Another Study Finds The Right Wing Is Wrong, As Usual

Beats me. I have never asked anyone to give up there job, so I don't see your point.

I don't think that you'll find many people who are fighting against homelessness asking people to quit their job.

 

So you admit then that you like to redistribute other people's wealth as long as it's not your own?

 

None of which has anything to do with the de-humanising qualities of sociopathic language, which was what my post covered.

 

Oh yeah it does, you just don't like the endless hand-flapping propaganda semantics of the left turned back in your face. And of course you avoid my question as to who are the real "sociopaths." I knew you would.

 

Well the fact you only asked conservatives to hire the homeless made me think liberals would not. Therefor I was wondering if they'd be willing to sacrifice their position so that others could benefit as they have.
You answered correctly. Somewhere between NO and "What you talkin bout Willis" and saintmichael correctly hung the sign of hypocrisy around your neck.

 

Understanding words and how they're used is one of the most potent methods of discerning 'foxes in the henhouse' since very few people are skilled in covering their linguistic tracks.

Politicians and advertisers are quite good at it, though.

 

Honestly, every post you make is just another bait and switch. It's getting old. But let's start with the part that actually addresses the issue. So you claim that security firms add value to society, like car salesman and realtors, add value to society? This is actually kinda funny. This is the best you can come up with? How much value do realtors and car salesmen really add to society? Are they the ones designing and building the cars? Are they the ones building the houses? Are they the "wealth creators?" So you're saying that securitization firms are essentially glorified used car salesmen....thank you for proving my point, exactly.

and why is insider trading any more fradulent than what investment banks do? Insider traders use their resources (ie people they know) to gain information that allows them to have an upper hand in market transactions. Investment banks use their resources to gain information that allows the to have an upper hand in market transactions. How is that any different?

 

These things are true. But point me to one, just one post or article that says otherwise, and I will join you in condeming them. These are the people who really need help and they should recieve it generously. My objection is toward those who could but do not work. I work with people who are mentally ill, and there is no way that many of them could not cope with the strains of a job. I am not a conservative but I agree with much of their positions, nor am I an America hating progressive leftist partisan.

 

...and as I suspected, not one bit of good. The products are not sold to consumers, but to presumably sophisticated institutional pools of money. If those pools end up not so sophisticated due to cronyism and graft in unions, governments, municipalities, then whose fault is that exactly? Certainly not Wall Street's.

No, they are not all "recent." Perhaps you (or your malcontented friend in finance who has read too much Michael Lewis tripe, and who is feeding you this crap instead of doing his work) should look a little more closely into the history of derivatives. They go way back. The CBOE and CBOT are both well over 20 years old. All markets are a form of swaps to boot. I have two chickens and too many eggs. You have too much bread and no eggs. Give me some wheat seeds for one of my chickens so I can make bread with my eggs.

On the off-chance that you'd like to learn -real knowledge- as opposed to leftist agitprop, read the book "Against the Gods" by Peter Bernstein, it is layman, and even med student accessible.

The rest of your post is a non sequitur to the limits of comprehension. You may as well be claiming that bigfoot riding on a unicorn told you in a dream that derivatives are bad.

 

trust me, i'm well aware of all these things. fortunately for me, my political philosophy isn't as simple as yours.

 

Texbook projection, I have honestly answered your questions about derivatives and you come back with fallacy after fallacy. I pity your eventual patients.

 

There's nothing being turned back in my face anywhere except in your imagination. I'm having a simple discussion about the de-humanising effects of sociopathic language.

I'm not entirely sure what you're discussing, it's laden with partisanship and insult which makes it difficult to discern.

Maybe if you focus a little it'll help?

 

No. Maybe you can point out where I made that statement.

The only claim I made even remotely similar to that is my suggestion that people who call the homeless "bums" (or "losers, as we've seen in this thread) actually try to solve the problem by hiring them rather than ridiculing them.

No, I'm asking that people stop ridiculing homeless people and try hiring them instead. Since you brought it up, I'll just say that, those who ridicule the homeless, call them names or portray them as being unworthy tend to be conservative -- all of which has occurred in this thread alone.

I'm not a hypocrite because I never suggested that liberals shouldn't hire homeless people -- which would kinda defeat the purpose of my cause, huh?

 

True, which explains the most famous recent example, Obama's rise. People are easy to manipulate. I'm in marketing so I can pick out the lies in an instant.

 

in a way you're right. money breeds greed. many people have money, and they lose their morals. They lose perspective. They become obsessed with getting more and more money, hiding it, and keeping it safe, and they no longer care about the rest of society. That's why we need the govt to end the cycle of greed that is created.

Yes, I agree. And if that's all the banks did, I would have no problem. But thanks not what the banks do today. The banks have gotten into the business of taking these loans, repackaging them into complex financial instruments that nobody really understands, and then selling them, all the while enriching their own pockets. That's what I have a problem with.

uh, that's the point. that's why almost all wealth in the US is concentrated in just a few hands. that's the problem.

well, you're right--they didn't get handed a few million, they got handed a few billion. 6 out of the top ten richest people, got handed a few billion dollars, just by being born.

If I can work hard, pay my fair share of taxes, and be happy with the money I have left over, I think a billionaire would be able to manage, doing the same.

 

Oh look, the lefty wasn't allowed to come in the thread and call everyone else "sociopaths this, sociopaths that," as leftists are so prone to do, got called out on it, and has nothing else. At least my attempt to call ignorant leftists narcissists had a funny Ben Stein reference.

 

Homeless people arent bums... homeless people are liberals, waiting for their magic unicorns... or they're mentally ill.

And yes, it's hard to tell the difference.

 

Oddly enough I don't feel in the least bit 'called out' for anything.

Why are you angry, though?

All I did was offer up that there's a sociopathic element to the de-humanising words which some people use to describe others and you arrived with insults thereafter.

When we get angry it's often because we feel someone is taking something away from us.

Have I altered your ability to comfortably use sociopathic language when describing those you've chosen to despise?

 

He's certainly schooled in empty rhetoric.

What does "hope and change" actually mean?

It means whatever the listener thinks it means so for some it's a free phone and gas and for others it's the end of traditional life as we know it, batten down the hatches and be prepared to abandon ship.

 

True enough. I've heard idiotic rants from homeless people that match word for word what comes out of the DNC.

 

Obama's 08 campaign is a MASTER class in image marketing. Style over substance. Its an industry in itself. It will be studied in college courses for decades. Or it won't be since it would highlight how destructive manipulative politics became in 08, and considering the liberal nature of higher education, why would they want to bring attention to it. If I was teaching marketing it would be the top of my list. It was complete genius, taking advantage of a perfect collision of social/political issues at the time and a young easily malleable voter block.

 

I think it's ironic when someone who obviously does not own a sb tries to "educate" others about them.

 

My guess is not a single one of them.

 

So because it didnt impact YOUR loife in a negative way, it shouldn impact ANYONES life in a negative way.



THats kind of like Micheal Jordan saying "Com on. If I can play in the NBA, ANYONE can do it!!!"