Personal property taxes on my business due by September 14th and

[Charles Kozierok]

This is frankly baffling to me. They are simply no longer communicating in English as it is commonly accepted. What do you do with people like that? I mean how do you engage with people that are this far gone?

You don't. You just hope that the people in the middle are smart enough to see that the Republicans have gone completely off the rails.

 

[sixone]

The 1982 recession was not nearly as significant as this one.

Non sequitur and it doesn't address the issue. The ACA is not the driver of these issues going forward. Furthermore, I sincerely hope that no one in government would be talking about taxing the rich less, that would be extremely foolish.

As far as who 'we' are, it's everyone who works. The idea that investment in the country could only take place through tax receipts is not only baffling, but seems to run contrary to standard conservative ideology. It is no surprise that you would attempt to abandon it when convenient. By your logic if we abolished taxes we wouldn't have a country anymore, and the measure of how much country we have is the measure of tax receipts.

Good to know. lol.

So you've resorted to arguing things I didn't write, in order to ignore the things I did.

Good to know. lol

 

[fskimospy]

So you've resorted to arguing things I didn't write, in order to ignore the things I did.

Good to know. lol

Nope. You asked a dumb question, I showed you why it was dumb.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you've resorted to arguing things I didn't write, in order to ignore the things I did.

Good to know. lol

He probably wouldn't do that if you didn't say "stupid" things and "lie" so much.

EDIT: See? ^

 

[boomerang]

Really, that's the best retort you can offer? Lame, empty, dumb. Just like your OP. And your phony outrage.

CK was absolutely right. One of the reasons P&N is so pointless is the dearth of intelligent, reasoned commentary from the right. It's not that liberals are inherently superior to conservatives, not at all. It's just that rational P&N conservatives are scarce, and are effectively drowned out by loons from the nutter fringe. This thread is a perfect example. We'd love to have an intelligent discussion about opposing points of view. Unfortunately, that requires intelligent commentary from the right.

Don't let your crown fall off and don't blow smoke up my ass. It's your way or the highway and if you were honest with yourself you'd admit it.

This thread is all about Obama's words. The leftist media has painted him since day one as our smartest president ever. Our smartest president ever, in your opinion has been misunderstood. Has had his words interpreted not keeping in mind the entire context of his speech. You're just a bunch of apologists and you're either oblivious to it or you're unwilling to admit it. Despite several posts, mine included, indicating how his words should have been spoken to infer the meaning you attribute to them, you ignore those. You and others insist that you reside within the mind of Obama and can speak to his intentions. Really?

Don't love Obama - nutter.
Disagree with Obama - nutter
Want to bring up what Obama said without a positive spin - nutter.

The list goes on. It's convenient to dismiss those that don't agree with you. We don't have to follow your rules. When you dismiss those that don't want to color within the lines you've drawn as righties, nutters, dumbasses or whatever disparaging term is working for you on that given day, we typically don't respond because frankly, it's just not worth the time. If you want to interpret that as we're not too bright, by all means do so. I have a lot of ways to waste my time and one of them is not trying to convince Obama zealots of any wrongdoing on his part.

Charles paints himself as a moderate but he'd toss Obama's salad in a heartbeat given the chance. I could take him seriously if he'd be honest with himself. Instead he tries to straddle a fence because of what I can only assume is some notion that there's an advantage to it.

I already know what your response is going to be so please don't prove me wrong. If P&N is a pointless exercise for you, leave. Go pursue happiness somewhere. I've said it many times here before. No opinions will be changed here - none. We've been polarized into us vs. them. It works well for politicians.

 

[fskimospy]

He probably wouldn't do that if you didn't say "stupid" things and "lie" so much.

EDIT: See? ^

I'm sorry if I have offended you with my other postings. Can you perhaps offer me some suggestions on a preferred writing style? Considering your caliber of contributions I'm quite interested to see what you have to offer.

 

[Perknose]

"I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

Obama posits a reason successful people often give for their success - their intelligence - then directly refutes it by asserting that there are many smart people (who presumably aren't successful.) Obama then posits another reason successful people often give for their success - their hard work - then directly refutes it by asserting that there are many hardworking people (who presumably aren't successful.)

FFS, stop being either deliberately obtuse, you're smarter than that.

This was all patiently explained to you by another poster muich earlier in this thread, and it is so basic there should be no way you don't grasp it.

Besides basic reading comprehension, it's LOGIC 101. For a statement to be true, its antecedents must be not only necessary but sufficient.,
Nowhere in his statement is Obame refuting that being intelligent or hard working aren't necessary conditions for success, despite your dimbulb assertion that he is.

I know, and I know that you know, that many intelligent and hard working people have launched businesses that have nevertheless failed. So, while being intelligent and hard working are necessary conditions for business success, they are not always sufficient.

And this is the irrefutably exact meaning of what Obama said, accessible to any person with an IQ near 100 for whom English is their mother tongue.

"I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

He's struck that some successful business people blandly assume that their intelligence and hard work are the only reasons for their business success, because it that were true then no one who was both intelligent and hard working would or could ever fail in business,

And the simple fact is, many hard working and intelligent people have failed.

Please stop pretending you don't understand this. It's beneath you.

 

[michal1980]

FFS, stop being either deliberately obtuse, you're smarter than that.

This was all patiently explained to you by another poster muich earlier in this thread, and it is so basic there should be no way you don't grasp it.

Besides basic reading comprehension, it's LOGIC 101. For a statement to be true, its antecedents must be not only necessary but sufficient.,
Nowhere in his statement is Obame refuting that being intelligent or hard working aren't necessary conditions for success, despite your dimbulb assertion that he is.

I know, and I know that you know, that many intelligent and hard working people have launched businesses that have nevertheless failed. So, while being intelligent and hard working are necessary conditions for business success, they are not always sufficient.

And this is the irrefutably exact meaning of what Obama said, accessible to any person with an IQ near 100 for whom English is their mother tongue.



He's struck that some successful business people blandly assume that their intelligence and hard work are the only reasons for their business success, because it that were true then no one who was both intelligent and hard working would or could ever fail in business,

And the simple fact is, many hard working and intelligent people have failed.

Please stop pretending you don't understand this. It's beneath you.

how many lazy and unintelligent people succeed in business?

 

[sixone]

Nope. You asked a dumb question, I showed you why it was dumb.

Nope. You changed the subject, rather than addressing my question directly.

You did show me WHO is dumb; I'll give you that.

 

[sixone]

how many lazy and unintelligent people succeed in business?

They don't. They succeed in getting $3 from the government, for every $1 they actually earn.

Not quite up to Bernie Madoff standards, but how many successful businesses make a 300% profit from year to year?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm sorry if I have offended you with my other postings. Can you perhaps offer me some suggestions on a preferred writing style? Considering your caliber of contributions I'm quite interested to see what you have to offer.

Nope...I'm not offended by your posts calling most everyone you disagee with "stupid", "lunatics", or such...in fact, I actually find your posts to be very entertaining. I have no suggestions for improving your writing style...you're doing a great job.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This thread is all about Obama's words.

Yes, and more specifically, how people distort those words due to either being too stupid to read and understand simple English, or too dishonest to present Obama's words in the way that any reasonable person can see they were intended.

Don't love Obama - nutter.
Disagree with Obama - nutter
Want to bring up what Obama said without a positive spin - nutter.

You're a liar. Nobody has called anyone a "nutter" for not loving or agreeing with Obama. Nor for "positively spinning" anything.

I have called people stupid and dishonest for deliberately misportraying his words and intentions. I stand by those comments. There are no other rational explanations for the deliberate quoting out of context that you and your fellows are engaging in.

Charles paints himself as a moderate but he'd toss Obama's salad in a heartbeat given the chance. I could take him seriously if he'd be honest with himself. Instead he tries to straddle a fence because of what I can only assume is some notion that there's an advantage to it.

You're one of the biggest assholes on this board. You started making off-base personal comments about me almost from the day I showed up, and IIRC, even before the "no personal attacks" rule was rescinded. I honestly couldn't care less if you "take me seriously" or not.

I have already linked to a thread I posted six months ago where I clearly lodged the same exact objections when people on the left quoted Romney out of context. The only way you can ignore that and claim that this is all about me being in the tank for Obama is that, again, you're a dishonest asshole.

To repeat again: my objection is to portraying comments inaccurately by omitting context. And to also repeat again: I've made the same complaints when it has been done to people on the right.

So this has nothing to do with me tossing anyone's salad and everything to do with you being a lying jerk.

It simply boils down to that. It's unfortunate, but there's nothing I can really do about it, except to call things as I see them.

 

[Perknose]

how many lazy and unintelligent people succeed in business?

Honestly, are you really that stupid that you think you've made some sort of counter-point?

 

[fskimospy]

Nope...I'm not offended by your posts calling most everyone you disagee with "stupid", "lunatics", or such...in fact, I actually find your posts to be very entertaining. I have no suggestions for improving your writing style...you're doing a great job.

Well thank you! Your opinion means a great deal to me and so I'm happy to see that I'm pleasing you.

 

[werepossum]

FFS, stop being either deliberately obtuse, you're smarter than that.

This was all patiently explained to you by another poster muich earlier in this thread, and it is so basic there should be no way you don't grasp it.

Besides basic reading comprehension, it's LOGIC 101. For a statement to be true, its antecedents must be not only necessary but sufficient.,
Nowhere in his statement is Obame refuting that being intelligent or hard working aren't necessary conditions for success, despite your dimbulb assertion that he is.

I know, and I know that you know, that many intelligent and hard working people have launched businesses that have nevertheless failed. So, while being intelligent and hard working are necessary conditions for business success, they are not always sufficient.

And this is the irrefutably exact meaning of what Obama said, accessible to any person with an IQ near 100 for whom English is their mother tongue.



He's struck that some successful business people blandly assume that their intelligence and hard work are the only reasons for their business success, because it that were true then no one who was both intelligent and hard working would or could ever fail in business,

And the simple fact is, many hard working and intelligent people have failed.

Please stop pretending you don't understand this. It's beneath you.

But Obama's assertion is that the successful are successful because of government. Those many hard working and intelligent Americans who have failed (and I agree there are many) had EXACTLY the same government infrastructure as did those who succeeded. Ergo "because we work together" is NOT the reason for their success. It is undeniably a requirement for most businesses, but success or failure are both possible.

The percentage of businesses which have failed because their owners were not sufficiently smart or hard-working has to be much greater than the percentage of businesses which have failed because of a lack of government infrastructure simply because it is undeniable that not every business owner is hard working or smart, but in every area every business has the exact same government infrastructure. Take any state, any city, any neighborhood, and you'll find that every business in that area has the exact same roads, bridges, electrical grids, police force.

Since his point is so obviously wrong, I'm guessing that he was much more true to his core beliefs when he said

If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

than when he said

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

I'll also point out that the former is much more in line with his previous characterizations of high earners/the successful as "the most fortunate among us" or "those who have won life's lottery".

 

[First]

But Obama's assertion is that the successful are successful because of government.

lol, you are a funny troll.

 

[fskimospy]

werepossum's clearly just trolling at this point. Time to pat him on the head and walk away.

 

[werepossum]

LOL Democrats - how dare you assume that what we say is what we mean!

 

[fskimospy]

LOL Democrats - how dare you assume that what we say is what we mean!

LOL @ werepossum. How dare you attempt to rationally interpret English? I KNOW WHAT I KNOW AND OMGSOCIALISM.

 

[Perknose]

But Obama's assertion is that the successful are successful because of government.

Again with the logic and reading comprehension fail? At this point, I'm forced to take your inability to understand what Obama said seriously.

He DID NOT blandly assert that the successful are successful solely because of government, as you assert.

You really must have bombed on the verbal part of your SAT's. Did that keep you from college? Is that why you might have never taken a logic course and so can't understand the concepts of "necessary and sufficient" even when they're layed out in detail for you?

What Obama did say was that he was struck by the fact that some successful business people blandly assert that their intelligence and hard work are the only reasons for their business success, that they never mention that additional and necessary condition of the support provided by our American infrastructure.

If you truly can't understand the difference between what you assert he said and what he did say, even when it is patiently and repeatedly broken down and explained to you, maybe you really are that dense.

If you just won't admit this easly grasped difference, then you're a troll.

Either way kind of sucks. I've seen you do much, much better.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

But Obama's assertion is that the successful are successful because of government.

You yourself specifically quoted him saying that "when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Are you suffering from brain damage or something? Boggle.

 

[boomerang]

Yes, and more specifically, how people distort those words due to either being too stupid to read and understand simple English, or too dishonest to present Obama's words in the way that any reasonable person can see they were intended.



You're a liar. Nobody has called anyone a "nutter" for not loving or agreeing with Obama. Nor for "positively spinning" anything.

I have called people stupid and dishonest for deliberately misportraying his words and intentions. I stand by those comments. There are no other rational explanations for the deliberate quoting out of context that you and your fellows are engaging in.



You're one of the biggest assholes on this board. You started making off-base personal comments about me almost from the day I showed up, and IIRC, even before the "no personal attacks" rule was rescinded. I honestly couldn't care less if you "take me seriously" or not.

I have already linked to a thread I posted six months ago where I clearly lodged the same exact objections when people on the left quoted Romney out of context. The only way you can ignore that and claim that this is all about me being in the tank for Obama is that, again, you're a dishonest asshole.

To repeat again: my objection is to portraying comments inaccurately by omitting context. And to also repeat again: I've made the same complaints when it has been done to people on the right.

So this has nothing to do with me tossing anyone's salad and everything to do with you being a lying jerk.

It simply boils down to that. It's unfortunate, but there's nothing I can really do about it, except to call things as I see them.

I'll make you a deal. I'll stop getting in your shit if you stop getting in mine. We've not taken a liking to each other and these things happen. I've said here in the past at least once that this subforum is a means for me to blow off some steam. I take very little seriously in here because there is no sense in it. Nothing will be resolved, nothing will change. We're all just powerless internet geeks. I think it's important to keep that in mind. On top of that, the anonymity of an internet forum does not work for me personally. I'm a face to face type of guy.

So, I'll adopt this policy if you're willing. What would work for me is no replies by myself to you personally or anything you post here if you do the same.

But, before that, I have to say one last thing. Well maybe two. You're answering for Bowfinger which doesn't work for me at all. When I reply to an individual here, I expect any reply to come from that person. (BTW, it's one of your traits that kinda bugs me.) I also wanted you to know that I think you're an asshole too. So, I guess that makes us even.

Now that I have that off my chest, I'm ready to start if you are. I will uphold my end of the bargain. I'm nothing if not trustworthy.

 

[michal1980]

You yourself specifically quoted him saying that "when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

Are you suffering from brain damage or something? Boggle.

Obama said what he said.

The fact the left has to spin so much must mean its true.

Most/all people have the same roads, same schools, same fire figthers. Yet only some start succesfull business.

Is luck envoled? Of course. But for luck to happen to have to be there working to take advantage of it.

 

[tcG]

But... the roads... who will build the roads?!

 

[boomerang]

But... the roads... who will build the roads?!

Illegals