CosmicBills

Exactly.

Other than the these three posts you mean, right? Clearly this post has more to do with politics than financials, no? Is the coincidence he's referring to the financial windfall that will be reaped or the political one? Hmm... starting to see a trend here.... Why reference this instance at all? Is it not inherently political? Again, Joe, please tell me how I'm wrong.

Everything you wrote in this post pretty much shows you don't bother to read what's been written. I never said the war was only about slavery. Never even suggested it.

True. Then tell me what this poster is attempting to say, Joe. Please. I'm listening. Please tell me again how wrong I am.

Exactly.

Someone needs to pay more attention to what's written... :lol:

As if wishing had any impact on this. We're talking about the presidency of the United States of America. Ineptitude is to be expected. What isn't expected is a never ending election cycle. For the love of all that is holy, stop the madness.

Funniest part was, all my friends they frisked made high six figures easy -- if anyone was more likely to commit a crime it would have been me in that scenario. But the two cops just told me to stand aside and let them do their job. I was very tempted to be a wise ass considering the situation, but thought better of it.

I was with a group of friends and we got stopped and frisked in NYC. Well, I should say THEY got stopped and frisked. I was allowed to watch. Best part was, I was the one holding the weed.

I'll happily take three years of inept leadership over three years of blowhards pontificating about who should be the next inept leader to farg things up. But that's just me.

Jesus, we just got DONE with this nonsense... can we at least wait until 2015 to start talking about an election that's over 3 years away?

And yet, you won't answer my question. I haven't been talking about the article. I didn't read it because 90% of the article of yours I have read in the past have been pandering to a line of thought that I frankly think is destroying the national discourse. You revel in divisiveness and conflict rather than things that focus on either reality or solutions. Political pandering for political pandering sake does not impress me. I know it does some people on here and I'm casting no judgement. I've been talking about YOU. Asking why YOU highlighted the relevant sections in the quote you chose to include on the board. I'm trying to understand YOUR point of view, not the authors or Bezos. And any time I attempt to engage you in a conversation about YOUR values and beliefs, you either run or claim that I'm approaching you with a bias already confirmed in my head. The later part is true only because you won't engage in a discussion so you leave me only your quotes to judge. I may be a prick, I wear that badge with honor, but I'm an honest prick who is capable of changing my mind on issues if the evidence and information changes. There are plenty on here that I disagree with politically (you and OC still think of me as a liberal when I am not) but I have learned things from them and admitted when I've been wrong numerous times. You chose to highlight the fact Bezos supports gay rights in such a way that linked it to an inherent liberal cause. Funny thing is, I see it as a human cause. The question is, do you?

:lol:

Fair enough. And here I thought you were able to hold an honest discussion. Guess not. If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is, my friend. Step your game up.

Holding two advanced degrees in the discipline, with a focus on slavery in the Americas as my specialty, I have no problem with history. I bow to your expertise on many things, this isn't one of them. And I do not subscribe to the belief that it was the sole cause. But to say or suggest it played no part is to completely dismiss the mountains of primary source material that suggest otherwise. No question. But at the core of both of those issues was slavery and the impact abolition would have on the agrarian economic infrastructure, especially in light of the industrialization of the north. You can't separate the two issue, no matter how much revisionists have tried to in the century and half since. Yup. Still doesn't mean that slavery was not one of, if not THE, primary factor motivating the hawks in South Carolina. Yup. Again, doesn't mean that slavery played no part. And as a military historian you know better than most the desire of the populace is rarely in lockstep with the state's motivations to wage war.

I read about them in Time Magazine....

http://imgur.com/aDa4app

That ratio is more than a little off... and if you think I'm hateful that's a you problem. I'm actually quite pleasant. Charming some say. I just refuse to suffer fools which explains why we don't get along. ...That and my fear of people who use emoticons as a crutch.

The difference between you and me is I have a fully functioning frontal lobe. We've been over this.

Thanks for the tip. Care to revise your bullshiit statement, Mr. Miner?

I was not the one who bolded and italicized the following two sentences: he is in “the top ranks of financial backers of gay rights in the country.” I don’t think it was disingenuous — they just see liberalism as the natural state of thinking people, and not as any kind of ideological leaning. I'm only working with what you give me, B. And it's hilarious as always. Please, tell me why you chose those specific sentences to highlight, were we not supposed to see them as being related? What inferences is a person to draw from your decision to connect those two separate thoughts other than supporting gay rights makes one a liberal? Used to be that right would stand up for the oppressed. Guess that ship has sailed with you, eh, B?

Clearly you haven't read the earlier posts in this thread or are unable to detect subtext. But it's all good. Here's the best example of someone who just doesn't get it.... And I can argue this point because unlike you, I'm aware of how the business side of these deals work.

If you believe the political bent is stronger than the financial one then you are incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. Which is exactly what they are counting on.

Good. It's still the wild west out here in spots.