxists.

You and what's his name in the White House are just two peas in the same pod.

misterveritis · Jan 20, 2013

David said:
You know, naming dead people isn't much of an insult... You really suck at trolling.

I think he nailed Protectionist quite nicely.

From each...to each.

Stonewall · Jan 21, 2013

tecoyah said:
While I will admit my use of a separation between the words Likely...and hood are an incorrect use of English, I would also like to suggest my reply had nothing to do with the OP but was instead directed at your more current tangent concerning the trickle down discussion.

I suggested something other than this based on the 180 yrs. prior to the introduction of this theory due to the historical record and data suggesting otherwise. My use of "Likely hood" rather than "Likelihood" seems a rather petty attempt to belittle, much as my own debasement of your inability to spell the word we use to define the concept in the first place.

I would prefer we do not soil this forum with such things.

I sure Likely's brother Robin agrees, we move on.

Stonewall · Jan 21, 2013

Grog said:
So the government "allows" the citizenry to keep their money? Interesting.

Was exactly my point and why I took issue with the thread start. This is America....how would one who believes government 'allows' We the People to keep our own money understand trickle down realities? Protectionist clearly believes government doesn't derive it's powers from the consent of the governed, in fact his thread start is the exact 180.

Marxist doctrine at its' core.

Stonewall · Jan 21, 2013

David said:
I can address content, you just need to provide some. Calling people names (and actual names, not even derogatory terms :giggle isn't content, it's trolling and I'm calling you on it.

No, I disagree. I tried content in the Iraq forum and you haven't been back yet. And with all due respect, I must take words aimed at me that come from you with a large dose of salt, wasn't it you telling me Iraq was irrelevant to al-Qaeda?

Yes, I think it was.

Please address content, don't hate the player, hate the game you appear to not be very good at.

David · Jan 21, 2013

Stonewall said:
No, I disagree. I tried content in the Iraq forum and you haven't been back yet. And with all due respect, I must take words aimed at me that come from you with a large dose of salt, wasn't it you telling me Iraq was irrelevant to al-Qaeda?

Yes, I think it was.

Please address content, don't hate the player, hate the game you appear to not be very good at.

Your right I haven't posted in a dead thread recently.

Stonewall · Jan 21, 2013

David said:
Your right I haven't posted in a dead thread recently.

You did post a couple of times Iraq was irrelevant to al-Qaeda...and when I proved you obviously dead wrong, you had the presence of mind to realize I was probably the better informed member on that particular thread.

Kudos to you, Sir.

Stonewall · Jan 21, 2013

David said:
Your right I haven't posted in a dead thread recently.

And while this won't be enjoyed, I'm a tad taken aback at the grammar here.

If I'm right, David, your statement should read, you're right....not your right."

tecoyah · Jan 21, 2013

Stonewall said:
And while this won't be enjoyed, I'm a tad taken aback at the grammar here.

If I'm right, David, your statement should read, you're right....not your right."

As a general rule, I have found much of your commentary lacking. This however

Please address content, don't hate the player, hate the game you appear to not be very good at.

....seems pertinent.

Stonewall · Jan 22, 2013

tecoyah said:
As a general rule, I have found much of your commentary lacking. This however ....seems pertinent.

Thanks.....I reckon.

Stonewall · Jan 22, 2013

Microsoft Corp. and its industry have a major impact on economies around the world, and it wants policymakers to be fully aware of that fact.
For good reasons, the company says. Perhaps not entirely, Microsoft's critics respond.
The company Thursday will release the results of a new IDC study, funded by Microsoft, estimating that $514 billion in annual taxes are generated by it and its "ecosystem" -- including industry partners and technology workers around the world that focus on its products and services.
That Microsoft ecosystem is responsible for 14.7 million jobs, or 42 percent of the positions in the worldwide information technology industry, the study says.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Microsoft-touts-own-economic-impact-1252858.php#ixzz2IkG7SZ3q

Not to bring facts into the conversation or nothin but.......is this trickle down economic reality or some theory that can be denegraded?

I think it's clear as day trickle down economics is our nation's economy...in fact it's the global economy in many respects.

Republicans: I WARNED YOU.

Similar threads