Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Without government, how will 90% of the populace smoke weed all night and sleep all day?
Topic Started: Apr 21 2016, 09:41 PM (3,571 Views)
lucash
Member Avatar
#NeverTrump
estonianman
Apr 27 2016, 01:49 PM
American Identitarian
Apr 27 2016, 01:14 PM
Let's be honest. If social security were done away a significant number wouldn't save for retirement and would blow their money on weekend flights to Vegas
If anything - government retirement should be handled by individual states. If I do not want to pay into government retirement, then I vote with my feet.

Social security at the federal level is insolvent like everything else, and will be paid using funny money/t-bill transactions.

Meh. While I don't trust the federal government to run smoothly, I find state governments to be worse.
"...a mesmerized state that makes us accept as inevitable that which is detrimental...having lost the will..to demand...good..." - Rachel Carson
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

lucash
Apr 28 2016, 05:56 AM
estonianman
Apr 27 2016, 01:49 PM
American Identitarian
Apr 27 2016, 01:14 PM
Let's be honest. If social security were done away a significant number wouldn't save for retirement and would blow their money on weekend flights to Vegas
If anything - government retirement should be handled by individual states. If I do not want to pay into government retirement, then I vote with my feet.

Social security at the federal level is insolvent like everything else, and will be paid using funny money/t-bill transactions.

Meh. While I don't trust the federal government to run smoothly, I find state governments to be worse.
Well that is government for you.

At least they would have to do something to attract your business.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Apr 28 2016, 04:46 AM
Opinionated
Apr 27 2016, 07:29 AM
ringotuna
Apr 27 2016, 05:30 AM
Social Security is now the government teat?
Your fellow conservatives frequently characterize all "entitlements" as being on the "government teat". Social Security is an entitlement. One of which many of your fellow conservatives claim is "insolvent" and which needs to be massively scaled back, eliminated, or better yet from their perspective, privatized. Because if there is one group you can trust with your retirement money less than the government, that's Wall Street.
Not unlike how your compatriots characterize it as "Welfare" when comparing Red & Blue state federal tax ratios. Believe me my "Wall Street" run portfolio is a hell of a lot fatter than my government run account.
Good for you. Not everyone is as lucky or as well prepared.

That's the thing with human beings, we don't all make perfect decisions all the time and as a consequence some of us don't earn enough, or aren't farsighted enough, to prepare sufficiently for our old age. Shortsighted? Yes. Worth of condemnation? Certainly. Fact of life? Absolutely.

And I happen to believe that being an imperfect human being shouldn't mean that your society lets you starve to death when you're too old to continue working.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tesla

Pot makes you happy and content about your life. Which may sound great but how can you ever improve your life if you're happy and content with it?

It Takes away motivation.

I'm a supporter of legalization. It's far less harmful than alcohol but it does have some downside
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Apr 28 2016, 11:54 AM
ringotuna
Apr 28 2016, 04:46 AM
Opinionated
Apr 27 2016, 07:29 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Not unlike how your compatriots characterize it as "Welfare" when comparing Red & Blue state federal tax ratios. Believe me my "Wall Street" run portfolio is a hell of a lot fatter than my government run account.
Good for you. Not everyone is as lucky or as well prepared.

That's the thing with human beings, we don't all make perfect decisions all the time and as a consequence some of us don't earn enough, or aren't farsighted enough, to prepare sufficiently for our old age. Shortsighted? Yes. Worth of condemnation? Certainly. Fact of life? Absolutely.

And I happen to believe that being an imperfect human being shouldn't mean that your society lets you starve to death when you're too old to continue working.
"Making Perfect Decisions" is not a prerequisite to success. However learning from both your poor and good decisions, then exploiting both is quite beneficial.

"Farsightedness" Likewise, is not a prerequisite. A self-awareness of ones current situation and an understanding that opportunity can come from adversity is far more beneficial.

"Lucky." well that's just horse sh!t.

"As fpr our society allowing you to "starve to death"... Well that's just hyperbolic nonsense and has no place in a discussion between rational adults.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Apr 28 2016, 05:20 PM
Opinionated
Apr 28 2016, 11:54 AM
ringotuna
Apr 28 2016, 04:46 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Good for you. Not everyone is as lucky or as well prepared.

That's the thing with human beings, we don't all make perfect decisions all the time and as a consequence some of us don't earn enough, or aren't farsighted enough, to prepare sufficiently for our old age. Shortsighted? Yes. Worth of condemnation? Certainly. Fact of life? Absolutely.

And I happen to believe that being an imperfect human being shouldn't mean that your society lets you starve to death when you're too old to continue working.
"Making Perfect Decisions" is not a prerequisite to success. However learning from both your poor and good decisions, then exploiting both is quite beneficial.

"Farsightedness" Likewise, is not a prerequisite. A self-awareness of ones current situation and an understanding that opportunity can come from adversity is far more beneficial.

"Lucky." well that's just horse sh!t.

"As fpr our society allowing you to "starve to death"... Well that's just hyperbolic nonsense and has no place in a discussion between rational adults.
Hyperbolic nonsense? Not really. That seems to be what many conservatives would prefer. They have this belief that if we just cut off welfare everyone would simply find jobs that provided more than enough to live. And that's pure nonsense. We have structural unemployment in this country, in that there aren't enough jobs for the entire work force. And that trend is just going to get worse as technology improves.

Conservatives need to come to grips with the fact that sometimes people are unemployed because they simply can't find work. And that cutting off their "entitlements" is not going to make work suddenly appear.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Apr 28 2016, 06:19 PM
ringotuna
Apr 28 2016, 05:20 PM
Opinionated
Apr 28 2016, 11:54 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
"Making Perfect Decisions" is not a prerequisite to success. However learning from both your poor and good decisions, then exploiting both is quite beneficial.

"Farsightedness" Likewise, is not a prerequisite. A self-awareness of ones current situation and an understanding that opportunity can come from adversity is far more beneficial.

"Lucky." well that's just horse sh!t.

"As fpr our society allowing you to "starve to death"... Well that's just hyperbolic nonsense and has no place in a discussion between rational adults.


Hyperbolic nonsense? Not really. That seems to be what many conservatives would prefer. They have this belief that if we just cut off welfare everyone would simply find jobs that provided more than enough to live. And that's pure nonsense. We have structural unemployment in this country, in that there aren't enough jobs for the entire work force. And that trend is just going to get worse as technology improves.

Conservatives need to come to grips with the fact that sometimes people are unemployed because they simply can't find work. And that cutting off their "entitlements" is not going to make work suddenly appear.
Yes, hyperbolic nonsense. No one is 'starving to death' in this country. Your interpretation that conservatives would prefer people starve to death is disingenuous nonsense as well. What most conservatives would prefer is that the government not create a culture of permanent dependency.

The answer to structural unemployment is not permanent institutional dependency by giving every citizen a sustenance check that removes incentives to improve one's situation. It's a pollyann-ish fantasy to believe that if we are relieved of our basic responsibilities, we will become MORE productive. The article's author makes it very clear that it will result in lower productivity.

Programs such as the one proposed will only serve to swell the rolls of government dependency. If we're going to invest, in social and economic mobility then lets invest in programs that REDUCE that dependency rather than increase it. Job training to create a skilled labor pool, tuition assistance, infrastructure , incentivizing business start ups, small business payroll supplements. incentivize the return of off shore jobs. These types of programs hold a far greater potential for economic mobility than permanent poverty subsidies.

Edited by ringotuna, Apr 29 2016, 06:00 AM.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

estonianman
Apr 27 2016, 01:02 PM
ringotuna
Apr 27 2016, 05:30 AM
Social Security is now the government teat?
For some it would be - especially those collecting disability long before 67 or whatever the cut off age is.

For the rest I would say that it is legitimate retribution for taxes payed. that said I believe a majority would cash in their SS and place it in funds, like they do in the libertarian country of Sweden. ;)
Sweden! By golly that is where you should set your sights!


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 05:59 AM
Opinionated
Apr 28 2016, 06:19 PM
ringotuna
Apr 28 2016, 05:20 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society allowing you to "starve to death"... Well that's just hyperbolic nonsense and has no place in a discussion between rational adults.


Hyperbolic nonsense? Not really. That seems to be what many conservatives would prefer. They have this belief that if we just cut off welfare everyone would simply find jobs that provided more than enough to live. And that's pure nonsense. We have structural unemployment in this country, in that there aren't enough jobs for the entire work force. And that trend is just going to get worse as technology improves.

Conservatives need to come to grips with the fact that sometimes people are unemployed because they simply can't find work. And that cutting off their "entitlements" is not going to make work suddenly appear.
Yes, hyperbolic nonsense. No one is 'starving to death' in this country. Your interpretation that conservatives would prefer people starve to death is disingenuous nonsense as well. What most conservatives would prefer is that the government not create a culture of permanent dependency.

The answer to structural unemployment is not permanent institutional dependency by giving every citizen a sustenance check that removes incentives to improve one's situation. It's a pollyann-ish fantasy to believe that if we are relieved of our basic responsibilities, we will become MORE productive. The article's author makes it very clear that it will result in lower productivity.

Programs such as the one proposed will only serve to swell the rolls of government dependency. If we're going to invest, in social and economic mobility then lets invest in programs that REDUCE that dependency rather than increase it. Job training to create a skilled labor pool, tuition assistance, infrastructure , incentivizing business start ups, small business payroll supplements. incentivize the return of off shore jobs. These types of programs hold a far greater potential for economic mobility than permanent poverty subsidies.

No one is starving to death because progressives haven't allowed conservatives to eliminate entitlements, like they would like to do. Projecting that many people will go hungry and some will starve isn't much of a logical leap if the first step is to eliminate their ability to buy food.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 07:15 AM
ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 05:59 AM
Opinionated
Apr 28 2016, 06:19 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society
Yes, hyperbolic nonsense. No one is 'starving to death' in this country. Your interpretation that conservatives would prefer people starve to death is disingenuous nonsense as well. What most conservatives would prefer is that the government not create a culture of permanent dependency.

The answer to structural unemployment is not permanent institutional dependency by giving every citizen a sustenance check that removes incentives to improve one's situation. It's a pollyann-ish fantasy to believe that if we are relieved of our basic responsibilities, we will become MORE productive. The article's author makes it very clear that it will result in lower productivity.

Programs such as the one proposed will only serve to swell the rolls of government dependency. If we're going to invest, in social and economic mobility then lets invest in programs that REDUCE that dependency rather than increase it. Job training to create a skilled labor pool, tuition assistance, infrastructure , incentivizing business start ups, small business payroll supplements. incentivize the return of off shore jobs. These types of programs hold a far greater potential for economic mobility than permanent poverty subsidies.

No one is starving to death because progressives haven't allowed conservatives to eliminate entitlements, like they would like to do. Projecting that many people will go hungry and some will starve isn't much of a logical leap if the first step is to eliminate their ability to buy food.
Yeah yeah, I get it. Cons BAD, Libs GUD...blah blah blah. More hyperbole. A few loudmouthed cons don't speak for the whole, so let's not drag the topic off it's rails with exaggerated partisan finger pointing and blaming.

Do you actually believe that the proposed program is scalable and sustainable? If so, make your case.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 07:28 AM
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 07:15 AM
ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 05:59 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society
No one is starving to death because progressives haven't allowed conservatives to eliminate entitlements, like they would like to do. Projecting that many people will go hungry and some will starve isn't much of a logical leap if the first step is to eliminate their ability to buy food.
Yeah yeah, I get it. Cons BAD, Libs GUD...blah blah blah. More hyperbole. A few loudmouthed cons don't speak for the whole, so let's not drag the topic off it's rails with exaggerated partisan finger pointing and blaming.

Do you actually believe that the proposed program is scalable and sustainable? If so, make your case.
Dude, it's not a "few" conservatives. Pretty much every conservative has something to say about the evils of entitlements. They hate them, they hate them, they hate them.

It's not irrational or illogical to believe that if given the opportunity there are enough who want them all gone that this might in fact happen. Even if many of their fellow conservatives would be harmed in the process.

Look, your side just isn't scoring major points for rationality today in the world of Trump or Cruz for President.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 08:07 AM
ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 07:28 AM
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 07:15 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society
Yeah yeah, I get it. Cons BAD, Libs GUD...blah blah blah. More hyperbole. A few loudmouthed cons don't speak for the whole, so let's not drag the topic off it's rails with exaggerated partisan finger pointing and blaming.

Do you actually believe that the proposed program is scalable and sustainable? If so, make your case.
Dude, it's not a "few" conservatives. Pretty much every conservative has something to say about the evils of entitlements. They hate them, they hate them, they hate them.

It's not irrational or illogical to believe that if given the opportunity there are enough who want them all gone that this might in fact happen. Even if many of their fellow conservatives would be harmed in the process.

Look, your side just isn't scoring major points for rationality today in the world of Trump or Cruz for President.
Hate is a strong word Opie. One which you apply far too broadly. Criticism of entitlements or any other program is not a bad thing. It's how good things get done. Blindly stumbling down a path without ever considering the potential negative consequences is definitely a fools errand. But we see the tactic every day. A plan cannot stand up to scrutiny, so attack and demonize those who would criticize it.

So the case you wish to make in favor of this universal entitlement is "Con's hate entitlements" ? You can hide your lack of substantive argument behind hyperbole and indignation if you like, but it has no place in a rational discussion. Your warped opinion of conservatives has no bearing on the strengths and weaknesses of this proposed program. But it's all ya got so it's blah blah blah Cons.

And don't think for a moment I don't recognize how you make the sensation leap from "cons have things to say" to "cons want people to starve to death"
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 09:01 AM
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 08:07 AM
ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 07:28 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society
Dude, it's not a "few" conservatives. Pretty much every conservative has something to say about the evils of entitlements. They hate them, they hate them, they hate them.

It's not irrational or illogical to believe that if given the opportunity there are enough who want them all gone that this might in fact happen. Even if many of their fellow conservatives would be harmed in the process.

Look, your side just isn't scoring major points for rationality today in the world of Trump or Cruz for President.
Hate is a strong word Opie. One which you apply far too broadly. Criticism of entitlements or any other program is not a bad thing. It's how good things get done. Blindly stumbling down a path without ever considering the potential negative consequences is definitely a fools errand. But we see the tactic every day. A plan cannot stand up to scrutiny, so attack and demonize those who would criticize it.

So the case you wish to make in favor of this universal entitlement is "Con's hate entitlements" ? You can hide your lack of substantive argument behind hyperbole and indignation if you like, but it has no place in a rational discussion. Your warped opinion of conservatives has no bearing on the strengths and weaknesses of this proposed program. But it's all ya got so it's blah blah blah Cons.

And don't think for a moment I don't recognize how you make the sensation leap from "cons have things to say" to "cons want people to starve to death"
Ringo, you strike me as a pretty reasonable guy. If you say that you personally don't hate entitlements and instead are just interested in offering constructive criticism with how they're managed, funded, and the goals involved, then I'm willing to accept your word that this is true.

But I've known and talked with far too many conservatives to believe that there aren't conservatives out there, and my personal experience is that this is a fairly high percentage of conservatives, who simply find entitlements unacceptable in all but perhaps the most extreme cases.

Now, I could support my contention with news articles and statements by leading conservatives that tend to support this perspective. And you could certainly could counter with news articles and statements by other leading conservatives that tend to refute it. But regardless of how much evidence I provided and how much counter evidence you provided, neither of us is going to be moved from our personal positions based on our personal experience.

So my question to you is, why would we waste our time in such an exercise?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 09:45 AM
ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 09:01 AM
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 08:07 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society
Hate is a strong word Opie. One which you apply far too broadly. Criticism of entitlements or any other program is not a bad thing. It's how good things get done. Blindly stumbling down a path without ever considering the potential negative consequences is definitely a fools errand. But we see the tactic every day. A plan cannot stand up to scrutiny, so attack and demonize those who would criticize it.

So the case you wish to make in favor of this universal entitlement is "Con's hate entitlements" ? You can hide your lack of substantive argument behind hyperbole and indignation if you like, but it has no place in a rational discussion. Your warped opinion of conservatives has no bearing on the strengths and weaknesses of this proposed program. But it's all ya got so it's blah blah blah Cons.

And don't think for a moment I don't recognize how you make the sensation leap from "cons have things to say" to "cons want people to starve to death"
Ringo, you strike me as a pretty reasonable guy. If you say that you personally don't hate entitlements and instead are just interested in offering constructive criticism with how they're managed, funded, and the goals involved, then I'm willing to accept your word that this is true.

But I've known and talked with far too many conservatives to believe that there aren't conservatives out there, and my personal experience is that this is a fairly high percentage of conservatives, who simply find entitlements unacceptable in all but perhaps the most extreme cases.

Now, I could support my contention with news articles and statements by leading conservatives that tend to support this perspective. And you could certainly could counter with news articles and statements by other leading conservatives that tend to refute it. But regardless of how much evidence I provided and how much counter evidence you provided, neither of us is going to be moved from our personal positions based on our personal experience.

So my question to you is, why would we waste our time in such an exercise?
Personal experiences and anecdotes don't hold much water in a discussion involving broad generalizations. They are non-disprovable and obviously skewed by personal bias. I can cherry pick my own experience to prove or disprove that either cons or libs are good or evil.

I've no doubt at all that you can scour the liberal media for articles that confirm your bias. There's a whole industry out there who's sole purpose is to do exactly that. But a reasonable person is skeptical enough not to swallow the slop.

I can help you with that. You can start here.

Occupy Democrats
Addicting Info.
Huffington Post
Salon

Where I've wasted my time is in trying to drag from you, any logic for your support of this program that doesn't involve "Cons Hate"

Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 12:16 PM
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 09:45 AM
ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 09:01 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society
Ringo, you strike me as a pretty reasonable guy. If you say that you personally don't hate entitlements and instead are just interested in offering constructive criticism with how they're managed, funded, and the goals involved, then I'm willing to accept your word that this is true.

But I've known and talked with far too many conservatives to believe that there aren't conservatives out there, and my personal experience is that this is a fairly high percentage of conservatives, who simply find entitlements unacceptable in all but perhaps the most extreme cases.

Now, I could support my contention with news articles and statements by leading conservatives that tend to support this perspective. And you could certainly could counter with news articles and statements by other leading conservatives that tend to refute it. But regardless of how much evidence I provided and how much counter evidence you provided, neither of us is going to be moved from our personal positions based on our personal experience.

So my question to you is, why would we waste our time in such an exercise?
Personal experiences and anecdotes don't hold much water in a discussion involving broad generalizations. They are non-disprovable and obviously skewed by personal bias. I can cherry pick my own experience to prove or disprove that either cons or libs are good or evil.

I've no doubt at all that you can scour the liberal media for articles that confirm your bias. There's a whole industry out there who's sole purpose is to do exactly that. But a reasonable person is skeptical enough not to swallow the slop.

I can help you with that. You can start here.

Occupy Democrats
Addicting Info.
Huffington Post
Salon

Where I've wasted my time is in trying to drag from you, any logic for your support of this program that doesn't involve "Cons Hate"

And which program is it you're interested in discussing? Social Security? Basis living allowance? Other entitlements? Could you be more specific than "this program"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 12:19 PM
ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 12:16 PM
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 09:45 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society
Personal experiences and anecdotes don't hold much water in a discussion involving broad generalizations. They are non-disprovable and obviously skewed by personal bias. I can cherry pick my own experience to prove or disprove that either cons or libs are good or evil.

I've no doubt at all that you can scour the liberal media for articles that confirm your bias. There's a whole industry out there who's sole purpose is to do exactly that. But a reasonable person is skeptical enough not to swallow the slop.

I can help you with that. You can start here.

Occupy Democrats
Addicting Info.
Huffington Post
Salon

Where I've wasted my time is in trying to drag from you, any logic for your support of this program that doesn't involve "Cons Hate"

And which program is it you're interested in discussing? Social Security? Basis living allowance? Other entitlements? Could you be more specific than "this program"?
I've been quite specific throughout the thread...Apparently you've been too consumed by your "Cons Hate" meme to pay attention. Go back and read the thread. I'm tired of repeating myself down an empty shaft. Gotta go start the fire...we can pick this up later if you like
Edited by ringotuna, Apr 29 2016, 12:25 PM.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 12:24 PM
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 12:19 PM
ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 12:16 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society
And which program is it you're interested in discussing? Social Security? Basis living allowance? Other entitlements? Could you be more specific than "this program"?
I've been quite specific throughout the thread...Apparently you've been too consumed by your "Cons Hate" meme to pay attention. Go back and read the thread. I'm tired of repeating myself down an empty shaft. Gotta go start the fire...we can pick this up later if you like
I went all the way back back to page 6, which is where I jumped in on this. And you never mentioned once what it is exactly you are interested in discussing.

You may think you've been clear, but I think you may not realize how much energy you've spent on quips and not actually making your point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 02:46 PM
ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 12:24 PM
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 12:19 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society
I've been quite specific throughout the thread...Apparently you've been too consumed by your "Cons Hate" meme to pay attention. Go back and read the thread. I'm tired of repeating myself down an empty shaft. Gotta go start the fire...we can pick this up later if you like
I went all the way back back to page 6, which is where I jumped in on this. And you never mentioned once what it is exactly you are interested in discussing.

You may think you've been clear, but I think you may not realize how much energy you've spent on quips and not actually making your point.
I do hope you're just playing dumb. The alternative is, well not very flattering. My point is quite clear, sometimes stated in subtle "quips" other times more overt. I often prefer to provoke thought in my ideas, but recognize that it's often lost on some less than astute readers. I know it can be challenging for some, but in the end any rational reader would know the program I've been trying to get you discuss.

By the way you should have gone further back than page 6, you jumped in on page 2. Not 6.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 05:05 PM
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 02:46 PM
ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 12:24 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society
I went all the way back back to page 6, which is where I jumped in on this. And you never mentioned once what it is exactly you are interested in discussing.

You may think you've been clear, but I think you may not realize how much energy you've spent on quips and not actually making your point.
I do hope you're just playing dumb. The alternative is, well not very flattering. My point is quite clear, sometimes stated in subtle "quips" other times more overt. I often prefer to provoke thought in my ideas, but recognize that it's often lost on some less than astute readers. I know it can be challenging for some, but in the end any rational reader would know the program I've been trying to get you discuss.

By the way you should have gone further back than page 6, you jumped in on page 2. Not 6.
Okay ringo, you're not going to say what you want to discuss and I'm not going to hunt through the entire thread to find it. Have a nice rest of the day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 05:41 PM
ringotuna
Apr 29 2016, 05:05 PM
Opinionated
Apr 29 2016, 02:46 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepour society
I do hope you're just playing dumb. The alternative is, well not very flattering. My point is quite clear, sometimes stated in subtle "quips" other times more overt. I often prefer to provoke thought in my ideas, but recognize that it's often lost on some less than astute readers. I know it can be challenging for some, but in the end any rational reader would know the program I've been trying to get you discuss.

By the way you should have gone further back than page 6, you jumped in on page 2. Not 6.
Okay ringo, you're not going to say what you want to discuss and I'm not going to hunt through the entire thread to find it. Have a nice rest of the day.
Are ya done?
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply