I will say, and not simply because Laker and I share more views than I do with many others here....when I use the term teabagger, it is meant with the exact same mocking and negative connotation that most everyone here uses with the word liberal. I do not use it to hurt, it is just my vernacular as liberal is for many people here (or socialist or whatever politically correct BS is spouted out). So while you may claim not to find the term liberal inflammatory or deragatory Kuzi, I am confident many due which is why I continue to throw out Teabagger. As you do not believe labeling a liberal is any real negative, nor do I for the term I use to describe that "movement" of likeminded persons.
i can see how some here use "liberal" as a negative (now that you point it out).
where is the point where something becomes offensive?
"liberal" should not be used as a negative. those who use it that way should read up on what a classic liberal is. there are many liberals out there that are liberals, use the title correctly and have much in common with myself.
i cant speak for anyone else here, but i would never use the term "liberal" as a negative, mainly because i share many of the same views as a classical liberal. it would be offensive to myself.
...can we get back to talking about Paris Hilton?
That is exactly what I was talking about.
Some BOTL here throw out the term LIBERAL as though it were some kind of swear word. THAT IS OFFENSIVE. PERIOD. When told that repeatedly they ignore it, BUT constanly go on about terms such as Teabaggers. Either grow up and quit throwing known offensive terms around or quit whining when someone does the same to your side.
Kuzi this was not directly related to you, just responding to your post for the purpose of saying this.
You were too quick Kuzi. I decided to edit my post and stay uninvolved.
These debates will never change and I should have stuck to my own advice and STFU. I am just too tired of the lame *** that get's said here.
no worries.
i said it before, and ill say it again: we are all brothers of the leaf here, no need to insult one another.
laker1963:
If the folks on the right of the political spectrum THINK they are the only ones with the answers then why did the US go from surplus to deficit while under a Right wing party control? After the past 25 years mostly dominated by Republicans... why isn't everything in the US exactly like you guy's seem to think it should be? Why also do you bend over backwards to blame the state of affairs in your country on "LIBERALS". Explain to me how they have so much power they can ruin your country(if you listen to some arguements here) when the Republicans have been in power for so much more time in the last 25 or 30 years?
i can tell you the argument. the argument is that the republican party is not conservative.
the republican party says it is for small government yet W was one of the most regulating presidents ever. what the conservatives want and what "their party" ( i use the term loosely) does are not the same thing.
republican lawmakers are doing the same thing that the Democrat law makers are doing: only trying to get re-elected
the democrats increase the scope of government to satisfy the people that vote for them and the republicans increase the scope of government to satisfy the people that vote for them.
its no longer for the people, its for the re-election.
Some BOTL here throw out the term LIBERAL as though it were some kind of swear word. THAT IS OFFENSIVE. PERIOD. When told that repeatedly they ignore it, BUT constanly go on about terms such as Teabaggers. Either grow up and quit throwing known offensive terms around or quit whining when someone does the same to your side.
Kuzi this was not directly related to you, just responding to your post for the purpose of saying this.
it took me a moment to get it because i personally dont use it as a swear word. i hope others can stop using it that way. a person may disagree with liberals, but that does not make liberals bad people.
i really wanna get back to talking about paris hilton
specifically this thought line, that is close to the original post:
paris has the opportunity to do the opposite of what i am doing in my life. I am working hard to move up and gain wealth. things are going well for me (a tad slow but im not complaining) i have had no "luck" on my side as far as being born into a family with cash.
She has the opposite opportunity. she was "lucky" to a degree because of the situation she was born into. it isnt too far of a reach to think that she has the potential to screw it all up and LOSE her fortune. is that genuine UN-luck, or is that being lazy and making bad decisions?
You were too quick Kuzi. I decided to edit my post and stay uninvolved.
These debates will never change and I should have stuck to my own advice and STFU. I am just too tired of the lame *** that get's said here.
no worries.
i said it before, and ill say it again: we are all brothers of the leaf here, no need to insult one another.
laker1963:
If the folks on the right of the political spectrum THINK they are the only ones with the answers then why did the US go from surplus to deficit while under a Right wing party control? After the past 25 years mostly dominated by Republicans... why isn't everything in the US exactly like you guy's seem to think it should be? Why also do you bend over backwards to blame the state of affairs in your country on "LIBERALS". Explain to me how they have so much power they can ruin your country(if you listen to some arguements here) when the Republicans have been in power for so much more time in the last 25 or 30 years?
i can tell you the argument. the argument is that the republican party is not conservative.
the republican party says it is for small government yet W was one of the most regulating presidents ever. what the conservatives want and what "their party" ( i use the term loosely) does are not the same thing.
republican lawmakers are doing the same thing that the Democrat law makers are doing: only trying to get re-elected
the democrats increase the scope of government to satisfy the people that vote for them and the republicans increase the scope of government to satisfy the people that vote for them.
its no longer for the people, its for the re-election.
100 % agreement here Kuzi. In both our country's.
So since you state it clearly here (as well as other times, I know) that the Republican Party does NOT represent the political right... why is it so hard for other BOTL here to accept that the Democratic party does NOT represent the views of the political left? It is just mind boggling the way some people apply logic, or refuse to apply it as the case may be. Sometimes they can both apply it and not apply it in the same arguement in order to make their point. That is where they lose me.
If the political right is not being represented by the republican party, then why do the BOTL who are of a right wing political view only ever really critique the Democrats and those damned LIBERALS? Names of people in the Republican party also get thrown into these debates regularly, by BOTL from the political right, so I think at least a fair amount of the BOTL from the right do indeed look to the Republican party as their only choice to beat those pesky LIBERLS.
Some BOTL here throw out the term LIBERAL as though it were some kind of swear word. THAT IS OFFENSIVE. PERIOD. When told that repeatedly they ignore it, BUT constanly go on about terms such as Teabaggers. Either grow up and quit throwing known offensive terms around or quit whining when someone does the same to your side.
Kuzi this was not directly related to you, just responding to your post for the purpose of saying this.
it took me a moment to get it because i personally dont use it as a swear word. i hope others can stop using it that way. a person may disagree with liberals, but that does not make liberals bad people.
i really wanna get back to talking about paris hilton
specifically this thought line, that is close to the original post:
paris has the opportunity to do the opposite of what i am doing in my life. I am working hard to move up and gain wealth. things are going well for me (a tad slow but im not complaining) i have had no "luck" on my side as far as being born into a family with cash.
She has the opposite opportunity. she was "lucky" to a degree because of the situation she was born into. it isnt too far of a reach to think that she has the potential to screw it all up and LOSE her fortune. is that genuine UN-luck, or is that being lazy and making bad decisions?
I would say it was poor judgement. Not bad luck. Being too lazy to work WITH her money would be the same as someone who is too lazy to work FOR their money. In her case the getting has been done, now all she has to do is to hold on to or increase her money.
In the case of someone who makes a fortune through their hard work, that person learns many more lessons. Lessons like making money which in this world involves all kinds of different talents. Paris Hilton would not have the benefit of learning to deal with people as she has always been in a position to tell people what she wants and have them provide it. While I cry no tears for her or someone like her, you got to admit, even thou she is going through life on the gold plan, she has missed all kinds of learning experiences which most other people learn naturally.
Being lucky or even un-lucky has nothing to do with what kind of person you are. Many examples in the past of poor people being VERY good people while at the same time lots of examples of really rich people being quite useless or incompeteant. Having money or not having money is NOT the deciding factor in whether a person is a good person or not.
I will say, and not simply because Laker and I share more views than I do with many others here....when I use the term teabagger, it is meant with the exact same mocking and negative connotation that most everyone here uses with the word liberal. I do not use it to hurt, it is just my vernacular as liberal is for many people here (or socialist or whatever politically correct BS is spouted out). So while you may claim not to find the term liberal inflammatory or deragatory Kuzi, I am confident many due which is why I continue to throw out Teabagger. As you do not believe labeling a liberal is any real negative, nor do I for the term I use to describe that "movement" of likeminded persons.
i can see how some here use "liberal" as a negative (now that you point it out).
where is the point where something becomes offensive?
"liberal" should not be used as a negative. those who use it that way should read up on what a classic liberal is. there are many liberals out there that are liberals, use the title correctly and have much in common with myself.
i cant speak for anyone else here, but i would never use the term "liberal" as a negative, mainly because i share many of the same views as a classical liberal. it would be offensive to myself.
...can we get back to talking about Paris Hilton?
That is exactly what I was talking about.
Some BOTL here throw out the term LIBERAL as though it were some kind of swear word. THAT IS OFFENSIVE. PERIOD. When told that repeatedly they ignore it, BUT constanly go on about terms such as Teabaggers. Either grow up and quit throwing known offensive terms around or quit whining when someone does the same to your side.
Kuzi this was not directly related to you, just responding to your post for the purpose of saying this.
So do we need a more PC term for liberal now? Should we say democrats? Or is that too harsh still? Fluffy Bunny political party! Now that surely will hurt no ones feelings. As far as saying teabaggers have at it lol, see some people are more concerned with what they stand for than how they are percieved or titled. If I take shame in how I'm labeled I tend to try to change it.
Some BOTL here throw out the term LIBERAL as though it were some kind of swear word. THAT IS OFFENSIVE. PERIOD. When told that repeatedly they ignore it, BUT constanly go on about terms such as Teabaggers. Either grow up and quit throwing known offensive terms around or quit whining when someone does the same to your side.
Kuzi this was not directly related to you, just responding to your post for the purpose of saying this.
it took me a moment to get it because i personally dont use it as a swear word. i hope others can stop using it that way. a person may disagree with liberals, but that does not make liberals bad people.
i really wanna get back to talking about paris hilton
specifically this thought line, that is close to the original post:
paris has the opportunity to do the opposite of what i am doing in my life. I am working hard to move up and gain wealth. things are going well for me (a tad slow but im not complaining) i have had no "luck" on my side as far as being born into a family with cash.
She has the opposite opportunity. she was "lucky" to a degree because of the situation she was born into. it isnt too far of a reach to think that she has the potential to screw it all up and LOSE her fortune. is that genuine UN-luck, or is that being lazy and making bad decisions?
Actually I think she makes pretty decent money from her perfumes and clothes and junk. No I don't think luck has much to do with any of it a fool and their money are soon parted, now I'm not saying Paris is anything shy of an idiot but she at least had the sense to make some money of her own (I sincerly doubt the idea was hers but at least she listened). Luck would be winning the lottery but if you're poor again 5 years later then probably not that lucky. Wealth cannot be sustained with luck.
Some BOTL here throw out the term LIBERAL as though it were some kind of swear word. THAT IS OFFENSIVE. PERIOD. When told that repeatedly they ignore it, BUT constanly go on about terms such as Teabaggers. Either grow up and quit throwing known offensive terms around or quit whining when someone does the same to your side.
Kuzi this was not directly related to you, just responding to your post for the purpose of saying this.
it took me a moment to get it because i personally dont use it as a swear word. i hope others can stop using it that way. a person may disagree with liberals, but that does not make liberals bad people.
i really wanna get back to talking about paris hilton
specifically this thought line, that is close to the original post:
paris has the opportunity to do the opposite of what i am doing in my life. I am working hard to move up and gain wealth. things are going well for me (a tad slow but im not complaining) i have had no "luck" on my side as far as being born into a family with cash.
She has the opposite opportunity. she was "lucky" to a degree because of the situation she was born into. it isnt too far of a reach to think that she has the potential to screw it all up and LOSE her fortune. is that genuine UN-luck, or is that being lazy and making bad decisions?
Actually I think she makes pretty decent money from her perfumes and clothes and junk. No I don't think luck has much to do with any of it a fool and their money are soon parted, now I'm not saying Paris is anything shy of an idiot but she at least had the sense to make some money of her own (I sincerly doubt the idea was hers but at least she listened). Luck would be winning the lottery but if you're poor again 5 years later then probably not that lucky. Wealth cannot be sustained with luck.
Your arguement only holds water IF she (and she did) started with money. Put Paris Hilton in a poor family with a good idea about a Perfume... anybody listening? Not likely. She was lucky to have been born into money or she wouldn't have much of her own given her choices in life and the way she goes through money.
One could just as easily come back and say that shes made those choices and goes through the money like she does because she was born into a seemingly endless supply of it. If she was born in a poor family, she might have worked her ass off and still made it big time. We'll never know though, because that wasn't the reality of the situation. What if's are easy to throw around but that is about all they're good for.
One could just as easily come back and say that shes made those choices and goes through the money like she does because she was born into a seemingly endless supply of it. If she was born in a poor family, she might have worked her ass off and still made it big time. We'll never know though, because that wasn't the reality of the situation. What if's are easy to throw around but that is about all they're good for.
Yup. That is what we are all doing around here didn't you know? It's all just opinion. Now we have yours, thanks.
Are these two seriously saying that if she was a poor kid born of a single mother in the ghetto...she still had a real shot of make a leading fragrence line with good ideas and hard work?? Pardon me, I think I just pooped my pants ::::shakes head in disbelief::::
All of our opinions mean nothing, our votes will dictate the course the US takes and right now a lot of people (based on current polls) are regretting their last vote and will move in the other direction in the next one due to the shear economic ignorance being demonstrated in Washington.
All of our opinions mean nothing, our votes will dictate the course the US takes and right now a lot of people (based on current polls) are regretting their last vote and will move in the other direction in the next one due to the shear economic ignorance being demonstrated in Washington.
You say stuff like this so often... what difference will a Republican Government make really.
And we were just sarting to have fun with this discussion and Ms. Hilton's fake boobs too.
All of our opinions mean nothing, our votes will dictate the course the US takes and right now a lot of people (based on current polls) are regretting their last vote and will move in the other direction in the next one due to the shear economic ignorance being demonstrated in Washington.
You say stuff like this so often... what difference will a Republican Government make really.
And we were just sarting to have fun with this discussion and Ms. Hilton's fake boobs too.
Buzz kill
I picture her getting a botched job and having her nipples pointing straight up... would be kinda funny...
Well, some of these comments got me thinking...out of ALL the wealth out there, how much of it is actually inherited?? take a look
I do agree in very small instances, a person gains wealth out of "luck", such as winning the lotto..etc. But not as much as the Left would have you believe.
What makes the rest of the people wealthy? Simple. The drive and hard work (and the engine of a Free Enterprise Capitalist society) to make a better life for yourself and your family.
I know several millionares, most started with nothing and ground it out, a couple inherited it. Even the ones who inherited still work hard to keep/grow it. It really comes down to effort.
Well, some of these comments got me thinking...out of ALL the wealth out there, how much of it is actually inherited?? take a look
I do agree in very small instances, a person gains wealth out of "luck", such as winning the lotto..etc. But not as much as the Left would have you believe.
What makes the rest of the people wealthy? Simple. The drive and hard work (and the engine of a Free Enterprise Capitalist society) to make a better life for yourself and your family.
Well, some of these comments got me thinking...out of ALL the wealth out there, how much of it is actually inherited?? take a look
I do agree in very small instances, a person gains wealth out of "luck", such as winning the lotto..etc. But not as much as the Left would have you believe.
What makes the rest of the people wealthy? Simple. The drive and hard work (and the engine of a Free Enterprise Capitalist society) to make a better life for yourself and your family.
This brought a proud capitalist tear to my eye. Amen.
1. The people surveyed were free to choose their answers freely. Very nice, however historically unreliable as their responses cannot be verified.
2. A sizable percentage agreed luck had something to do with their fortune (whcih was afterall the point being fought by this very post).
3. The answer inheritance was also termed "inheritance alone". It would stand to reason then as an example that the children of Sam Walton were millionares (or more) when they recvd their portions of the company. HOWEVER, since they have easrned more since, they would not fit into this 6%...they would be the working category, even though they started as multi millionares.
Its important to question everything, and not just believe what you read. You need to look at all the words, as language and terms are very important. Be person engaging in critical analysis of information and statistics to reach his own opinion and not just take something for face value, which life rarely is, and this info is not either. This brought a tear to the eye of a realist and questioner of information just thrown at me.
1. The people surveyed were free to choose their answers freely. Very nice, however historically unreliable as their responses cannot be verified.
2. A sizable percentage agreed luck had something to do with their fortune (whcih was afterall the point being fought by this very post).
3. The answer inheritance was also termed "inheritance alone". It would stand to reason then as an example that the children of Sam Walton were millionares (or more) when they recvd their portions of the company. HOWEVER, since they have easrned more since, they would not fit into this 6%...they would be the working category, even though they started as multi millionares.
Its important to question everything, and not just believe what you read. You need to look at all the words, as language and terms are very important. Be person engaging in critical analysis of information and statistics to reach his own opinion and not just take something for face value, which life rarely is, and this info is not either. This brought a tear to the eye of a realist and questioner of information just thrown at me.
I agree with this. But while luck may play a role It's not the deciding factor (speaking to the earned, not inherited) . It still comes sown to effort.
I agree with you as well...I do think on rare occasions it is just luck (ie lottery)....but I know what you were referring to and I do agree luck plays a role, but certainly not the deciding or prominent role most times.
I am still trying to figure out who from "the left" said that wealthy people were only wealthy because they were lucky. I think that is painting the idea with a VERY wide brush as it were.
Some people who are wealthy are indeed lucky to be that way. Others have damned well worked hard and continue to do so for their wealth. Saying that someone is fortunate to be wealthy does not equate to saying they are only wealthy BECAUSE they are lucky.
Its the same people from the left who want a total redistribution of wealth, they want a gloabl world---not our countiries soverignty, they want abortion, they want socialism, they want our ecomomy to fail....you know who they are Laker...its them!!!, The guys, the left, the people...cmon man, its THEM, you know THEM!!!
Its the same people from the left who want a total redistribution of wealth, they want a gloabl world---not our countiries soverignty, they want abortion, they want socialism, they want our ecomomy to fail....you know who they are Laker...its them!!!, The guys, the left, the people...cmon man, its THEM, you know THEM!!!
Oh THEEEEEMM! Kind of like the Boogey man under your bed when you are two and have no one else to blame your fears on? Got it.
This just all really to do with the fact that I changed the wig on my Banana in my sig. line isn't it? You guy's don't like it?
Its the same people from the left who want a total redistribution of wealth, they want a gloabl world---not our countiries soverignty, they want abortion, they want socialism, they want our ecomomy to fail....you know who they are Laker...its them!!!, The guys, the left, the people...cmon man, its THEM, you know THEM!!!
Oh THEEEEEMM! Kind of like the Boogey man under your bed when you are two and have no one else to blame your fears on? Got it.
This just all really to do with the fact that I changed the wig on my Banana in my sig. line isn't it? You guy's don't like it?
the extremists from the party. the extreme minority within the party. the people that have stalin's poster up and sing the USSRs national anthem every morning.
the exact opposite of the extremists within the tea party that want zero government what-so-ever, every infant to have a gun in one hand and a bible in the other hand, want the nation to be an actual Christian state, want all gays dead along with the blacks ....
its the same percentage minority.
im sure they are out there. just very few.
most people tend to be a lot closer to the middle. im sure there are people that want flat out socialism, but they are few and far between.
but seriously, im not sure this conversation about luck really is politically motivated. i have heard people that are very conservative, libertarian, and liberal say in casual conversation, "thats a lucky guy. wish i had his job"
as we have all stated and agreed on, there is a bit of luck, and a bit of skill.
Comments
Some BOTL here throw out the term LIBERAL as though it were some kind of swear word. THAT IS OFFENSIVE. PERIOD. When told that repeatedly they ignore it, BUT constanly go on about terms such as Teabaggers. Either grow up and quit throwing known offensive terms around or quit whining when someone does the same to your side.
Kuzi this was not directly related to you, just responding to your post for the purpose of saying this.
i said it before, and ill say it again:
we are all brothers of the leaf here, no need to insult one another. i can tell you the argument.
the argument is that the republican party is not conservative.
the republican party says it is for small government yet W was one of the most regulating presidents ever.
what the conservatives want and what "their party" ( i use the term loosely) does are not the same thing.
republican lawmakers are doing the same thing that the Democrat law makers are doing: only trying to get re-elected
the democrats increase the scope of government to satisfy the people that vote for them and the republicans increase the scope of government to satisfy the people that vote for them.
its no longer for the people, its for the re-election.
i hope others can stop using it that way. a person may disagree with liberals, but that does not make liberals bad people.
i really wanna get back to talking about paris hilton
specifically this thought line, that is close to the original post:
paris has the opportunity to do the opposite of what i am doing in my life. I am working hard to move up and gain wealth. things are going well for me (a tad slow but im not complaining) i have had no "luck" on my side as far as being born into a family with cash. She has the opposite opportunity. she was "lucky" to a degree because of the situation she was born into. it isnt too far of a reach to think that she has the potential to screw it all up and LOSE her fortune. is that genuine UN-luck, or is that being lazy and making bad decisions?
So since you state it clearly here (as well as other times, I know) that the Republican Party does NOT represent the political right... why is it so hard for other BOTL here to accept that the Democratic party does NOT represent the views of the political left? It is just mind boggling the way some people apply logic, or refuse to apply it as the case may be. Sometimes they can both apply it and not apply it in the same arguement in order to make their point. That is where they lose me.
If the political right is not being represented by the republican party, then why do the BOTL who are of a right wing political view only ever really critique the Democrats and those damned LIBERALS? Names of people in the Republican party also get thrown into these debates regularly, by BOTL from the political right, so I think at least a fair amount of the BOTL from the right do indeed look to the Republican party as their only choice to beat those pesky LIBERLS.
In the case of someone who makes a fortune through their hard work, that person learns many more lessons. Lessons like making money which in this world involves all kinds of different talents. Paris Hilton would not have the benefit of learning to deal with people as she has always been in a position to tell people what she wants and have them provide it. While I cry no tears for her or someone like her, you got to admit, even thou she is going through life on the gold plan, she has missed all kinds of learning experiences which most other people learn naturally.
Being lucky or even un-lucky has nothing to do with what kind of person you are. Many examples in the past of poor people being VERY good people while at the same time lots of examples of really rich people being quite useless or incompeteant. Having money or not having money is NOT the deciding factor in whether a person is a good person or not.
And we were just sarting to have fun with this discussion and Ms. Hilton's fake boobs too.
Buzz kill
I do agree in very small instances, a person gains wealth out of "luck", such as winning the lotto..etc. But not as much as the Left would have you believe.
What makes the rest of the people wealthy? Simple. The drive and hard work (and the engine of a Free Enterprise Capitalist society) to make a better life for yourself and your family.
1. The people surveyed were free to choose their answers freely. Very nice, however historically unreliable as their responses cannot be verified.
2. A sizable percentage agreed luck had something to do with their fortune (whcih was afterall the point being fought by this very post).
3. The answer inheritance was also termed "inheritance alone". It would stand to reason then as an example that the children of Sam Walton were millionares (or more) when they recvd their portions of the company. HOWEVER, since they have easrned more since, they would not fit into this 6%...they would be the working category, even though they started as multi millionares.
Its important to question everything, and not just believe what you read. You need to look at all the words, as language and terms are very important. Be person engaging in critical analysis of information and statistics to reach his own opinion and not just take something for face value, which life rarely is, and this info is not either. This brought a tear to the eye of a realist and questioner of information just thrown at me.
Some people who are wealthy are indeed lucky to be that way. Others have damned well worked hard and continue to do so for their wealth. Saying that someone is fortunate to be wealthy does not equate to saying they are only wealthy BECAUSE they are lucky.
This just all really to do with the fact that I changed the wig on my Banana in my sig. line isn't it? You guy's don't like it?
the exact opposite of the extremists within the tea party that want zero government what-so-ever, every infant to have a gun in one hand and a bible in the other hand, want the nation to be an actual Christian state, want all gays dead along with the blacks ....
its the same percentage minority.
im sure they are out there. just very few.
most people tend to be a lot closer to the middle. im sure there are people that want flat out socialism, but they are few and far between.
but seriously, im not sure this conversation about luck really is politically motivated. i have heard people that are very conservative, libertarian, and liberal say in casual conversation, "thats a lucky guy. wish i had his job"
as we have all stated and agreed on, there is a bit of luck, and a bit of skill.