Great viewpoint on the 1%.

[Bfgrn]

When you posted the quote from the OP, you for got those pesky little quotation marks. I didn't say it was true, the person I quoted said that. And even that was just to say he understands the reasons for the protests. The point of the post was what followed that.

I can explain it in greater detail if you need me to do so.

The point of my post was that conservatives throughout history have always tried to create some form of an aristocracy. The fact that you accepted the 1% premise without any concern for what it signifies is more revealing than what you said. It just verifies that an aristocracy is acceptable to you.

 

[cawacko]

The point of my post was that conservatives throughout history have always tried to create some form of an aristocracy. The fact that you accepted the 1% premise without any concern for what it signifies is more revealing than what you said. It just verifies that an aristocracy is acceptable to you.

Bfgrn, help me out big man. I went to two events/parties the last two nights in San Francisco where I will be honest I felt very out of place. These were big art showings for the top 1% (and there was a lot of political talk) yet here my dumb *ss was let in. So I spent my time with very well to do people attempting to talk about something which I had very little clue about (equate it to Superfreak talking about college football). So I spent my time with rich liberals Bfgrn. Now I'm sure you can cut and paste a response to me (because that is what you are good at)... (as an aside there are five of us on this board who have a side bet that you will never give more than a paragraph of your own opinion. Well the bet says you won't give a paragraph of your own opinion. So please don't start now. Haha, thank you.)

 

[cawacko]

The point of my post was that conservatives throughout history have always tried to create some form of an aristocracy. The fact that you accepted the 1% premise without any concern for what it signifies is more revealing than what you said. It just verifies that an aristocracy is acceptable to you.

Ahhh Bfgrn, you try to speak about Superfreak but in reality he truly sucks. I mean he likes Nebraska. You should school him intellectually. You should get in a conversation with him and not copy and paste for at least five posts. Go head up and school him. Mano y mano. No posting someone else's opinion. Just your own and his own.

If you went five posts of your own thoughts only and not someone else's I think you could handle it sir. Make it happen big man!

 

[WinterBorn]

The point of my post was that conservatives throughout history have always tried to create some form of an aristocracy. The fact that you accepted the 1% premise without any concern for what it signifies is more revealing than what you said. It just verifies that an aristocracy is acceptable to you.

So, in other words, you pick what you want to see. If you read that post I quoted, and all you got was that I accepted the 1% premise as fact, you are ignoring whatever doesn't fit what you want to believe about me.

That is not surprising.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn, help me out big man. I went to two events/parties the last two nights in San Francisco where I will be honest I felt very out of place. These were big art showings for the top 1% (and there was a lot of political talk) yet here my dumb *ss was let in. So I spent my time with very well to do people attempting to talk about something which I had very little clue about (equate it to Superfreak talking about college football). So I spent my time with rich liberals Bfgrn. Now I'm sure you can cut and paste a response to me (because that is what you are good at)... (as an aside there are five of us on this board who have a side bet that you will never give more than a paragraph of your own opinion. Well the bet says you won't give a paragraph of your own opinion. So please don't start now. Haha, thank you.)

Well the bet is lost because I have posted my own opinion numerous times at length. But maybe you need to be schooled on what opinion is and what backing up opinion with data and/or evidence creates. They are called FACTS and truth. Isn't truth is what we all need to deal with if any problems are to be solved?

Besides trying to always create an aristocracy, what I see from people who call themselves 'conservatives' is a whole set of FALSE facts; death panels, government takeover of healthcare, the New Deal didn't turn around the economy, the stimulus bill didn't create any jobs...etc, etc, etc.

Maybe you right wing parrots need to copy and paste where you get the shit that fills your little tiny brains. Then I can link them to the huge corporate polluters and cartels that fund your propaganda and Fox News talking points.

BTW, many of the sources I use are conservatives and Republicans. But even that doesn't make any of you parrots think. Instead they are called a RINO.


"I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything."
David Frum - Speechwriter for George W. Bush

 

[Bfgrn]

So, in other words, you pick what you want to see. If you read that post I quoted, and all you got was that I accepted the 1% premise as fact, you are ignoring whatever doesn't fit what you want to believe about me.

That is not surprising.

Actually, I pose a question that each person can answer for themselves.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

 

[The Dude]

The single highest yearly GDP growth was 1942, our first year of involvement in WWII. The second highest was 1941, the year before we entered the war.[/QUOTE
Yet oddly your statement was contrary to the facts

 

[Bfgrn]

The single highest yearly GDP growth was 1942, our first year of involvement in WWII. The second highest was 1941, the year before we entered the war.[/QUOTE
Yet oddly your statement was contrary to the facts

It is not contrary to the 'facts'. Any intelligent person would realize that 24 days does not make a year. And an intelligent person would realize that it took a year to train, equip and mobilize an army.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

One day, the productive class (the 99%) will rise up and take back what is rightfully theirs from the receiving class (the 1%).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The Americans who produce can expect nothing from the Americans who receive simply because things are worse in the third world? STOP TRYING TO MAKE US LIVE LIKE WE'RE IN A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, CONSERVATIVES!

 

[Damocles]

Context
n.
1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

Your problem is the post of yours that I quoted, quoted Superfreak, and stated nothing of the sort. In this post:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?35716-Great-viewpoint-on-the-1-.&p=889983#post889983

This was the post you quoted, please not what follows 1):

Buffoon...

1) 99% of the wealth of this country is NOT in the hands of the top 1%
2) The top 1% in 1996 saw 57% of its members change by 2005... that is NOT an aristocracy
3) Try reading all of my posts, as you would see I addressed the legitimate points made by Oncelor.... when you decide to start actually posting your own thoughts rather than some bullshit nonsense you found on an ultra left wing trash site, then perhaps people will stop mocking your ignorance.

Reality: Superfreak has never said that this particular myth was true. You quoted him in that context while repeating the myth. You now have not only proven your reading comprehension issue, but you have now placed yourself firmly into a credibility hole. The context of the post you quoted clearly shows you are not just lying about that 1%.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your problem is the post of yours that I quoted, quoted Superfreak, and stated nothing of the sort. In this post:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?35716-Great-viewpoint-on-the-1-.&p=889983#post889983

This was the post you quoted, please not what follows 1):



Reality: Superfreak has never said that this particular myth was true. You quoted him in that context while repeating the myth. You now have not only proven your reading comprehension issue, but you have now placed yourself firmly into a credibility hole. The context of the post you quoted clearly shows you are not just lying about that 1%.

My post was in reply to WinterBorn's OP. Freak had a separate conversation with Onceler. I did not read his posts addressed to Onceler.

But you are missing the point. Whether the premise is true or false is irrelevant in the context of my reply to the OP. What IS relevant is that WinterBorn accepts the premise as fact and proceeds to make excuses and justifications. Our serfs have it better than Mexico's and the Dominican Republic's serfs.

 

[Damocles]

My post was in reply to WinterBorn's OP. Freak had a separate conversation with Onceler. I did not read his posts addressed to Onceler.

But you are missing the point. Whether the premise is true or false is irrelevant in the context of my reply to the OP. What IS relevant is that WinterBorn accepts the premise as fact and proceeds to make excuses and justifications. Our serfs have it better than Mexico's and the Dominican Republic's serfs.

You shouldn't quote Superfreak if you are not responding to Superfreak. Winterborn has nothing to do with this, I provided you a link to your post, tell me who you quoted?

 

[Bfgrn]

You shouldn't quote Superfreak if you are not responding to Superfreak. Winterborn has nothing to do with this, I provided you a link to your post, tell me who you quoted?

I didn't 'quote' freak, I responded to him and made the same point to him that I made to you.

I said to freak: "Maybe IF YOU HAD READ my post, you would know the context of my comment to WB. Whether 99% of the wealth of this country in the hands of the top 1% is irrelevant, because my criticism was based on HIS acceptance of that as fact, and HIS lack of concern that it would signify an aristocracy."

 

[Damocles]

I didn't 'quote' freak, I responded to him and made the same point to him that I made to you.

I said to freak: "Maybe IF YOU HAD READ my post, you would know the context of my comment to WB. Whether 99% of the wealth of this country in the hands of the top 1% is irrelevant, because my criticism was based on HIS acceptance of that as fact, and HIS lack of concern that it would signify an aristocracy."

Right, didn't quote freak... in that quote box whose name is it?

Reality, you restate the myth. He points that out. You try to make an excuse.

Let's hold a conversation that actually takes into account the reality of the myth rather than try to perpetuate "inaccuracies" (read: lies).

 

[signalmankenneth]

 

[The Dude]

Shouldn't tell ant kids to skip college, this is the asinine shit you wind up saying.

 

[Bfgrn]

Right, didn't quote freak... in that quote box whose name is it?

Reality, you restate the myth. He points that out. You try to make an excuse.

Let's hold a conversation that actually takes into account the reality of the myth rather than try to perpetuate "inaccuracies" (read: lies).

Do you have a serious cognitive affliction? The accuracy is irrelevant. WinterBorn accepted it as fact. THAT is the ONLY reality that matters in the context of my post.

 

[WinterBorn]

I didn't 'quote' freak, I responded to him and made the same point to him that I made to you.

I said to freak: "Maybe IF YOU HAD READ my post, you would know the context of my comment to WB. Whether 99% of the wealth of this country in the hands of the top 1% is irrelevant, because my criticism was based on HIS acceptance of that as fact, and HIS lack of concern that it would signify an aristocracy."

Since you seem unable to comprehend what I said before, let me help you out. Can you point out where I said that I accepted the 1% as fact? Virtually the entire OP is a quote. I thought it showed a very valid and oft ignored viewpoint. Your "You want an aristocracy!!" answer is nonsense.

Although, since the gov't is run my millionaires, and your liberal ideals show a desire to have everything run by the gov't, you could be said to favor exactly what you accuse conservatives of wanting.

 

[WinterBorn]

Do you have a serious cognitive affliction? The accuracy is irrelevant. WinterBorn accepted it as fact. THAT is the ONLY reality that matters in the context of my post.

I did? Really?