Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Ok, ok we get it, it's a !@#$ing fine. Now please explain the justification for the fine......for the second time. As I said before it's a horseshit fine and won't stand up when it goes before a judge. There isn't a justification for the fine. But it's quite a jump from a stupid government employee trying to impose a bull **** fine to the government is running some sort of extortion racket. You missed that it's a female employee. Therefore you're wrong. Captain Straw Man strikes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 As I said before it's a horseshit fine and won't stand up when it goes before a judge. There isn't a justification for the fine. But it's quite a jump from a stupid government employee trying to impose a bull **** fine to the government is running some sort of extortion racket. So forcing someone to pay a "fine" for a bogus charge and if they don't they'll end up spending a shitload more fighting this charge sounds like some form of extortion to me. Have you not been paying attention? All the governments are broke and are coming up with all sorts of creative ways to raise revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Captain Straw Man strikes again. IT WAS YOUR STRAW-MAN, YOU !@#$ING IDIOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 As I said before it's a horseshit fine and won't stand up when it goes before a judge. There isn't a justification for the fine. But it's quite a jump from a stupid government employee trying to impose a bull **** fine to the government is running some sort of extortion racket. Captain Straw Man strikes again. WTF don't you see here? You've got a business that hasn't done anything wrong, and the shemale with the fat ass says "pay us $2500 or we'll fine you $5000." Fighting the $5000 is going to cost probably more than $5000. The "smart" thing to do is to succumb to the extortionist and pay the $2500. If that is your preferred kind of government then go for Idi Amin in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 So forcing someone to pay a "fine" for a bogus charge and if they don't they'll end up spending a shitload more fighting this charge sounds like some form of extortion to me. Have you not been paying attention? All the governments are broke and are coming up with all sorts of creative ways to raise revenue. Wait a second, earlier on in the thread KDickforbrains claimed the the government had almost unlimited resources. Why would they need to extort money from a bar due to the fact that they're broke? Which one is it? Are they broke? Or do they have almost limitless resources? This is not extortion, this is a government employee doing something stupid because she was frothing at the mouth to catch a "bad guy". IT WAS YOUR STRAW-MAN, YOU !@#$ING IDIOT. Sure, whatever you say Straw Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) Wait a second, earlier on in the thread KDickforbrains claimed the the government had almost unlimited resources. Why would they need to extort money from a bar due to the fact that they're broke? Which one is it? Are they broke? Or do they have almost limitless resources? This is not extortion, this is a government employee doing something stupid because she was frothing at the mouth to catch a "bad guy". Every hear of human resources?? Edited May 7, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Wait a second, earlier on in the thread KDickforbrains claimed the the government had almost unlimited resources. Why would they need to extort money from a bar due to the fact that they're broke? Which one is it? Are they broke? Or do they have almost limitless resources? This is not extortion, this is a government employee doing something stupid because she was frothing at the mouth to catch a "bad guy". Sure, whatever you say Straw Man. Listen dipschit, the government can do it because they are the government.The've made it clear. Why do you think there is a resistance here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Every hear of human resources?? You have no clue what the hell you're talking about do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Sure, whatever you say Straw Man. Your straw man: We can tell how well you were paying attention while reading this article since you don't even know that this "fat-ass overpaid NYS government desk jockey" was female. Holy ****, you're an idiot. You can't even pay attention to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 You have no clue what the hell you're talking about do you? No, none whatsoever. If you think this is an isolated incident you've got your head in that sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Listen dipschit, the government can do it because they are the government.The've made it clear. Why do you think there is a resistance here? I think there is a resistance here because you are willfully ignorant idiots. I mean listen to your assertion: The government is now using it's almost limitless resources to extort money from a bar. They need to do this because they are running out of money, even though they have almost limitless resources. Yes, that 2500 dollars is going to go a long way toward funding the entire government of NYC. Oh, and also they are doing it just because they can. You know, because they're the government... or some **** like that. Also, after you complete a sentence, there should be a space before you start the next one. Your straw man: Holy ****, you're an idiot. You can't even pay attention to yourself. Are you normally this confused as to what constitutes a straw man? I didn't say that proved him wrong. I said it proves he's didn't pay attention and that makes it hard to take him seriously. The assertion that I claim he is wrong about a fine constituting extortion because he missed the fact that the "fat ass" was a female came from you. You then proceeded to argue against the words you put in my mouth, a position that I don't hold. That is a straw man. Good night Captain Straw Man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 I think there is a resistance here because you are willfully ignorant idiots. I mean listen to your assertion: The government is now using it's almost limitless resources to extort money from a bar. They need to do this because they are running out of money, even though they have almost limitless resources. Yes, that 2500 dollars is going to go a long way toward funding the entire government of NYC. Oh, and also they are doing it just because they can. You know, because they're the government... or some **** like that. Also, after you complete a sentence, there should be a space before you start the next one. Obviously you've never attempted to start a business or renovate your home. If you have you'd know that this is not a case of a rogue government employee. It's her job and safe to say she's one of many whose job it is to find money any way they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Are you normally this confused as to what constitutes a straw man? I didn't say that proved him wrong. I said it proves he's didn't pay attention and that makes it hard to take him seriously. The assertion that I claim he is wrong about a fine constituting extortion because he missed the fact that the "fat ass" was a female came from you. You then proceeded to argue against the words you put in my mouth, a position that I don't hold. That is a straw man. That's funny...you're trying to make a semantic point, not that you thought he was wrong, but that he couldn't be taken seriously. You're actually making a straw man argument about your own straw man. You've invented the meta-strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 That's funny...you're trying to make a semantic point, not that you thought he was wrong, but that he couldn't be taken seriously. You're actually making a straw man argument about your own straw man. You've invented the meta-strawman. Hmmm. If this continues, should I develop a database to track meta-strawman data? I bet I could get some enthusiastic early adopters at http://www.ncpssm.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 That's funny...you're trying to make a semantic point, not that you thought he was wrong, but that he couldn't be taken seriously. You're actually making a straw man argument about your own straw man. You've invented the meta-strawman. Please point out where I claimed that his lack of attention in reading the article is what makes him wrong about a fine constituting extortion. It just makes him hard to take seriously. Your opinion that this is me saying he is wrong because of that is semantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Obviously you've never attempted to start a business or renovate your home. If you have you'd know that this is not a case of a rogue government employee. It's her job and safe to say she's one of many whose job it is to find money any way they can. Doing a massive home renovation right now. One part of the project is going to take three months. The other part is going to take a year. Guess which is which. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) Doing a massive home renovation right now. One part of the project is going to take three months. The other part is going to take a year. Guess which is which. Permitting. Inspections. Edited May 7, 2013 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Yes, many of the posters on this board who are Obama supporters are in hiding. They are ashamed with his incompetence and duplicity. The fact that you are such an ardent supporter after all he has done and not done, tells us that you not only have little character, but your intelligence is wanting. Tell me, how can you support a president who: 1. Failed to protect his own diplomat, went to sleep as he was being attacked, then went out of his way to conceal what actually happened and lied to the public for political gain. 2. Turned down the ability to be flexible with the Sequester cuts and encouraged the government to make them as painful as possible. 3. Allow weapons to be freely and illegally transported to Mexican drug cartels, go to great lengths to cover it up and then have the chutzpah to make a speech to Mexican citizens blaming U.S. policy, not his illegal activity as the reason for their gun violence. At least he has the budget and deficit under control. BTW, women can be fat asses too. Serious question for anyone to answer... If Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc. had analogous (but perhaps, explainable)situations happen during the course of their presidencies, would that make them characteristically incompetent and duplicitous too? And if so, have we ever had a president, in your estimation, who was competent or ingenuous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Serious question for anyone to answer... If Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc. had analogous (but perhaps, explainable)situations happen during the course of their presidencies, would that make them characteristically incompetent and duplicitous too? And if so, have we ever had a president, in your estimation, who was competent or ingenuous? "If?" Although I think Ike and Bush II were fundamentally honest (Bush II was just a dope, probably too much so to lie effectively). This, I think, is a little different from most examples, since it's "managing communication" to try to keep from looking stupid, which is compounding the stupidity of it. But note I'm not getting all up in arms about it, either. The world's an ambiguous place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Serious question for anyone to answer... If Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc. had analogous (but perhaps, explainable)situations happen during the course of their presidencies, would that make them characteristically incompetent and duplicitous too? And if so, have we ever had a president, in your estimation, who was competent or ingenuous? Yes, and yes. Obama looks you squarely in the eyes and lies. Over and over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts