We make 250,000/year. I'm not a f***ing billionaire

I apologize for calling you racist without any evidence - that was wrong. You seem to have come to your beliefs honestly - and although I think they are wrong - I should have been more respectful.

Neb wrote:

"Exposed" - you are the worst poster on here. If you're going to claim that somebody took quotes out of context then show us the evidence.

If it's as obvious as you say it is - then it shouldn't be too hard.

thanks Neb. It's nice to have a poster of your quality agreeing with me.

But of course this poster is probably gonna say:

"hey bro', you and neb are the same dude, bro'. C'mon, you didn't provide us all with entire text of the book that the quotes came from, so.....you lose bro'! Game over brah! Thanks for playing bro-man!"

You know, something really original, mature and intelligent.

exposed wrote:

The Undertaker wrote:

Officially or not, this thread is now dead.

How many aliases are you going to make up?

If you can't defend your position, don't post here, bro.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you think that I am someone who has been arguing with you on this thread. If so you are sadly mistaken. I am just an observer, watching a thread die a slow and painful death.

So, given how stupid your assumption was, I'm going to have to ask you - how does it feel to be a idiotic human being? Just curious really. It must be quite fascinating to go around making stupid assumptions like you did here and then being surprised to find out "Oops, guess I was wrong. Again." Seriously, how does it feel to be a moron?

Well, we're STILL waiting...

Bro, can you forward me the email?

exposed wrote:

Well, we're STILL waiting...

Bro, can you forward me the email?

Dude, you still don't get it, do you? Your stupidity is so limiting that even after it is pointed out to you you are still unable to see your blunder.

You are so cute I just can't stand it.

But as far as it being interesting to be as stupid as you are, I take it back. Your level is way beneath where it might be somewhat interesting to experience for a day. Instead, you seem to be walking around in a nightmarish world where even when your error is explicitly pointed out to you you remain unable to see.

How very sad.

If you want to take apart the social safety net because you think stupid people will suddenly become enlightened by the harsh reality, best of luck to you.

I think what's more likely to happen is that many of those lazy, stupid people that are often harped on will break the law to get what they don't have (people will go to some lengths to not starve). Then you can pay $47,000 per year, per inmate when you could have spent a bit more on education and public assistance and might have ended up with a productive citizen, possibly a moocher, but instead you end up with a hardened criminal.

I love this line of thinking.

When was the free market going to build the interstate highways? Is the free market going to produce a criminal justice system?

So you've got your privately hired guards and your weapons to protect your property. But I'm Carlos Slim. I can buy more than 48,000 Tomahawk missiles to light up you and your private security detail. Who is going to stop me when you are solely responsible for your own protection?

It's obvious that Trex can't defend his position.

Let me give you some advice, bro. Next time someone sends you an email with a whole lot of quotes in it, do yourself a favor and become educated on the subject before copying/pasting it on the internet. People will call you out on it.

The United States government exists to protect the rights of its citizens. This comes from the Lockean philosophy that man has the right to "life, liberty, and property" and that we voluntarily surrender some of our rights to the government to ensure the protection of life, liberty, and property, or as it says in the Declaration of Independence, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As a nation we have decided that to protect the rights of citizens it is necessary for the government to pay for and construct infrastructure like roads, parks, bridges, etc. Remember, around the turn of the century, city zoning was non-existent, unsafe and unhealthy tenements took up large parts of cities, and there were very few, if any, parks or open spaces. A lot of that changed during the Progressive Era and during the Depression, when government programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps provided people with jobs in exchange for improving roadways and public open space. Most of that wouldn't happen if it was left to the "free market" because it isn't profitable. It might not seem like it at times, but the government is a pretty efficient machine. If Social Security was left to a private business, it would not be able to provide the same level of service because private businesses need to run a profit. So it is the responsibility of the government to step in to these gaps in the free market, the unprofitable roads, parks, bridges, etc. in order to protect the basic rights of the people who use them. I live on a quiet street, would a private business have paved that street if they couldn't collect enough tolls from the 20 cars a day that drive down it? But I have a right to be able to go to the grocery store when I need to. The free market doesn't demand it, the free market doesn't care if Wegman's loses the 5 customers on my street. 5 customers aren't worth the thousands of dollars it costs to pave a street. The government stepped in to pave that street because the government is protecting my rights. The government couldn't do that without taxes.

So there.

that was in response to reading 101

exposed wrote:

It's obvious that Trex can't defend his position.

Let me give you some advice, bro. Next time someone sends you an email with a whole lot of quotes in it, do yourself a favor and become educated on the subject before copying/pasting it on the internet. People will call you out on it.

Ummmmm you haven't called him out on anything yet.

You might have a valid point but you haven't produced any evidence whats so ever to prove your point.

You claim someone else is using quotes out of context but you refuse to provide evidence to back up your claim.

Then you go and say the other guy has to provide the evidence for you to prove he is wrong.

Its kind of a weird way to debate something.

So in the end you haven't proven anything because you haven't even tried yet.

But i'm guessing you are just trying to get a rise out of people or you would just provide the evidence you apparently know so much about.

"Whether property alone, and the whole of what each citizen possesses, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus, after satisfying his first wants, or whether the faculties of body and mind shall contribute from their annual earnings, is a question to be decided. But when decided, and the principle settled, it is to be equally and fairly applied to all. To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers' has acquired too much, in order to spare others who, or whose fathers has not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Obama

I point out the obvious wrote:

You might have a valid point but you haven't produced any evidence whats so ever to prove your point.

whatsoever

"Taxes on consumption like those on capital and income, to be just, must be uniform." - Obama

exposed wrote:

It's obvious that Trex can't defend his position.

Let me give you some advice, bro. Next time someone sends you an email with a whole lot of quotes in it, do yourself a favor and become educated on the subject before copying/pasting it on the internet. People will call you out on it.

I love arguing with someone who thinks calling you "bro" is a good debating tactic.

Look, you've achieved your goal of being annoying even for letsrun standards, so congrats on that.

But here's the thing: I posted the link for the site that I got the quotes and the analysis from. But I guess you missed that, in your rush to be bromeister doucheman.

If you can find evidence of these quotes being part of some chain e-mail, then be my guest, show us that. Or am I supposed to do that for you too, along with supplying you with the full chapters of the books these quotes came from?

So are you going to debate the meaning of the quotes, or are you just going to keep coming back with something very witty like:

" hey bro, you got nothing. You got no context, you got no game. Thanks for playing brah" ?

Yes, I imaging this is how you converse with and debate with your peers on the playground or cafeteria. But there you are discussing what? What's more gross, puke or diarrhea ? I am sure they are some scintillating discussions! Keep us posted.

Okay. I'll step in.

The following passage includes one of the excerpt one of the bickering poster's pasted from that website.

During his Presidency, what did Jefferson do to accomplish the items in this letter?

Letter to James Madison - October 28, 1785

The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

You just ended this thread by actually trying to start a rational discussion. Shame on you.

Yes and No.The interesting excerpts follow the original quoted material. As nonsensical as 'exposed' was, he was right that context matters - namely in this letter.

every time I sung wrote:

America has collapsed intellectually and morally. Those of you who want to punish happiness and cannibalize anyone who is happier than you deserve so richly what is about to happen.

they don't want to punish someone's good fortune, they want to punish being fortunate AND bitching about it. Which is another way of saying the OP is seemingly not grateful for his success. Plus, he doesn't seem very happy.