"I hope you realize how lucky you are to live in an area where those jobs and the education for those jobs are available. "
I hope you realize how much you deserve a kick in the nuts for ascribing to luck that which was won with hard work. She MOVED TO the area so she could go to school and work. NO LUCK INVOLVED.
"Your mother was lucky to be located in a job market where RNs are needed."
Fine one where they're not. MORE IMPORTANTLY, why do you keep assuming it was luck, when SHE MOVED TO THE LOCATION FOR THE JOBS AND SCHOOL? Why do you keep assuming things which are wrong?
It infuriates me that people keep presuming that success is the result of luck, without knowing the facts. My mom didn't win the lottery, she laid the groundwork and made a plan, sacrificed, and benefited. It had nothing to do with luck, and claiming so is ignorant in the extreme.
"How did you get the money to become a certified nursing assistant? Did you work at a job to pay for your classes?"
You're confusing my mom with me, but she was a floral designer. Made around 8.50 or so (12-15 years ago) which was well below the minimum wage.
"Even some community colleges are prohibitively expensive at that rate"
Student loans, I did it and I have two degrees as a result. This is not an issue unless you're unwilling to borrow, and in that case, I have no sympathy, you're not willing to do what you need to.
There really ARE people with no options, I understand that. I have my doubts though as to how many of them there really are, and frankly, some part of me bristles at the idea that any healthy individual can't work their way out of an unfavorable situation.
"I criticized 'propaganda' in the context in which it was used, which expressly indicated misinformation for destructive purposes only. "
And? Your criticism of the context in which it is used changes nothing, as it was still used correctly. That you don't like it doesn't matter.
"In each of these cases, the aim is to help the general public by presenting the facts - that is the 'slant and agenda'."
Says YOU. The agenda you see, however, is not absolute and definite, and I see it as just the opposite. You do not get to decide which it is.
The definition applies, argue with the dictionary or learn to use it, either way you wee incorrect and the site is in fact propaganda, whether you construct a verbose but ultimately incorrect denial or not.
"Right, lets see, a school massacre done with sniping is not a school massacre in your book."
Not MY book, because we're not talking about my "book" we're talking about the context of the discussion, which was clearly not snipers in a tower.
So, keeping that in mind, want to insult me again, or would you like to admit I'm right and that your insult was a direct result of your inability to refute me?
"Wal-Mart destroys locally run "mom & pop" stores"
I'm sorry but no they don't. "Mom & Pop" stores fail to compete and go out of business. Those businesses that add value and don't compete on cost alone do fine. Your statement should be "Wal-Mart out competes mom & pops, who fail to adjust". Well tough titty, that's life in the business world. Your claim comes from ignorance and a lack of creativity and has nothing to do with Wal-Mart.
"People don't choose to work at Wal-Mart; they're forced to"
Before I call this statement horeshit, I'd like you to clarify it. Obviously they're not marched in at gunpoint, so what does "forced" mean in this context? I suspect you overstated your claim here and will realize it.
"That's because they don't have the proper resources to make that kind of progress"
Unless "ambition" is a resource, then no, you're wrong.
"I'm sure there are some cases where people can attend night classes and earn some sort of certification for their efforts, but that's the exception from the norm."
Source? Support this claim or retract it.
"It's amazing how so many of us educated individuals can have such poor insight on important topics like this."
No what's truly amazing is how much of this you place on circumstance and how little you attribute to personal responsibility. In line with what you said however, yes, you do seem to have poor insight on the subject.
"and feel guilty about being so well-off."
DING! This explains it. YOU feel guilty about being well off, and are trying to pass that feeling to the rest of us. Without saying more, that will NEVER get anywhere with me, and I'm not alone. I will not feel guilty about my situation, as that's both useless and unnecessary. No part of my success is the result of something that would cause guilt so why feel guilty? I prefer positive action.
So all in all, you have yet to make a single convincing point, and make several irrelevant or very non-convincing ones.
"Here's a clue for you: no one cares what you say."
You obviously do or else you wouldn't respond.
"I'm only responding because it amuses me to keep yanking your chain"
You'd have to start first. Your posts were serious until I S you TFU, then suddenly you're "yanking my chain".
"I bet you'll feel compelled to respond to this post, too."
You mean like you did when you HAD to post "you lose"?
Right, that was YOU yanking my chain.
"At this point it's not even about wining the argument, everyone knows I won several posts ago."
Was that the post where you lied, or where you posted a reply to an argument I never made? And how does either of those things "win" an argument that we were never having in the first place?
"It's about getting you to humiliate yourself in front of everyone."
You mean like you did when you argued a point no one ever made, or when you got told that you're an imbecile and started responding by "yanking my chain" because I hurt you widdle feewings?
"Here's the hilarious part: even knowing that, you will be unable to keep from responding to this post and humiliating yourself further."
You mean like you did when you posted a response to an argument I never made, or when I S you TFU and you got your widdle feewings hurt?
At any rate, if I were to "humiliate" myself with this post, that wou;d put me three humiliating posts behind you in this thread alone.
I can take it, can you?
And really, it's pretty obvious when I told you off, you got your feelings hurt. Go ahead and lie, but the tone of your post only proves it. Did you cry (yes, but you'll lie and say no).
And I LOVE how you use my "go ahead and reply" gimmick, but you should give me credit for using it, you know very well who you stole it off of and I'm a little sad that you use against me knowing you learned it from me.
I guess that makes me your master, since you're learning how to post from me.
"Honestly, do you have any clue how ignorant you sound claiming that poor people actually have the ability to go to increasingly expensive college courses?"
Do you have any idea how moronic you sound pretending that's what he said?
More importantly, there are vocational schools, and JCs (community colleges).
"Your argument is typical upper/upper-middle class foolishness based on a complete disconnection from the reality of poverty."
Fuck you, I GREW UP in poverty. Not the kind of ridiculous poverty that you reference, but no shoes or clothes for school, lights going out, crap in a bucket cause the toilets don't work poverty. Government cheese and foodstamps poverty.
And I watched my mom leave my loser dad (while still supporting my brother and I) and become a CNA. ALL WHILE LIVING IN ABJECT, TIN TRAILER, HOLES IN THE FLOOR, NO HEALTH INSURANCE POVERTY.
And then she became an RN, and made three times the average wage, all while doing something you claim is impossible.
Do not dare to tell me some stupid fucking lie about not being able to work your way out of poverty. I'll have my mom come to wherever your lying loser ass is a slap the fuck out of you.
People like you do more damage with your excuses and justifications for remaining in poverty than Wal-Mart ever could.
Your argument is typical of the disconnect from poverty that is all too common. Stop telling people they can't do something, they're tougher than you and it's incredibly insulting.
"Secondly, I think you need to be a little bit more subtle and sophisticated in your thinking. It is true that most of the issues surrounding Wal-Mart can be argued on both sides, but to say that things like de facto economic coercion, third party effect (as with increased traffic), labor conditions in the third world, and the destruction of character in communities are the concerns of "art students" isn't what I would expect from an educated person."
I like how you did that. You told he he was stupid without telling him he was stupid.
Now let me say this. People like you often think their opinion is valid because they hear reinforcement from others with similar opinions, generally because those people are too elitist and sheltered to seek out non-like-minded individuals.
Did you like how I just said you're full of shit without saying you're full of shit?
In all seriousness, if you think you're going to get somewhere with the "more sophisticated" and "educated person" nonsense, you may need to give that one a rethink. Telling people you're right because you think you're smarter than they are while demonstrating that you clearly aren't isn't going to get much done, so I'd avoid that line if I were you. It was a really nice try this time though.
If you truly believed what you said you wouldn't have posted it AC
I started work at a grocery store, well before Wal-Mart blew up, and you're full of shit. Unless you're talking about 1950, none of the stuff you posted is true.
And if you are talking about 1950, welcome to reality, there ain't many buggy whip making a living either.
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
By your own admission, they have a "slant and agenda" so it is propaganda.
Your problem is with the connotation that the word implies, but that doesn't allow you to redefine the word.
You lie about what they say, and get modded up, then make a false, ridiculous argument and pretend snipers are the same as school massacres, and still get modded up.
"Well, I'm certainly glad you were not in charge of how our health care system was run last year when my bowels perforated and and I had to have emergency surgery, because I hearing dying is no fun."
Well, if you live in the US, you would have been treated even without insurance, as the law requires it.
"So what you are saying is if I am dying of cancer and work at a job that doesn't offer me (or offers me unaffordable) health insurance I am shit out of luck because you don't want to help chip in for the costs so you can buy a bigger house or get a new S.U.V.?"
NO I'm saying YOU should have planned and prepared better, and you shouldn't get to tax me for your own failure to prepare.
And as an aside, it's pretty ridiculous to go to "so you can buy a bigger house or get a new S.U.V.?" as your argument, it betrays a serious willingness to distort reality in order to support your world view.
"I do recall in another document that I have to right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Yeah, it's the Declaration of Independence and has nothing to do with the law. REALLY nice try, totally irrelevant, but based on your "bigger house or new SUV" argument, I'm not even a little surprised.
"What you are saying is that it is more important for you to have lots of money to buy useless stuff instead of everyone being healthy. "
NO, he's saying it's not up to you and those like you to use the tyranny of the majority to dictate where he uses his resources. Stop with the stupid fourth grade rhetoric already.
"How is the government driving the costs higher and higher?"
R-E-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N. Your ignorance is inexcusable, even though in this case it's a rhetorical device. Or it's not, in which case you really are ignorant to the fact that government regulations can drive up costs.
"Have you ever gone to the library or had to use the services of a fire department?"
Have YOU ever been to the DMV? Right. (or are you going to lie and claim the DMV is ok too?)
"Maybe if people would stop being so damned greedy and realize there's more to life than just making money things would go better for all of us."
JUST EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE? You're the same idiot who posted this "I do recall in another document that I have to right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." but have amended that with "...as long as I think it's the right way to live life and pursue happiness".
"Telling people to either pay-up, or be sick/die, isn't something a corporation should have the power to do."
They don't, you have the option of seeking private health insurance which is independent of your employer.
"There's just too much room for corruption and taking advantage of people when you can dangle their health/life in front of them to get them to pay whatever you want them to pay."
I agree, using their health care to get them to vote the way you want is a terrible thing for governments with socialized health care to do.
"Please have the courtesy as such not to cross my path again, for I fear I find you most distasteful and boorish."
YOU responded to ME you stupid fuck. We crossed paths because your reading comprehension sucks, and you thought it would be a good idea to respond when you didn't know what the fuck you were responding to.
Please do me the favor of choking to death on your lunch today, as the world would easily be a better place without you.
"You have proven yourself capable, without justification or reason of ad homeniem(sic) attacks (that's misspelled Latin, by the way) on others, for the simple justification of deflating what appears to be a small ego."
"When I said 'that was what was meant,' I meant that the posters"
Here's what you're not getting cunt.
I don't give a fuck what YOU meant. YOU are an imbecile, who consistently posts garbage and makes me what to scratch my eyes out after reading the nonsense you think is worth posting.
And in this case, you're exactly fucking wrong.
"The funny thing is, even the definition you tried to apply does not fit."
NO IMBECILE, THE FUNNY THING IS THAT YOU'RE SO STUPID THAT YOU THINK I WAS TRYING TO APPLY A DEFINITION. I WAS RESPONDING TO ANOTHER IDIOT WHO THINKS THERE'S ONLY ONE DEFINITION OF THE WORD, WHICH MY POST PROVES WAS WRONG.
WHICH WAS MY POINT THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME BUT YOU WERE TOO STUPID TO GET IT. I WAS TELLING HIM THERE'S MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION, NOT TRYING TO APPLY THE DEFINITION I GAVE.
Get it now you fucking moron? Do you understand why you should have kept your fucking loser mouth shut? Or are you too stupid to grasp that too?
"Look, when you don't know anything about a subject you should keep quiet instead of proving yourself to be a fool."
And you should take your own advice cunt.
I posted a link to an analysis paper by the president of the federal reserve bank of St. Louis and two other well regarded economists. The best you could do was call it "old and poorly written", and you didn't refute a single point in it.
You posted NOTHING.
So how about you shut your idiot mouth now?
"Continuing after it's already been demonstrated is just silly."
You're right, but you decided to be a dick and attack me for proving you wrong anyway.
You lost, stop acting like a 4 year old and stamping your feet and screaming "YES HUH YES HUH!!!" when I posted proof and you posted fucking NOTHING.
"You can argue semantics and definitions all you like"
And I'd be right, and there's nothing you can do about it. Funny how your kind always tries to make it into "semantics and definitions" when you're wrong, like trivializing what you're wrong about makes you less wrong.
"the white american male is soooo discriminated against... boo hoo."
You know, I bet that makes you feel pretty full of yourself right now, but with the trends population being what they are, that is going to be a fact eventually, if it's not already. Go ahead and TRY to argue that point.
If white american males feel discrimination, why is your response derision and ridicule? You sure as fuck wouldn't do that if it was a black woman. Why is it ok to tell whitey to stuff it? Because his gramps fucked some black guys over 50 years ago?
Just admit it, if white men are being discriminated against, you think they deserve it. Very civil of you.
Slashdot Mirror
"which was well below the minimum wage"
I have no idea what my thought process was there, but forget that part of the sentence, minimum wage was well below 8.50 at the time.
Brain cramp...
"I hope you realize how lucky you are to live in an area where those jobs and the education for those jobs are available. "
I hope you realize how much you deserve a kick in the nuts for ascribing to luck that which was won with hard work. She MOVED TO the area so she could go to school and work. NO LUCK INVOLVED.
"Your mother was lucky to be located in a job market where RNs are needed."
Fine one where they're not. MORE IMPORTANTLY, why do you keep assuming it was luck, when SHE MOVED TO THE LOCATION FOR THE JOBS AND SCHOOL? Why do you keep assuming things which are wrong?
It infuriates me that people keep presuming that success is the result of luck, without knowing the facts. My mom didn't win the lottery, she laid the groundwork and made a plan, sacrificed, and benefited. It had nothing to do with luck, and claiming so is ignorant in the extreme.
"How did you get the money to become a certified nursing assistant? Did you work at a job to pay for your classes?"
You're confusing my mom with me, but she was a floral designer. Made around 8.50 or so (12-15 years ago) which was well below the minimum wage.
"Even some community colleges are prohibitively expensive at that rate"
Student loans, I did it and I have two degrees as a result. This is not an issue unless you're unwilling to borrow, and in that case, I have no sympathy, you're not willing to do what you need to.
There really ARE people with no options, I understand that. I have my doubts though as to how many of them there really are, and frankly, some part of me bristles at the idea that any healthy individual can't work their way out of an unfavorable situation.
"I criticized 'propaganda' in the context in which it was used, which expressly indicated misinformation for destructive purposes only. "
And? Your criticism of the context in which it is used changes nothing, as it was still used correctly. That you don't like it doesn't matter.
"In each of these cases, the aim is to help the general public by presenting the facts - that is the 'slant and agenda'."
Says YOU. The agenda you see, however, is not absolute and definite, and I see it as just the opposite. You do not get to decide which it is.
The definition applies, argue with the dictionary or learn to use it, either way you wee incorrect and the site is in fact propaganda, whether you construct a verbose but ultimately incorrect denial or not.
"Right, lets see, a school massacre done with sniping is not a school massacre in your book."
Not MY book, because we're not talking about my "book" we're talking about the context of the discussion, which was clearly not snipers in a tower.
So, keeping that in mind, want to insult me again, or would you like to admit I'm right and that your insult was a direct result of your inability to refute me?
"Wal-Mart destroys locally run "mom & pop" stores"
I'm sorry but no they don't. "Mom & Pop" stores fail to compete and go out of business. Those businesses that add value and don't compete on cost alone do fine. Your statement should be "Wal-Mart out competes mom & pops, who fail to adjust". Well tough titty, that's life in the business world. Your claim comes from ignorance and a lack of creativity and has nothing to do with Wal-Mart.
"People don't choose to work at Wal-Mart; they're forced to"
Before I call this statement horeshit, I'd like you to clarify it. Obviously they're not marched in at gunpoint, so what does "forced" mean in this context? I suspect you overstated your claim here and will realize it.
"That's because they don't have the proper resources to make that kind of progress"
Unless "ambition" is a resource, then no, you're wrong.
"I'm sure there are some cases where people can attend night classes and earn some sort of certification for their efforts, but that's the exception from the norm."
Source? Support this claim or retract it.
"It's amazing how so many of us educated individuals can have such poor insight on important topics like this."
No what's truly amazing is how much of this you place on circumstance and how little you attribute to personal responsibility. In line with what you said however, yes, you do seem to have poor insight on the subject.
"and feel guilty about being so well-off."
DING! This explains it. YOU feel guilty about being well off, and are trying to pass that feeling to the rest of us. Without saying more, that will NEVER get anywhere with me, and I'm not alone. I will not feel guilty about my situation, as that's both useless and unnecessary. No part of my success is the result of something that would cause guilt so why feel guilty? I prefer positive action.
So all in all, you have yet to make a single convincing point, and make several irrelevant or very non-convincing ones.
"Here's a clue for you: no one cares what you say."
You obviously do or else you wouldn't respond.
"I'm only responding because it amuses me to keep yanking your chain"
You'd have to start first. Your posts were serious until I S you TFU, then suddenly you're "yanking my chain".
"I bet you'll feel compelled to respond to this post, too."
You mean like you did when you HAD to post "you lose"?
Right, that was YOU yanking my chain.
"At this point it's not even about wining the argument, everyone knows I won several posts ago."
Was that the post where you lied, or where you posted a reply to an argument I never made? And how does either of those things "win" an argument that we were never having in the first place?
"It's about getting you to humiliate yourself in front of everyone."
You mean like you did when you argued a point no one ever made, or when you got told that you're an imbecile and started responding by "yanking my chain" because I hurt you widdle feewings?
"Here's the hilarious part: even knowing that, you will be unable to keep from responding to this post and humiliating yourself further."
You mean like you did when you posted a response to an argument I never made, or when I S you TFU and you got your widdle feewings hurt?
At any rate, if I were to "humiliate" myself with this post, that wou;d put me three humiliating posts behind you in this thread alone.
I can take it, can you?
And really, it's pretty obvious when I told you off, you got your feelings hurt. Go ahead and lie, but the tone of your post only proves it. Did you cry (yes, but you'll lie and say no).
And I LOVE how you use my "go ahead and reply" gimmick, but you should give me credit for using it, you know very well who you stole it off of and I'm a little sad that you use against me knowing you learned it from me.
I guess that makes me your master, since you're learning how to post from me.
I like that, when you respond, call me master.
"Honestly, do you have any clue how ignorant you sound claiming that poor people actually have the ability to go to increasingly expensive college courses?"
Do you have any idea how moronic you sound pretending that's what he said?
More importantly, there are vocational schools, and JCs (community colleges).
"Your argument is typical upper/upper-middle class foolishness based on a complete disconnection from the reality of poverty."
Fuck you, I GREW UP in poverty. Not the kind of ridiculous poverty that you reference, but no shoes or clothes for school, lights going out, crap in a bucket cause the toilets don't work poverty. Government cheese and foodstamps poverty.
And I watched my mom leave my loser dad (while still supporting my brother and I) and become a CNA. ALL WHILE LIVING IN ABJECT, TIN TRAILER, HOLES IN THE FLOOR, NO HEALTH INSURANCE POVERTY.
And then she became an RN, and made three times the average wage, all while doing something you claim is impossible.
Do not dare to tell me some stupid fucking lie about not being able to work your way out of poverty. I'll have my mom come to wherever your lying loser ass is a slap the fuck out of you.
People like you do more damage with your excuses and justifications for remaining in poverty than Wal-Mart ever could.
Your argument is typical of the disconnect from poverty that is all too common. Stop telling people they can't do something, they're tougher than you and it's incredibly insulting.
"Secondly, I think you need to be a little bit more subtle and sophisticated in your thinking. It is true that most of the issues surrounding Wal-Mart can be argued on both sides, but to say that things like de facto economic coercion, third party effect (as with increased traffic), labor conditions in the third world, and the destruction of character in communities are the concerns of "art students" isn't what I would expect from an educated person."
I like how you did that. You told he he was stupid without telling him he was stupid.
Now let me say this. People like you often think their opinion is valid because they hear reinforcement from others with similar opinions, generally because those people are too elitist and sheltered to seek out non-like-minded individuals.
Did you like how I just said you're full of shit without saying you're full of shit?
In all seriousness, if you think you're going to get somewhere with the "more sophisticated" and "educated person" nonsense, you may need to give that one a rethink. Telling people you're right because you think you're smarter than they are while demonstrating that you clearly aren't isn't going to get much done, so I'd avoid that line if I were you. It was a really nice try this time though.
If you truly believed what you said you wouldn't have posted it AC
I started work at a grocery store, well before Wal-Mart blew up, and you're full of shit. Unless you're talking about 1950, none of the stuff you posted is true.
And if you are talking about 1950, welcome to reality, there ain't many buggy whip making a living either.
"You lose."
In other words you know what I said is true and you realize it, so you have nothing left to say that refutes it.
But you supported my point about your post quality quite nicely.
"All treaties become part of the constitution."
Bullshit.
Now go ahead and try to make your argument without relying on a lie for a foundation.
So you're saying people who are sick can't go outside?
Or do you realize now that I've destroyed it that your argument is moronic?
propaganda:
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
By your own admission, they have a "slant and agenda" so it is propaganda.
Your problem is with the connotation that the word implies, but that doesn't allow you to redefine the word.
Are the facts wrong?
Then why are you using an ad hominem attack? If the facts are correct (did you check? I doubt it) then the source is really not relevant.
When people hold the source of the argument as being more important than the actual argument (like you did right there) then we all lose.
I like that.
You lie about what they say, and get modded up, then make a false, ridiculous argument and pretend snipers are the same as school massacres, and still get modded up.
Well done.
"So by having JRA at age 12 by your logic you have denied my right to life as stated in your constitution."
Quote it or retract that statement. If you're talking about the US constitution, you're better get ready for some retracting.
"Peoples wellness should NEVER EVER be something ANYONE can profit from."
Exactly, which is why we should give control of their health care to politicians, who would NEVER EVER try to profit for it...
"Well, I'm certainly glad you were not in charge of how our health care system was run last year when my bowels perforated and and I had to have emergency surgery, because I hearing dying is no fun."
Well, if you live in the US, you would have been treated even without insurance, as the law requires it.
But it was a nice try. Really.
"So what you are saying is if I am dying of cancer and work at a job that doesn't offer me (or offers me unaffordable) health insurance I am shit out of luck because you don't want to help chip in for the costs so you can buy a bigger house or get a new S.U.V.?"
NO I'm saying YOU should have planned and prepared better, and you shouldn't get to tax me for your own failure to prepare.
And as an aside, it's pretty ridiculous to go to "so you can buy a bigger house or get a new S.U.V.?" as your argument, it betrays a serious willingness to distort reality in order to support your world view.
"I do recall in another document that I have to right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Yeah, it's the Declaration of Independence and has nothing to do with the law. REALLY nice try, totally irrelevant, but based on your "bigger house or new SUV" argument, I'm not even a little surprised.
"What you are saying is that it is more important for you to have lots of money to buy useless stuff instead of everyone being healthy. "
NO, he's saying it's not up to you and those like you to use the tyranny of the majority to dictate where he uses his resources. Stop with the stupid fourth grade rhetoric already.
"How is the government driving the costs higher and higher?"
R-E-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N. Your ignorance is inexcusable, even though in this case it's a rhetorical device. Or it's not, in which case you really are ignorant to the fact that government regulations can drive up costs.
"Have you ever gone to the library or had to use the services of a fire department?"
Have YOU ever been to the DMV? Right. (or are you going to lie and claim the DMV is ok too?)
"Maybe if people would stop being so damned greedy and realize there's more to life than just making money things would go better for all of us."
JUST EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE? You're the same idiot who posted this "I do recall in another document that I have to right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." but have amended that with "...as long as I think it's the right way to live life and pursue happiness".
"Telling people to either pay-up, or be sick/die, isn't something a corporation should have the power to do."
They don't, you have the option of seeking private health insurance which is independent of your employer.
"There's just too much room for corruption and taking advantage of people when you can dangle their health/life in front of them to get them to pay whatever you want them to pay."
I agree, using their health care to get them to vote the way you want is a terrible thing for governments with socialized health care to do.
Oh, is that not what you meant?
"Please have the courtesy as such not to cross my path again, for I fear I find you most distasteful and boorish."
YOU responded to ME you stupid fuck. We crossed paths because your reading comprehension sucks, and you thought it would be a good idea to respond when you didn't know what the fuck you were responding to.
Please do me the favor of choking to death on your lunch today, as the world would easily be a better place without you.
"You have proven yourself capable, without justification or reason of ad homeniem(sic) attacks (that's misspelled Latin, by the way) on others, for the simple justification of deflating what appears to be a small ego."
FYP.
Fuck off now.
"Second: The "discrimination" white males feel is bullshit."
Ah right, because you've lived the lives of every white male ever.
You bigots just never get it, no matter how stupid you look in defending your bigotry, you still insist your bigotry is justified.
Ah well, I don;t know what I expected, you're not smart enough to understand you're a bigot why would you understand anything I wrote.
"When I said 'that was what was meant,' I meant that the posters"
Here's what you're not getting cunt.
I don't give a fuck what YOU meant. YOU are an imbecile, who consistently posts garbage and makes me what to scratch my eyes out after reading the nonsense you think is worth posting.
And in this case, you're exactly fucking wrong.
"The funny thing is, even the definition you tried to apply does not fit."
NO IMBECILE, THE FUNNY THING IS THAT YOU'RE SO STUPID THAT YOU THINK I WAS TRYING TO APPLY A DEFINITION. I WAS RESPONDING TO ANOTHER IDIOT WHO THINKS THERE'S ONLY ONE DEFINITION OF THE WORD, WHICH MY POST PROVES WAS WRONG.
WHICH WAS MY POINT THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME BUT YOU WERE TOO STUPID TO GET IT. I WAS TELLING HIM THERE'S MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION, NOT TRYING TO APPLY THE DEFINITION I GAVE.
Get it now you fucking moron? Do you understand why you should have kept your fucking loser mouth shut? Or are you too stupid to grasp that too?
"Look, when you don't know anything about a subject you should keep quiet instead of proving yourself to be a fool."
And you should take your own advice cunt.
I posted a link to an analysis paper by the president of the federal reserve bank of St. Louis and two other well regarded economists. The best you could do was call it "old and poorly written", and you didn't refute a single point in it.
You posted NOTHING.
So how about you shut your idiot mouth now?
"Continuing after it's already been demonstrated is just silly."
You're right, but you decided to be a dick and attack me for proving you wrong anyway.
You lost, stop acting like a 4 year old and stamping your feet and screaming "YES HUH YES HUH!!!" when I posted proof and you posted fucking NOTHING.
Fuck off now.
"That was what was meant."
No actually, it wasn't.
"You can argue semantics and definitions all you like"
And I'd be right, and there's nothing you can do about it. Funny how your kind always tries to make it into "semantics and definitions" when you're wrong, like trivializing what you're wrong about makes you less wrong.
"the white american male is soooo discriminated against... boo hoo."
You know, I bet that makes you feel pretty full of yourself right now, but with the trends population being what they are, that is going to be a fact eventually, if it's not already. Go ahead and TRY to argue that point.
If white american males feel discrimination, why is your response derision and ridicule? You sure as fuck wouldn't do that if it was a black woman. Why is it ok to tell whitey to stuff it? Because his gramps fucked some black guys over 50 years ago?
Just admit it, if white men are being discriminated against, you think they deserve it. Very civil of you.