it wasnt a good post since he was 100% wrong on what i was sayingVaregg wrote:
Now you just ruined a good post with the last sentence Vilham
dont make me go pull up some recent posts of yours between GS and yourself ok.ATG wrote:
All the swearing and name calling you do makes you look dumb.
I would have to say if you are sitting at a loan officer's desk at signing, and you are in the process of signing a variable interest rate loan at a time where the interest rates have been the lowest they have been in 20 years, you are naive to not consider what happens when the rates double. Historically they've been as high as 30%, and you're signing at 2%. And to think "Wow, so I can get a $500k loan with no money down?" The signee has no fault in that?CameronPoe wrote:
That's right: nobody ever gets a mortgage, eh? Only irresonsible people get their homes repossessed, eh? Companies letting people go because the economy has been mismanaged never gives rise to such a thing. Neither does the impact of repossessions having a knock on effect on house value for EVERYONE, eh? Neither do interest rate increases, eh? They have no impact on the economy now do they usmarine? Are you sure you aren't a McCain economics adviser?
I find it ironic that a republican bill allowed variable interest mortgages with strict requirements, then the democrats said it was racist because not everyone had the means to get a credit score to get one so it was lowered...and then the interest rates go up under republican watch...and everyone is blaming each other.
Well, bullshit. Don't sign something if you haven't figured out the possible outcomes.
I'll compare my vitriol to yours anytime.usmarine wrote:
dont make me go pull up some recent posts of yours between GS and yourself ok.ATG wrote:
All the swearing and name calling you do makes you look dumb.
Do you have any black friend?lowing wrote:
The difference being, it is a legitiment argument. The liberals of the US want exactly what they are accused of wanting, and I am against it.sergeriver wrote:
The Liberal argument is tiresome as well tbh.lowing wrote:
Well Serge, I have not made a racist comment, here or anyewhere else for that matter. I do not compare Obama and Oprah, I have shown that Oprah is largely the reason for Obamas just add water instant success. She gave him exposure in Chicago and came out full force to fund and endorse a campaign.
The fact that she is black really has nothing to do with it. The fact that Obana is black really has nothing to do with it. The fact that he is a liberal has everything to do with it.
See it as I called it along time ago. Say somethinng against Obama and you are a racist......tiresome, predictable and typical, but tiresome.
This is a far cry from inventing an argument such as racist or generalizing to avoid the issue at hand.
I also notice that you did not actually challenge my response to your accusations, that pretty much tells me I might be right in my observations of it.
STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!ATG wrote:
I'll compare my vitriol to yours anytime.usmarine wrote:
dont make me go pull up some recent posts of yours between GS and yourself ok.ATG wrote:
All the swearing and name calling you do makes you look dumb.
*curles up in fetal position covering ears*
Take this via PMs !!!ATG wrote:
I'll compare my vitriol to yours anytime.usmarine wrote:
dont make me go pull up some recent posts of yours between GS and yourself ok.ATG wrote:
All the swearing and name calling you do makes you look dumb.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Sorry Serge, I have a lot of friends, some are black some are white some are hispanic some are liberals some are conservative some are Jewish, some are Christian, there might even be some Muslims in the mix. I do not have them catorgorized so I can not tell you how many of each I have. Maybe you could enlighten me on where you are going with this based on the post you quoted.sergeriver wrote:
Do you have any black friend?lowing wrote:
The difference being, it is a legitiment argument. The liberals of the US want exactly what they are accused of wanting, and I am against it.sergeriver wrote:
The Liberal argument is tiresome as well tbh.
This is a far cry from inventing an argument such as racist or generalizing to avoid the issue at hand.
I also notice that you did not actually challenge my response to your accusations, that pretty much tells me I might be right in my observations of it.
Well, black people have a darker skin, you can eaily tell they are black tbh.lowing wrote:
Sorry Serge, I have a lot of friends, some are black some are white some are hispanic some are liberals some are conservative some are Jewish, some are Christian, there might even be some Muslims in the mix. I do not have them catorgorized so I can not tell you how many of each I have. Maybe you could enlighten me on where you are going with this based on the post you quoted.sergeriver wrote:
Do you have any black friend?lowing wrote:
The difference being, it is a legitiment argument. The liberals of the US want exactly what they are accused of wanting, and I am against it.
This is a far cry from inventing an argument such as racist or generalizing to avoid the issue at hand.
I also notice that you did not actually challenge my response to your accusations, that pretty much tells me I might be right in my observations of it.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, pls.Varegg wrote:
Take this via PMs !!!ATG wrote:
I'll compare my vitriol to yours anytime.usmarine wrote:
dont make me go pull up some recent posts of yours between GS and yourself ok.
are people from india considered black?sergeriver wrote:
Well, black people have a darker skin, you can eaily tell they are black tbh.
Actually Cam, that is a really good idea. If you can put a hold on the knee-jerk class warfare against "the rich" and think about it, that is.CameronPoe wrote:
OK then let's reduce tax on business to 0%! Yay! Life will be sooooo good. Like rich people and business didn't get enough breaks under Bush to no avail...Pug wrote:
Oh boy. This is going to take a while to respond. I'm not directly arguing taxes is the answer (by either candidate). So check later...CameronPoe wrote:
No, I am suggesting that the total opposite is applicable in this situation. Trickle-up - improving the spending power of consumers through tax breaks as against investors because evidently bolstering the financial wellbeing of investors (as occurred under Bush) failed miserably and the average American is now poorer (creating a downward spiral of contraction). The increased spending power, although the risk of inflation would exist, should help increase the demand market again and allow capital to flow from those withholding it under the current economic climate.
You do know how Ireland attracted businesses investment, which in turn created jobs right?
First, coorperation taxes are a sham. All coorperations get their money from selling either services or goods to consumers. If the goverment takes money from the cooperations, one of two things happen. 1. the company loses money and goes out of business, or 2. The company increases the price of its goods or services to compensate for the money being taken by the government. So, all those "coorperate taxes" are just a hidden tax on the consumer.
Second, if you get rid of cooperate taxes, you will draw more coorperations to your country, briging more jobs.
And, on the rich. The government does not create jobs. The best the government can do is create an economic enviroment that will allow business people to create jobs. Those business people are quite often (though I admit not always) a part of "the rich" that everyone seems to hate and want to tax more. It seems to me that taking more money from these people makes them less financially able to open a (or another) business, and so those jobs will not be created.
What you say is true, however, I never thought to count them, why are you assuming that I could possibly have too many black friends or not enough, for the purposes of "proving" me a racist?sergeriver wrote:
Well, black people have a darker skin, you can eaily tell they are black tbh.lowing wrote:
Sorry Serge, I have a lot of friends, some are black some are white some are hispanic some are liberals some are conservative some are Jewish, some are Christian, there might even be some Muslims in the mix. I do not have them catorgorized so I can not tell you how many of each I have. Maybe you could enlighten me on where you are going with this based on the post you quoted.sergeriver wrote:
Do you have any black friend?
Brown? I dunno really, kinda.usmarine wrote:
are people from india considered black?sergeriver wrote:
Well, black people have a darker skin, you can eaily tell they are black tbh.
I don't need to prove you a racist, you did a long time ago. You just won't acknowldge that.lowing wrote:
What you say is true, however, I never thought to count them, why are you assuming that I could possibly have too many black friends or not enough, for the purposes of "proving" me a racist?sergeriver wrote:
Well, black people have a darker skin, you can eaily tell they are black tbh.lowing wrote:
Sorry Serge, I have a lot of friends, some are black some are white some are hispanic some are liberals some are conservative some are Jewish, some are Christian, there might even be some Muslims in the mix. I do not have them catorgorized so I can not tell you how many of each I have. Maybe you could enlighten me on where you are going with this based on the post you quoted.
I would love to see where I did that with some quotes. Ya gotta remember, stating facts does not make a person a racist. Anyway, how about you get back to making your point as to why you want a "black friend" count from me. Better yet, how about you back up a little further and respond to the post that started your little "lowing is a racist" rant.sergeriver wrote:
I don't need to prove you a racist, you did a long time ago. You just won't acknowldge that.lowing wrote:
What you say is true, however, I never thought to count them, why are you assuming that I could possibly have too many black friends or not enough, for the purposes of "proving" me a racist?sergeriver wrote:
Well, black people have a darker skin, you can eaily tell they are black tbh.
Lowing, half this forum thinks you ar a racist, and the other half doesn't know you. Pls. Don't take it personal, but read your own threads man.lowing wrote:
I would love to see where I did that with some quotes. Ya gotta remember, stating facts does not make a person a racist. Anyway, how about you get back to making your point as to why you want a "black friend" count from me. Better yet, how about you back up a little further and respond to the post that started your little "lowing is a racist" rant.sergeriver wrote:
I don't need to prove you a racist, you did a long time ago. You just won't acknowldge that.lowing wrote:
What you say is true, however, I never thought to count them, why are you assuming that I could possibly have too many black friends or not enough, for the purposes of "proving" me a racist?
Asian / Indian? I think anthropologists have actually been in confusion over classifying said race, mainly because the biology and DNA behind it isn't all simple and clearly defined. Traditionally they would have been classed as Mongoloid I think, i.e. of the Asian sub-continent, back when the only three anthropological branches of classification were caucasoid, negroid or mongoloid. I'd just refer to them as Indians anyway- everyone knows who you're referring to then without the need for some technical DNA-based categorisation.sergeriver wrote:
Brown? I dunno really, kinda.usmarine wrote:
are people from india considered black?sergeriver wrote:
Well, black people have a darker skin, you can eaily tell they are black tbh.
Aren't the Aryans meant to historically be from India? I don't think that's a clear-cut area of study either but as I understand it even the Hitler-stereotype - 'blonde hair, blue eyes' - sort of guys have origins in Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. Crazy world!
P.S. Lowing is racist.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-09-04 10:40:21)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
We're not just talking about tax breaks for the bottom though. We are talking about a major increase for the wealthy as well.CameronPoe wrote:
No, I am suggesting that the total opposite is applicable in this situation. Trickle-up - improving the spending power of consumers through tax breaks as against investors because evidently bolstering the financial wellbeing of investors (as occurred under Bush) failed miserably and the average American is now poorer (creating a downward spiral of contraction). The increased spending power, although the risk of inflation would exist, should help increase the demand market again and allow capital to flow from those withholding it under the current economic climate.
I do some analysis for my city - adding an upper mid-level executive adds 10-15 more lower level jobs within the company. So that's at least 11 new households, which in turn require medical, retail, groceries, etc from the area. In theory if you increase the demand there will be more jobs. Traditionally more jobs are created via entrepreneurs, and like it or not, usually the entrepreneurs are the wealthy. So if you give breaks...
Increasing taxes for the wealthy, especially the capital gains tax which impacts the selling & buying of businesses, will make it less likely for this investment to happen quickly.
Obama's looking at increasing tax on the wealthy and more breaks for the not-so-wealthy. So essentially requiring the economy to grow slowly, albeit more naturally then what's been happening.
Both methods have merit - tax breaks for the rich will create jobs faster than the demand created by increased spending power. Of course, with more people employed spending power increases too.
But neither are a perfect solution. We need to thinking about the global economy. I'm competing against India to provide my services, for instance. I charge probably about 50x more than them.
My opinion indirectly involes taxes. I'd support a tax increase on the wealthy, if in turn that money is reinvested in the economic infrastructure of the country. And that probably means corporate incentives - I'd like to see more "start up" type incentives instead of an across the board cut to corp taxes. But I'd also like to see the gov't begin to invest actual money...instead of breaks...in the form of creating new industries - green industries for instance.
To sum up: Michael Phelps.
Last edited by Pug (2008-09-04 10:44:48)
I know what the majority of this forum THINKS of me. But honestly serge, if you are not going to address my posts, then stop quoting them for a response.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, half this forum thinks you ar a racist, and the other half doesn't know you. Pls. Don't take it personal, but read your own threads man.lowing wrote:
I would love to see where I did that with some quotes. Ya gotta remember, stating facts does not make a person a racist. Anyway, how about you get back to making your point as to why you want a "black friend" count from me. Better yet, how about you back up a little further and respond to the post that started your little "lowing is a racist" rant.sergeriver wrote:
I don't need to prove you a racist, you did a long time ago. You just won't acknowldge that.
I read my posts, after all I write them, sometimes without spell checker, but I know exactly what I am saying, and I know exactly what my opinions are, and you nor anyone else can show, based on my post,s that my opinions are anything but socially motivated. Race has never come into play in any my opinions.
In fact, I think I may one of the most consistent posters in his opinions on this forum. I am biased toward me however.
Actually I think you are a racist. Always bringing it into every thread and prattling on about it. U sure the hell aren't color blind and use it as a way to measure people up. And this is a forum, hate to see you around people in person treating them with your preconceptions about them based on race.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, half this forum thinks you ar a racist, and the other half doesn't know you. Pls. Don't take it personal, but read your own threads man.lowing wrote:
I would love to see where I did that with some quotes. Ya gotta remember, stating facts does not make a person a racist. Anyway, how about you get back to making your point as to why you want a "black friend" count from me. Better yet, how about you back up a little further and respond to the post that started your little "lowing is a racist" rant.sergeriver wrote:
I don't need to prove you a racist, you did a long time ago. You just won't acknowldge that.
I never said you were not consistent.lowing wrote:
I know what the majority of this forum THINKS of me. But honestly serge, if you are not going to address my posts, then stop quoting them for a response.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, half this forum thinks you ar a racist, and the other half doesn't know you. Pls. Don't take it personal, but read your own threads man.lowing wrote:
I would love to see where I did that with some quotes. Ya gotta remember, stating facts does not make a person a racist. Anyway, how about you get back to making your point as to why you want a "black friend" count from me. Better yet, how about you back up a little further and respond to the post that started your little "lowing is a racist" rant.
I read my posts, after all I write them, sometimes without spell checker, but I know exactly what I am saying, and I know exactly what my opinions are, and you nor anyone else can show, based on my post,s that my opinions are anything but socially motivated. Race has never come into play in any my opinions.
In fact, I think I may one of the most consistent posters in his opinions on this forum. I am biased toward me however.
Got me.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Actually I think you are a racist. Always bringing it into every thread and prattling on about it. U sure the hell aren't color blind and use it as a way to measure people up. And this is a forum, hate to see you around people in person treating them with your preconceptions about them based on race.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, half this forum thinks you ar a racist, and the other half doesn't know you. Pls. Don't take it personal, but read your own threads man.lowing wrote:
I would love to see where I did that with some quotes. Ya gotta remember, stating facts does not make a person a racist. Anyway, how about you get back to making your point as to why you want a "black friend" count from me. Better yet, how about you back up a little further and respond to the post that started your little "lowing is a racist" rant.
Lowing's not a racist. He hates everyone equally.
I still laugh at you guys...simply mentioning him causes a riot. You don't like what he's saying, he's consistent, why don't you guys give up?
Keep it up lowing. I love seeing this stuff unravel.
I still laugh at you guys...simply mentioning him causes a riot. You don't like what he's saying, he's consistent, why don't you guys give up?
Keep it up lowing. I love seeing this stuff unravel.
Is there any chance at all that you will address what is posted you, or are you going to continue to disect them and ignore there substance.sergeriver wrote:
I never said you were not consistent.lowing wrote:
I know what the majority of this forum THINKS of me. But honestly serge, if you are not going to address my posts, then stop quoting them for a response.sergeriver wrote:
Lowing, half this forum thinks you ar a racist, and the other half doesn't know you. Pls. Don't take it personal, but read your own threads man.
I read my posts, after all I write them, sometimes without spell checker, but I know exactly what I am saying, and I know exactly what my opinions are, and you nor anyone else can show, based on my post,s that my opinions are anything but socially motivated. Race has never come into play in any my opinions.
In fact, I think I may one of the most consistent posters in his opinions on this forum. I am biased toward me however.