This is just more of the same from you... non-responsive nitpicking and misdirection, while real issues remain unaddressed.
Attempting to debate you is like boxing with a shadow; you can land all the punches you like, but as there's nothing really there it's all just wasted effort.
Perhaps some of my other posts would qualify as "nitpicking," but here I was telling you that "first" and "last" mean different things. I don't think that's a nitpick, given that they mean opposite things.
Look, dbl, I understand that you want me to answer certain questions, but you shouldn't misinterpret what I'm saying. When I said my "last post," I didn't mean the original post of the thread.
I was saying that one of the primary reasons you responded so negatively to this text:
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
I believe in Democracy.
was....
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
because you were thinking not of it, but of the thread's previous turns, and various other conceptions you had of the writer.
I will answer your questions, or I won't, and repeating your questions, or misinterpreting anything that I'm saying to make it seem like it has something to do with the questions you want me to answer, won't make me answer anything, or answer any faster. Mostly because I usually notice it if a person's response seems to be responding to things not actually said in (on an internet forum) the post which their response quotes.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 987
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: TexasBlue
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
No. One of the primary reasons you reacted so poorly to my last post was because you were thinking not of it, but of the thread's previous turns, and various other conceptions you had of the writer.
My points that I made were in rebuttal to the corporate donations being given. Not a peep about the massive amounts of money by unions given to political candidates (mostly to Democrats).
Perhaps as an ideal, no money should be in politics whatsoever. But I don't necessarily think ideals can be achieved in reality.
For example, communism is an ideal, and unsurprisingly there are no communist countries.
I've prepared a response to union money in politics, but first, what do you think of this:
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
I believe in Democracy.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
This is just more of the same from you... non-responsive nitpicking and misdirection, while real issues remain unaddressed.
Attempting to debate you is like boxing with a shadow; you can land all the punches you like, but as there's nothing really there it's all just wasted effort.
Perhaps some of my other posts would qualify as "nitpicking," but here I was telling you that "first" and "last" mean different things. I don't think that's a nitpick, given that they mean opposite things.
Look, dbl, I understand that you want me to answer certain questions, but you shouldn't misinterpret what I'm saying. When I said my "last post," I didn't mean the original post of the thread.
I was saying that one of the primary reasons you responded so negatively to this text:
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
I believe in Democracy.
was....
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
because you were thinking not of it, but of the thread's previous turns, and various other conceptions you had of the writer.
I will answer your questions, or I won't, and repeating your questions, or misinterpreting anything that I'm saying to make it seem like it has something to do with the questions you want me to answer, won't make me answer anything, or answer any faster. Mostly because I usually notice it if a person's response seems to be responding to things not actually said in (on an internet forum) the post which their response quotes.
More meaningless, irrelevant and non-responsive sidestepping.
This is just more of the same from you... non-responsive nitpicking and misdirection, while real issues remain unaddressed.
Attempting to debate you is like boxing with a shadow; you can land all the punches you like, but as there's nothing really there it's all just wasted effort.
Perhaps some of my other posts would qualify as "nitpicking," but here I was telling you that "first" and "last" mean different things. I don't think that's a nitpick, given that they mean opposite things.
Look, dbl, I understand that you want me to answer certain questions, but you shouldn't misinterpret what I'm saying. When I said my "last post," I didn't mean the original post of the thread.
I was saying that one of the primary reasons you responded so negatively to this text:
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
I believe in Democracy.
was....
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
because you were thinking not of it, but of the thread's previous turns, and various other conceptions you had of the writer.
I will answer your questions, or I won't, and repeating your questions, or misinterpreting anything that I'm saying to make it seem like it has something to do with the questions you want me to answer, won't make me answer anything, or answer any faster. Mostly because I usually notice it if a person's response seems to be responding to things not actually said in (on an internet forum) the post which their response quotes.
I've prepared a response to union money in politics, but first, what do you think of this:
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
I believe in Democracy.
Nice dodge. You ask me to answer something before you answered my rebuttal to the OP of this thread. You have no intention on answering because you can't. I provided concrete proof on how much big money flows from the unions to mostly Democrat politicians and you just dodge.
As for what I think of the repeated quote... I don't think anything of it until you answer me.
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 987
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: TexasBlue
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
I've prepared a response to union money in politics, but first, what do you think of this:
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
I believe in Democracy.
Nice dodge. You ask me to answer something before you answered my rebuttal to the OP of this thread. You have no intention on answering because you can't. I provided concrete proof on how much big money flows from the unions to mostly Democrat politicians and you just dodge.
As for what I think of the repeated quote... I don't think anything of it until you answer me.
I haven't actually addressed it directly, but you do understand I don't actually believe it's possible or that one should keep all money whatsoever out it politics? So your pointing out that unions spend lots of money in politics is not necessarily relevant.
In any case I actually do have a direct response, but first I want a response to the above quote of mine. I actually wrote both parts of the response at once at once (both parts being a reason why corporations shouldn't have unlimited spending power and a justification for union spending), but I'm curious how you'll respond to the first part, about corps.
Edited by lu61f3r (02/11/1212:51 PM)
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 987
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
This is just more of the same from you... non-responsive nitpicking and misdirection, while real issues remain unaddressed.
Attempting to debate you is like boxing with a shadow; you can land all the punches you like, but as there's nothing really there it's all just wasted effort.
Perhaps some of my other posts would qualify as "nitpicking," but here I was telling you that "first" and "last" mean different things. I don't think that's a nitpick, given that they mean opposite things.
Look, dbl, I understand that you want me to answer certain questions, but you shouldn't misinterpret what I'm saying. When I said my "last post," I didn't mean the original post of the thread.
I was saying that one of the primary reasons you responded so negatively to this text:
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
I believe in Democracy.
was....
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
because you were thinking not of it, but of the thread's previous turns, and various other conceptions you had of the writer.
I will answer your questions, or I won't, and repeating your questions, or misinterpreting anything that I'm saying to make it seem like it has something to do with the questions you want me to answer, won't make me answer anything, or answer any faster. Mostly because I usually notice it if a person's response seems to be responding to things not actually said in (on an internet forum) the post which their response quotes.
More meaningless, irrelevant and non-responsive sidestepping.
Everything i've said has been relevant to posts you have made. If they are irrelevant, then those posts of yours were also irrelevant.
Like I said, dbl, I will respond to what you're saying, or I won't. Asking me again and again, telling me that everything i say that is not an answer to one particular question, while being in response to things you have written, or misinterpreting posts I make in order to ask me the question again, will not actually make me answer, at all, or any faster.
And btw, what exactly is wrong with the following text:
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
It seemed to me that you only responded so negatively to the comment because you had this built up grievance with me. In short, you were reacting to the writer, and not what was written. And your continuing to talk about the issue surrounding your grievance with me, when I pointed this out, seemed to confirm.
As far as the bit about Democracy, I may have misphrased that. I meant that I believe in our Democratic process. As in, everyone gets one vote, whether their voting on a specific issue or law or for representatives. We do both, of course. You should note that our system combines elements of both. Democracy and Republicanism.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 987
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
I meant what I said.
Read a book or two and you might understand it.
I'd start with "The Road to Serfdom" given the turn this thread has taken.
No doubt you did mean what you said. But I hope you don't labor under the delusion that because a person means something very much, or proposes a claim with enough force of will, that this will have an effect on the truth value of his claim.
And, am I to interpret your not correcting me as a sign that you are actually saying that all leftists are communists
And am I also to interpret your mentioning this document as a sign that Hayek too claims that all leftists are communists, and attempts to provide some sort of justification or, dare I say, proof of this in the book you mentioned
Because if that's the case, I might just read that book. I'd be interested to see an attempt to demonstrate that all leftists are communists.
Or is that not what you meant Are you actually claiming that all leftists are communists
Entirely possible that you meant something else by "economic equality," or some other phrase, or by what you said in your post that is quoted above. Feel free to correct me if I have you wrong there.
Non-responsive and off topic.
Again, it's a response to one of your posts. If it's off-topic, so was that post.
Really, dbl, I might actually read that book, if indeed you are claiming that all leftists are communists, as well as Hayek, in that book. I'd be interested to see how someone might attempt to prove that.
But again, it was only implied in your posts, is that actually what you were saying, or no?
I would actually be interested in the book, dbl, if it was what you and he were saying. But I may have misinterpreted your post, I admit.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Perhaps some of my other posts would qualify as "nitpicking," but here I was telling you that "first" and "last" mean different things. I don't think that's a nitpick, given that they mean opposite things.
Look, dbl, I understand that you want me to answer certain questions, but you shouldn't misinterpret what I'm saying. When I said my "last post," I didn't mean the original post of the thread.
I was saying that one of the primary reasons you responded so negatively to this text:
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
I believe in Democracy.
was....
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
because you were thinking not of it, but of the thread's previous turns, and various other conceptions you had of the writer.
I will answer your questions, or I won't, and repeating your questions, or misinterpreting anything that I'm saying to make it seem like it has something to do with the questions you want me to answer, won't make me answer anything, or answer any faster. Mostly because I usually notice it if a person's response seems to be responding to things not actually said in (on an internet forum) the post which their response quotes.
More meaningless, irrelevant and non-responsive sidestepping.
Everything i've said has been relevant to posts you have made. If they are irrelevant, then those posts of yours were also irrelevant.
Like I said, dbl, I will respond to what you're saying, or I won't. Asking me again and again, telling me that everything i say that is not an answer to one particular question, while being in response to things you have written, or misinterpreting posts I make in order to ask me the question again, will not actually make me answer, at all, or any faster.
And btw, what exactly is wrong with the following text:
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
The reason I don't think corporations should be allowed to make political donations without limit is because I don't believe business success should translate into political will. I don't believe that when a corporation sells a vast amount of product, that this should give the CEO (or whoever controls the corporation's accounts) vast political will.
It seemed to me that you only responded so negatively to the comment because you had this built up grievance with me. In short, you were reacting to the writer, and not what was written. And your continuing to talk about the issue surrounding your grievance with me, when I pointed this out, seemed to confirm.
As far as the bit about Democracy, I may have misphrased that. I meant that I believe in our Democratic process. As in, everyone gets one vote, whether their voting on a specific issue or law or for representatives. We do both, of course. You should note that our system combines elements of both. Democracy and Republicanism.
More noise, but no response to any substantive issues raised.
I'd start with "The Road to Serfdom" given the turn this thread has taken.
No doubt you did mean what you said. But I hope you don't labor under the delusion that because a person means something very much, or proposes a claim with enough force of will, that this will have an effect on the truth value of his claim.
And, am I to interpret your not correcting me as a sign that you are actually saying that all leftists are communists
And am I also to interpret your mentioning this document as a sign that Hayek too claims that all leftists are communists, and attempts to provide some sort of justification or, dare I say, proof of this in the book you mentioned
Because if that's the case, I might just read that book. I'd be interested to see an attempt to demonstrate that all leftists are communists.
Or is that not what you meant Are you actually claiming that all leftists are communists
Entirely possible that you meant something else by "economic equality," or some other phrase, or by what you said in your post that is quoted above. Feel free to correct me if I have you wrong there.
Non-responsive and off topic.
Again, it's a response to one of your posts. If it's off-topic, so was that post.
Really, dbl, I might actually read that book, if indeed you are claiming that all leftists are communists, as well as Hayek, in that book. I'd be interested to see how someone might attempt to prove that.
But again, it was only implied in your posts, is that actually what you were saying, or no
I would actually be interested in the book, dbl, if it was what you and he were saying. But I may have misinterpreted your post, I admit.
All that copy and not a response in sight.
Previous Topic
Index
