Gene Frenkle Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 That is seriously twisted. "Let's say we need X dollars to cover people requiring charity. Government programs spread the burden of X dollars among all of us working schleps who pay taxes, whether we like it or not." Uhhh...what? Hello? If you're forced to give whether you like it or not, then it's not charity!!!! 'Assistance' then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 DEATH CAGE!!!! DEATH CAGE!!!! DEATH CAGE!!!! Should be at least 4, seeding is a concern of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 'Assistance' then. Define "people requiring charity" please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Define "people requiring charity" please. Oh, this should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 I usually don't read his posts at all. But that's just because he and I have this mutual "You're a !@#$ing pinhead" thing between us. We do? Well, I wasn't aware of that. I suppose it would require me caring about "the fight"...but somehow I just don't. EDIT: Besides, there's no way I could ever keep up with you in terms of sheer volume ...and, so often I find myself reading something, getting ready to bash it, and then realizing that you already did, 2 posts later. I almost never post, but Gene, come on. Your response is a joke. And yes, you are a dick by trying to dodge because you know you got nothing. Read his response and try to refute it instead of this chickenschit response. Lightweight... Hehehe. Thanks for that. However, I will disclaim this by saying: there is a direct relationship between # of paragraphs in my posts and # of Sapphire and Tonics on the day. Just think you should be aware of this, in the interest of full disclosure. And, time of day doesn't always have a bearing on # of Sapphires I agree with Gene on this one. I may sometimes agree with OC but I won't read his multi-paragraph diatribes. If you can't edit your thoughts down to 2 paragraphs, (a) you're not respecting my time, or (b) your post is oververbously didactic (OC's crime) and a waste of time. Respecting your time? Hmm. Interesting take on this. Oververbously is not a word. And, look at that post again. I was responding to 5 or 6 posts in that one(just like I am doing here), and the point I was making required a response to each, because it is fundamentally based on showing a pattern. Would you rather I responded to each one individually? And, if you look at it, each response to each post isn't that big. But, provided I haven't been boozing, I will take "your time" into account from now on.. I'm just trying to help, really. What's the point of writing some long rant if your target audience is just going to skim over it and decide it's not worth the effort? And I will ask: what's the point of expecting you to honestly respond rationally to anything we say every time any of us take you to the wood shed? It's been what? 6 hours now? are you telling me it takes you that long to read? You are still ducking me...so I will shorten it up for you and let's see if you make it about process and not content again.... Me calling your thinking stupid...is because it is patently stupid...and has nothing to do with whether you care about other people, whether you are a good guy, or whether I would have no problem giving you a ride home from the Bills game if you asked. One thing has nothing to do with the other. At the same time, me concluding that your thinking is stupid, because it is, as I have proven on multiple occasions, doesn't mean I don't want to fix problems, help people, or look out for my fellow man. It simply means I don't like your plan, because it's stupid, and I don't like stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 No **** sherlock. But I'd rather give my money to a charity that I know is set up only to do good things for the homeless. Sure doing that is great, go volunteer as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Sure doing that is great, go volunteer as well. pBills requisite stupid comment of the day just filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Let's say we need X dollars to cover people requiring charity. Government programs spread the burden of X dollars among all of us working schleps who pay taxes, whether we like it or not. Your thought is that we should get rid of that system and instead let those who are feeling charitable (for whatever reason) contribute X dollars by choice. Does that lead to the charitable people among us contributing more because of those who choose not to contribute? More likely, we simply fall short of X dollars and well, fuk em - it's not my problem...which is where I come to the conclusion that Conservatives/Republicans are selfish in nature. Is my logic twisted enough for you? As soon as the government programs are created, X grows to 10X. .5X goes to the people who need it, 3X goes to administering the program and 6.5X goes to the Russian mafia scamming the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 As soon as the government programs are created, X grows to 10X. .5X goes to the people who need it, 3X goes to administering the program and 6.5X goes to the Russian mafia scamming the system. I thought the Canadians got beer money out of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 And I will ask: what's the point of expecting you to honestly respond rationally to anything we say every time any of us take you to the wood shed? It's been what? 6 hours now? are you telling me it takes you that long to read? You are still ducking me...so I will shorten it up for you and let's see if you make it about process and not content again.... I'm not ducking anything - it's just not worth my time. Don't hold your breath for any response from me until your posts become more readable. Rant away now and call some people out...enjoy yourself... Projects everywhere are going unmanaged while you write your manifesto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 16, 2010 Author Share Posted April 16, 2010 Respecting your time? Hmm. Interesting take on this. Oververbously is not a word. And, look at that post again. I was responding to 5 or 6 posts in that one(just like I am doing here), and the point I was making required a response to each, because it is fundamentally based on showing a pattern. Would you rather I responded to each one individually? And, if you look at it, each response to each post isn't that big. But, provided I haven't been boozing, I will take "your time" into account from now on.. Verbous is a word meaning you're in love with your own voice. Over- is a prefix that augments verbous to mean you are so in love with your own voice that you would toss its salad. -ly makes the word an adverb. Those are my lexicographical skills at work. You can keep posting your Kaczynski manifestos...I'll keep reading the topic sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Oh, this should be interesting. Hey Frenklestein, how about answering the question? Please define "people that require charity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 pBills requisite stupid comment of the day just filed. And your typical bashing response. Good job!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Hey Frenklestein, how about answering the question? Please define "people that require charity". 'People who require assistance' was the correction. Please keep up. The grouping of 'people who require assistance' is obviously subjective, but the situation I was trying to setup is hypothetical. My intent wasn't to define all of the parameters here. Now please answer the initial question given the above qualifications. No manifestos please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 Verbous Verbose, even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 16, 2010 Share Posted April 16, 2010 DEATH CAGE!!!! DEATH CAGE!!!! DEATH CAGE!!!! Instead of fighting in The Octagon, they should fight in the 3.5agon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 17, 2010 Share Posted April 17, 2010 Instead of fighting in The Octagon, they should fight in the 3.5agon w00t new signature! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts