quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

How is it that this guy hasn't been banned for threatening thompsonx yet?

I have been threatened by many with much more talent.
I am still here and they are not

I didn't threaten you, I kindly asked you to insert an object into yourself.

Big difference, but you seem to have trouble comprehending things.

If you would learn to read you would have noticed that the above post was not directed at you but was instead a response to "got steel" concerning posts by "cuky".
This would be the point were you apologize

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Common popular usage trumps text book definitions, at least in the realm of the common man, of which this forum is composed, call it ignorance, which it may be, but with time, the corrupted meaning becomes the new meaning.

So if we all start calling you a child molester but we decide that "child molester" means right wing moron, that would be ok with you?

Wow, so, you think of an insult, based on my observation that language gets corrupted, and eventually trumps the old definition. You don't have to be a historian to realize this happens. I neither condoned nor condemned it. It's a fact.  So, in ThompsonX land recognizing a common reality is grounds for insult.

Anyway, I know you're a sack of shit. Please, go Fuck yourself with a razor blade.

I made an analogy to show you the idiocy of your statement.
Words mean what they mean. That is why there are dictionaries.
That usage changes with time, so also does the dictionary.
As for your charming suggestion...What else could one expect from someone like you.

Yeah, play stupid,  in your example either you would be calling me a child molester or a right wing moron by equivalence.

So if we all start calling you a child molester but we decide that "child molester" means right wing moron, that would be ok with you?

Here I'll break it down for you.

"So if we all start calling you" (that would be NTUY), thus personal.

You obviously missed the word "IF"...learn to read for fucks sake.

"a child molester" (what's worse than that)?

Murder

"but we decide that "child molester" means right wing moron" (So my option is child molester or Right wing moron, thus the offense, either way I'm selecting something bad), Thanks.

No, in the example we have changed the meaning of "child molester" to right wing moron. This according to your rules for changing language.

, that would be ok with you? (Nope obviously no one would like to be called a right wing moron or a child molester).

Your post seem to fulfill the criteria for a right wing moron

It's like me asking you if we Decide Fuckwad means Idiot, you wouldn't get upset when I used Fuckwad to describe you as an Idiot?

Yes I would be offended because I do not subscribe to your view of how language changes.

Anyway, what else would someone expect from someone that writes examples combining "You", "Child Molester", and "Moron" in a single sentence and feigns shock when not received well.

When the outrage is from someone who cannot decipher plane English of course I am shocked. Learn English if you are going to post in Enbglish.

quote:

I don't have reading comprehension problems, my ACT score proves that and my grades, so we don't need to argue such things

quote:

Okay Fuckwad I'm sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Just to poke poke a finger in thompson's eye, cause we've shared that way a time or two. LOL


When the outrage is from someone who cannot decipher plane English of course I am shocked. Learn English if you are going to post in English.

That would be plain as in simple English as opposed to plane as in flat surface English wouldn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I don't have reading comprehension problems, my ACT score proves that and my grades, so we don't need to argue such things

And you drive a Ferrari, and you live in a big house, and you have more money than me, and of course your dick is 14" long and anything else you wish to post.
Of course the things you write and the syntax and diction that you use to express yourself would never tell us anything about your intellectual or ethical capacity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

I feel so poorly represented until I get to Invisable Black's definition of socialism. then I feel a bit vindicated.

Socialism is efficient, at spreading the wealth, the assumption that spreading it according to the current electorate at any given time believes to be "fair" is where I part with socialism.

There is your first problem. You have given a faulty definition of socialism which you are correct to disagree with.

My leaning towards capitalism isn't based on the pipe dream that I will actually be at the top (as mentioned earlier in the thread) but rather that my efforts make that at least a potential outcome, no matter how unlikely.

In the 200+ years of our republic would you please give us a list of those who have made that theoretical jump.

My averssion to socialism is based on the fact that nobody seems to define FAIR in a way that resonates with me when determining at the government level what is the fair way to divide wealth.

When one defines socialism in such a manner it is easy to disagree with it. Why don't you address your concerns with what socialism acutally is?

I'm good with some small s socialism being in the mix, the difference is my preffered mix has a much smaller portion than the current government in many areas. I believe that the government taxing me to mandate a charitable giving situation works contrary to the spirit of charity as a human value. That the government taking over things that used to be the function of charity eventually works against the true benefit to both the giver and the receiver of assistance.

Perhaps you might want to read a little history before you say such assinine things. You clearly have no clue as to the plight of the not rich in this country until relatively recently. Private charity did not work and does not work. why? Because the rich could give a fuck less about the not rich.

Support the general welfare and provide specific welfare are two very different concepts.

So welfare to the rich is ok because of "trickle down"? But welfare to the not rich is bad because?

quote:

Socialism is based on the idea that it is a legitimate government function to involve itself with how wealth is distributed, I find no supporting evidence for this function in the Constitution.

Since you quoted the relevant section earlier why is it so difficult to remember "Provide for the common welfare" now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyman

The Americal Division had the largest AO in Viet Nam and the address of the Que Shan valley is surely know to the 196th Inf Brigade as well as the first Marine Div...Chu Lai was where we operated out of along the OV-10 Bronco aircraft assigned to find and kill the many hard core NVA operating in the area.... yeah, like 1970 was a picnic or something.... we did our part and no units were better than those I served with..... We came home to turds that met planes throwing shit on them as they yelled 'baby killers'... I have a personal war with liberals dating back to that time and I plan to continue that war until the 'bleeding hearts'... just bleed period.... that would make my day....

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyman

I am sick of academia types

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrMister

I do not mean to be disrespectful of others views (and hopefully no one will take it as such and be disrespectful of me here), but in an honest attempt to better understand, I wanted to ask the following to anyone who is a socialist, or believes in socialism;

Based upon the definition given above, why is socialism a better avenue for our government to take, as opposed to our government providing an environment that enables us to better take care of ourselves?

As I said, I do not intend to come across that you are evil, despicable, or whatever else, for believing what you do. I am just hoping to better understand your position. 

...well, your question is a minor hijack, because i started this thread to try to understand why the word has had its meaning bastardised so much.

However, let me share with you my take on it. i don't believe in pure socialsim, but neither do i believe in pure capitalism. i believe that the best governmental style is what's known as the mixed economy. Elements are operated by the government, while the greater part is privately owned. Specifically, i believe that infrastructure should be owned by the people via the government, while the only government influence in the rest of the economy is to provide regulations to ensure that fraud and dangerous business practises are kept to a minimum.

Hope that answers your question, at least as far as i'm concerned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

I feel so poorly represented until I get to Invisable Black's definition of socialism. then I feel a bit vindicated.

Socialism is efficient, at spreading the wealth, the assumption that spreading it according to the current electorate at any given time believes to be "fair" is where I part with socialism.

There is your first problem. You have given a faulty definition of socialism which you are correct to disagree with.

Actually I didn't give a definition I expressed a sympathy fo the definition that Invisable Black gave, but you seem to be on a tear with others so I kinda expect the adversarial crap rather than a real conversation.

BTW the irony of smacking someone for a lack English understanding combined with the Plane vs Plain word choice was hilarious even if unaddressed.

My leaning towards capitalism isn't based on the pipe dream that I will actually be at the top (as mentioned earlier in the thread) but rather that my efforts make that at least a potential outcome, no matter how unlikely.

In the 200+ years of our republic would you please give us a list of those who have made that theoretical jump.

A list of self made millionaires in the past 200 years is simple enough to come up with all you need do is google.

My averssion to socialism is based on the fact that nobody seems to define FAIR in a way that resonates with me when determining at the government level what is the fair way to divide wealth.

When one defines socialism in such a manner it is easy to disagree with it. Why don't you address your concerns with what socialism acutally is?

So let me see Socialism is not an economic system with the redistribution of wealth by force of government as a very central tenant? Now of course the fact that even the self proclaimed socialist have a wide range of subdivided schools of socialist thought to draw from so that anything short of a textbook would leave out enough for the motivated adversary to play gotcha with.

I'm good with some small s socialism being in the mix, the difference is my preffered mix has a much smaller portion than the current government in many areas. I believe that the government taxing me to mandate a charitable giving situation works contrary to the spirit of charity as a human value. That the government taking over things that used to be the function of charity eventually works against the true benefit to both the giver and the receiver of assistance.

Perhaps you might want to read a little history before you say such assinine things. You clearly have no clue as to the plight of the not rich in this country until relatively recently. Private charity did not work and does not work. why? Because the rich could give a fuck less about the not rich.

Asnine OK Mr Burro, Charirty raises up both the giver and the receiver. What part of that statement do you have problems with? Forced charity raises up neither the giver nor the receiver. That is my point.
The flaws of capitalism is not the point in debate here the flaws of socialism are part of the topic.
The fact that charity is forced when government taxes to provide for it, takes all the nobility out of the act.
I wouldn't argue that the level of charity has historically been sufficient, but that is not a matter of economic theories but the hearts of men not being right. Socialism does not change and cannot change the hearts of men.

Support the general welfare and provide specific welfare are two very different concepts.

So welfare to the rich is ok because of "trickle down"? But welfare to the not rich is bad because?

quote:

Socialism is based on the idea that it is a legitimate government function to involve itself with how wealth is distributed, I find no supporting evidence for this function in the Constitution.

Since you quoted the relevant section earlier why is it so difficult to remember "Provide for the common welfare" now?

How about YOU quote the actual constitution rather than misquote it thompsonx,

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.

You sit corrected