Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The future of the GOP
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe future of the GOP

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 12>
Author
Message
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 21:06
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Evidently, we have a few participants here who think that most poor people can manage businesses, real estate, and investments.

I bet the posters can't even do that. 


I know I can't, and I have a master's degree.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 21:09
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Evidently, we have a few participants here who think that most poor people can manage businesses, real estate, and investments.

I bet the posters can't even do that. 


I know I can't, and I have a master's degree.


I've fed a family of four on $21 a week and no welfare, but I don't think I can manage real estate and deal with governmental regulations regarding employment and so forth,
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 21:33
^Bull.......21 divided by 7=3 dollars a day for 4 people = 75 cents a day per person
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 21:34
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

^Bull.......21 divided by 7=3 dollars a day for 4 people = 75 cents a day per person


Isn't Wal-Mart a wonderful thing?
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 21:36
^bull

Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 21:37
Last time I was in Wal-Mart (admittedly a few years ago) they had big boxes of macaroni and cheese for 30 cents each. It doesn't seem far fetched to me.
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 21:48
wealth...........that which satisfies human needs and wants of utility..........so they managed their wealth very good evidently
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 22:00
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

^Bull.......21 divided by 7=3 dollars a day for 4 people = 75 cents a day per person


No, that's a fair challenge

$21.

We would buy cabbage.
Pasta (cheap and filling).
Grits (lasted the month).
Flour (I made cakes with flour and water).
Beans
Rice
Eggs
Cheese

All of this was around $15.

That left money for things like squash or eggplant.
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 22:07
So you managed your wealth but it looks weak on nutrition.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 22:08
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 22:09
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

So you managed your wealth but it looks weak on nutrition.


We were healthy and are healthy now.
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 22:12
Well i won't derail the thread on nutrition arguments back to those pesky Republicrats.
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 22:15
I don't believe in nutrition. I've never eaten nutritious and I'm the healthiest person I know.
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 22:17
Good for you^
Back to Top
Smurph View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 11 2012
Location: Columbus&NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 3167
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 22:19
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

So you managed your wealth but it looks weak on nutrition.
We were healthy and are healthy now.


You look deathly thin in that robe
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 22:21
^lol
Back to Top
Gamemako View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1184
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 22:39
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I never said "Wealthy people are better money-managers than the poor."


You're absolutely right. You didn't. You say they cannot manage money, which is demonstrably false. They aren't permitted to do so, but they can do it. If you take it as "they cannot do so well", which was implied, then there has to be a yardstick by which "well" is measured. The only sensible counterpart is the wealthy. This is not complicated.

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I said managing wealth is a skill like any other, and that most poor people do not have that skill and never will (because the poor are subset of our population and that most people do not have that skill and never will).


No, you said nothing about that. You're adopting Dean's justification as your own. You said that:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Even if you took half of what all rich people had and gave it to the poor, you would have the same rich-poor dichotomy in perhaps fewer than two years.  Most poor people cannot manage money and never will.  They will spend what they get on goods and services, and their spending will benefit businessmen and their investors.  In a short period of time, they will be poor again.


No mention of practice or skill development.
In fact, "never will" very specifically says it's not a skill but an innate trait.

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I also believe I said "managing wealth" which is not the same as managing "money."

Clearly, managing language and recognizing what other people actually say is an important skill some people lack... Ermm


You actually said money in the original comment, as I quoted above. Perhaps you should go back and read it. It's absolutely f**king stupid that I have to be pointing out to you what you actually said when you could have avoided this by clicking one button before you spout off. Angry


Edited by Gamemako - November 08 2012 at 22:41
Hail Eris!
Back to Top
Failcore View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2012 at 22:46
The point is equal opportunity. Enforced equality is fugtarded and always leads to Voivod's debut. But equal opportunity/access or to go all TJ on you guys, the pursuit of happiness, is an inalienable right. And if you think a kid born on the streets of Harlem has the same chance as a Ivy League banker's son, you've deluded yourself there quite muchly. But just because of that, that doesn't mean we should punish other people for his misfortune, neither should we employ reverse bigotry. The solution is more complicated and iterative than that and requires a whole lot of trial and error and a lot less of quoting party lines, rhetoric, manifestos, etc. Because as much as you try to shove reality into the box of someones pretty little ideal, it's not going to fit.

Just to be clear this rant is not directed at anyone other than the Republican and Democratic leadership, whose heads are so far up their asses that they recursively breathe.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 09 2012 at 02:22
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


Dean answered for me.


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Q: How do you get good at anything?
A: Practice.
 
Of course poor people can't manage something they've never had because they've never had any wealth to practice the art of managing it with. What they can manage is the megre amount of money they do have, but by no stretch can you call that wealth. Of course they'll spend any little surplus there is on luxuries, who wouldn't. Even rich buggers with more wealth than they know what to do with have "bitchin TVs" ...
 
 
 


People who have never driven a car also tend to suck at driving cars.  Sorry.  Maybe I need some statistics on that before people here believe me


I did not answer for you.
 
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Most poor people cannot manage money and never will.

People who get the opportunity to practice driving a car will get better at it. This we know because there is a driving proficiency examination to test that. I imagine there could be a few gifted people who could learn to drive a car by watching rich folk being chauffeured around in limos, but I think they would qualify as being a statistical anomaly.
 
Poor people manage money everyday and if I were to make a rash generalisation I would say they could probably manage a budget far better than people who don't worry about where next month's rent is coming from. Of course some of them get into debt, and wealthy people get into debt too - it's just a matter of scale - and some of them do by "bitchin TVs" when they have a few hundred bucks spare, just as a wealthy person would by a Lamborghini or a second home when they have a few thousand bucks spare - it's just a matter of scale, not bad money management.
 
 


I never said poor people have the opportunity to practice managing wealth.  I said poor people don't have the skills to manage wealth most of the time.  There are a few people who have never tried but manage wealth very well.

I never said that the poor cannot "manage money."  I have been poor but have been good at managing mere money.  I have never managed wealth.

When some of you can use a damn dictionary, then maybe we can move forward.  Hmm?

monˇey/ˈmənē/

Noun:
  1. A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.


wealth/welTH/

Noun:
  1. An abundance of valuable possessions or money.
  2. The state of being rich; material prosperity.


Last person to quote the English dictionary to me came from Peru and wasn't a bear called Paddington, and he was incorrect too. If you take the time to read your quote I quoted I think you'll discover that you said "most people poor cannot manage money and never will" - I can quote your post in full so you can see that if you wish:
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


Even if you took half of what all rich people had and gave it to the poor, you would have the same rich-poor dichotomy in perhaps fewer than two years.  Most poor people cannot manage money and never will.  They will spend what they get on goods and services, and their spending will benefit businessmen and their investors.  In a short period of time, they will be poor again.
I can even provide a link to the post where you said it if you so desire.
 
Now, I fully admit that you may have intended to use the word "wealth" in that sentence, but I cannot read minds.
 

Now as to my ability to understand the difference between Money and Wealth may I request that you employ your skills as an educator to grade my usage of the words in the following quote from my earlier post:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

What they can manage is the megre amount of money they do have, but by no stretch can you call that wealth
And while were at it perhaps you can tell me whether this following quote:
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

if I were to make a rash generalisation I would say they could probably manage a budget far better than people who don't worry about where next month's rent is coming from
in any way can infer the following:
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Evidently, we have a few participants here who think that most poor people can manage businesses, real estate, and investments.
?
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


I bet the posters can't even do that. 
I know I can and do. What I don't do is gamble and make bets.
 


Edited by Dean - November 09 2012 at 02:38
What?
Back to Top
HarbouringTheSoul View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 09 2012 at 03:35
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:


Let me say it this way then: Your idea of a civilized society is at odds with the idea of most other people. A society that enforces total self-sufficiency would be just as wrong and useless as a society that enforces total dependence on the state. It is okay and necessary to let people depend on the state when they need it. Total freedom may be a noble goal, but what's the use if it doesn't make your life any better?


Oh, but it does. If people would try it, they would see that it does.

Let's see: In a totally free society, health insurance companies wouldn't have to insure people with pre-existing conditions. Now does that make life better or worse for those people?

Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I find the fact that my ideas are at odds with most other people a good indication that I am on the right track.

Hm, with that logic you could justify a belief that murder should be legal. The fact that you are at odds with most other people doesn't make you wrong, but it doesn't make you right either. What it does mean is that you will never get to see your hypothetical society.


Edited by HarbouringTheSoul - November 09 2012 at 03:35
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.298 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.