Printable View
Losing???? Name one thread/arguement you've won. You either lose outright or you leave when you realize that you're not going to win. Ignore list? Don't flatter yourself, you're not that important. And I don't need a list to ignore anyone. I ignore half the stupid shit on this board and no one is on my list.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
He pretty much just schooled you in his last post.
you do look like a misinformed small minded individual lacking critical thinking skills, yse.
but then, tim was proving one of my earlier points, so i already knew what you looked like.
And how is that??? So him just saying that Republicans have always been the stewards of blacks (nearly all of which were all poor in the last century), hispanics (same thing), other minorities (same thing, lower class), labor (working class not rich), and those others without degrees and middle class or lower, while saying that Democrats represent Wall Street and big business and the fight against FDR and his politics that faught for social programs for the poor and middle class makes him right??? Look I'm not going to school you and all the other dumbasses here on history but that's the exact opposite of things. Big business, wall street, those with money, those with degrees and at the upper ends of society have for most of them for the last century and until recently been Republicans while the poor, the minorities, the uneducated have most always been Democrats the last century. It's like you want me to argue that the Earth is not flat. I'm not going to waste my time with such stupid shit. Go read a history book if your so fucking stupid that you believe what you believe, I'm not going to educate you on such stupid things myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
How about you try to educate yourself on the use of proper spelling, asshat?Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
The correction of spelling and grammer is the ultimate admission of losing an arguement. Your surrender is acknowkedged and acceptedQuote:
Originally Posted by skibuminwyo
You know what I look like because I lack critical thinking skills??? So what are you saying that I'm tall and black? Sorry but wrong on both accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Garnett
You know YSE, your argument that you ignore a bunch of stuff on this board and don't really care what people think isn't exactly supported when you post obsessively.
2 minutes in between posts... don't you have something better to do?
The best that you can do is to accuse me that I think quick?Quote:
Originally Posted by iceclimb
Ha, you actually have to try and redefine what I said to make an argument? We've seen a lot of that in politics lately... I said EXACTLY:Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
If you believe that this is not accurate... PROVE IT.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
Oh, and BTW... I didn't post in the "Why do you hate... Supreme..." thread because I don't hate on you mang. I've always believed that "everyone is entitled to their own stupid opinion" (both me and you included), I just take issue when someone is WAY beyond social norms or tries to have their own private facts.
I can't claim to have a perfect recall, so I will say when I am not absolutely certain something along the lines of "I think" or "If I remember correctly" or (other proviso/hedge) to indicate when I don't have the exact specifics at my finger tips. If I was to be later proven to have been incorrect in my recall, I can handle being wrong... well, granted it doesn't happen often, but when it does... I SAC up and accept it. You could use a bit more of this IMVHO.
I think the fun thing about arguing with you, is when someone makes a good point against your side of the argument, you try and shift/shimmey to some other part and just try and pretend nothing happened. I see it, most here do, I am actually entertained by it... sounds like most here are not. Either way, thanks for the time for your response.
Oh, and BTW... on this YOU ARE WRONG!!! :the_finge
I will not pretend to be the politico wonk BUT through personal recollection I would think that a partial explanation for the "Old Money" going democratic would be family traditions. Lemme do some splainin.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
Democratic core values have shifted over the past 50 or so years. Try listening to old State of the Union address from JFK sometime, you would think you fell into moderate Republican land. Basically what I'm saying is the previous iterations of the Democratic party were more favorable to wealthy individuals than the Republicans were. Today however I see a reversal of that trend. Corporate wealth and therefore big money is more favorably protected by the Republicans.
Now then, back to my thesis; What was once your fathers political party ain't no more yet do to what you have heard and were tutored to believe as a youngster you follow along with and adhere to the family mantra, after all daddies money is still here.
[2 glasses of wine] [robot voice] Does not compute! [/robot voice] [maybe more wine (or use of some additional punctuation marks) will help me parse this part] :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 3centshort
let me try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
People remain in their forefathers political party because it is tradition and until there is a major paradigm shift there they shall remain.
It's MY responsibilty to prove YOUR dumb opinions??? How interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
Well, lets see. You had A) YOUR stated opinion. I had B) MY stated opinion -AND- C) a concurring Wikipedia article... as I mentioned earlier, granted not the strongest source, but push me and I'd happily spend the time to absolutely bury you on this point!Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
I don't know if you threw that Wikipedia in there as part of your edit or if I just skipped over that since I figure most of what you say is bullshit but I find it interesting that you choose to take statistics on a few hundred CONGRESSMEN and not the tens of millions who voted them in (that's like saying that since John Kerry has more money then Bush then all Democrats are richer!). I also find it intriguing how you consider those with net worth between $1 million to $10 million to be middle class and not rich. I mean fuck if you just want to use billionaires then why don't we just ask who Bill Gates is going to vote for and then declare that to be the party of the rich! And most importantly, that article talks about the past election cycle! Here we are talking about the history of the two parties and you want to go off of limited demographics for the past election cycle and a few hundred current congressmen (all the while ignoring the fact that I said that in recent years the wealth/education gap has shifted). Anyways you're going to have to do better then that bullshit that adds absolutely nothing whatsoever to the arguement.Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
YSE=toasted credibility.
How so, because I won't succomb to the absolutely ridiculous assertion that over their history Democrats haven't been for poor people, minorities, and social services whereas Republicans haven't been for rich people, educated professionals and not taxing those wealthy two? That is why my credibility is toasted? Jesus christ, I wonder how many on this board are laughing their asses off at you two and wondering what the fuck you are thinking and just don't want to say anything so as not to be on my side. I'm not even going to respond to this crap anymore because at this point I don't see how there is no way in hell that you just aren't fucking with me because I don't see how there is anyway in the world you two are actually this fucking stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
You'll keep responding.... It is your crack. Obviously have no life, probably still live at home, massive pornography collection, probably cruel to animals, probably been raped by a priest, at some point in your life.... am I getting close? Is the profile matching up?
It's because you feel the need to post pure drivel, as exemplified in this last post.
And you won't gain your credibility back: it is clear that you don't even ski.
Sure I'll respond to other topics but I'm done trying to convince morons what they should already know in that FDR implemented social security and Reagan cutt the taxes for the rich, not the other way around.... And I haven't lived at home since 17, my porno collection I doubt is any bigger then anyone elses and most of it is just leftover from my younger days, I've never been raped by a priest (although I have met a few nuns I wish would have gave a go at it), and I can ski any terrain that anyone else can in here and probably a hell of a lot better then anyone in this thread so no I don't suck at skiing and yes your FBI profiling skills are way off (reminds me of a Reno 911 episode).Quote:
Originally Posted by skibuminwyo
this 'reads' as slightly racially charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
and by 'look' i obviously meant 'sounds' or 'reads' or 'comes across as.'
i think you are missing some fundamentals.
OK, OK, I'll play... I still have a half a bottle of red wine and some nacho chips laying around. And as I said earlier, I actually like this. :D This will take a while and I'll probably miss something good on another thread dammit!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
In the edit the only thing I added was the apology to the rest of the Mags for the HUGE RED TEXT. I added it, as it turns out, to deal with EXACTLY the above tendency of yours...
First excuse me a minute; HA HA HA HA HAAA HA!!!
OK, I think I can focus now;
-This quote "but I find it interesting that you choose to take statistics on a few hundred CONGRESSMEN" : I highlighted it in some perverted sense of irony, it had nothing specific to do with the points at hand... My main corroborating points were additionally UNDERLINED. I could have been more clear I admit.
-The quote "I also find it intriguing how you consider those with net worth between $1 million to $10 million to be middle class and not rich. I mean fuck if you just want to use billionaires then why don't we just ask who Bill Gates is going to vote for and then declare that to be the party of the rich!" : HA HA HAA! You had said in that first post "...when Republicans had a monopoly on the educated and upper-classes..." and in the second "...The fact is for the majority of the last century the masses of rich and educated people were diehard Republicans..." First: I did NOT call those in the $1 mil to $10 mil middle class, YOU just did. I said "the top percent or two, especially 'old money', have been Democratic for many generations now." Second: A net worth of $10 Million is NOT that rich. There are tens and tens of thousands who have net worths above that $10,000,000 mark... and they have voted more for liberal/progressive candidates than conservative since time began... The last 80 years or so that has basically been Democrats. They can afford to vote against their own interests as it were. And my last point on this... come on mang, by crying "I mean fuck if you just want to use billionaires then why don't we just ask who Bill Gates is going to vote for and then declare that to be the party of the rich!" YOU JUST TOTALLY MADE MY POINT, YOU BASICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE MOST RICH OF THE RICH MIGHT TEND TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC"... Jeebus mang, you are trying to be the hard ass arguing guy here on TGR, this just makes you look like a total PUSSY! Stop that!!!
OK, this part "And most importantly, that article talks about the past election cycle! Here we are talking about the history of the two parties and you want to go off of limited demographics for the past election cycle and a few hundred current congressmen (all the while ignoring the fact that I said that in recent years the wealth/education gap has shifted)." To correct the record as it were, the article specifies in some parts about the votes of the intelligenica that it specifically referred to 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2006... So on it's face not the "past election cycle" you comment on. Also, are you so bent on trying to win an argument at any cost that you wouldn't admit that the most educated - ie: Professors, PHD's, graduate degrees, or how ever you want to measure their education, haven't been advocates of the liberal side since way before the civil rights struggle (1950's) and Vietnam (1960's to 1970's). I know you added in the definer "last century" in the second post, and good on ya, or I'd have to start arguing about the Whig and Federalist Parties... You wouldn't like me then!!! But do you have something to suggest that the most educated from say 1908 to 1950 were polar opposites of the remainder of the century? I really don't want to have to google your ass to death. Really.
If you wanted to argue that the dynamics's of this type of arguement changed at the "New Deal"... I'd guess I'd have to give you that. I'd could waste a dozen pages just on the change in the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" which occured at that historic juncture.
Lastly, I know I talk (write) WAY too much... sorry all. But you could condense almost the entirety the premise of my above argument in a simple "day to day" analogy; Anyone who has spent much time in a "Country Club" (or similar) upper crust environment can tell you that there is a distinct difference between member who are "old money" and the "newly rich"... "Old money" tends to be generous and talks to help more as equals, "New money" is more likely to be rude and rash and generally treats "help" as shitheads...
Need to fill my wine glass again, if I missed a point let me know...
Edit reason: Add italics to first quote...
OH GREAT, I post my treatise and you add in the words "BEEN FOR"... I'll try and digest the rest I missed creating my crappy post. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
Edit: Oh and before I get the "edited" tag, I personally don't care if he/she skis...
I'll bite,Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
guess what.
I challenge you to a ski off!
Meet me on top of once is enough, and we will dice.