View Single Post
      09-25-2012, 08:53 PM   #30
Lieutenant Colonel

Drives: '15 F80, '18 991.2 GTS
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: East Coast

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl View Post
It seems like you are going around and around in circles. I cant find a point here.

OK, Ann Romney is greedy, by your own statement, because she drives a couple of Caddies.
...By her husband's own statement.

So, clearly you are capable of equating greed with automotive ownership excess. As you may or may not know, Caddies tend to have a very steep depreciation curve. In fact, without knowing what year or model they are, I think it's entirely plausible (if not likely) that the current value of her 2 cars is probably not much more than the value of a 2011 M3. So, if she owns X dollars of automotive excess, that is greed personified, but if you own X dollars of the automotive excess, that is not? Of course, her purchases enabled American workers that you respect so much. Liberal hypocrisy once again.
We're going to have to accept an impasse because your bizarre logic is just too painful. A presidential candidate going on public record boasting quite conceitedly that his wife drives a couple Cadillacs is evidence of greed. It's crass! Rmoney is bidding to become Commander In Chief of a nation. How well do you think his comment will be received by the average American? Conversely, me acquiring a specific vehicle through means that are accessible to the common man, is not greed. Ambition is not greed. A homeless man panhandling to earn money so he can buy a juicy steak isn't greed. A homeless man stealing packages of meat when he has no means to cook it, is greed. Huge difference. Likewise, being overly ambitious however, to the point where it consumes you and the things you acquire are wasteful and redundant is greed (homeless and Ann's caddies). Having a couple Cadillacs exceeds what would normally be enough under most circumstances for a person running for public office. There is nothing excessive about an M3. The specs are irrelevant. I can live without an M3 and have. If I choose to eat lobster tails instead of canned tuna fish, is that also greed? LOL Using your ass backwards logic, you're confusing an individual's acquired taste with having a nature of greed. Not even close. I guess we should all be living in dog houses as have a several rooms in our modest homes is far far too much.

Conservative poppycock 101.

You seem to imply that if you purchase way more than you need, that is not greed if that money was honestly earned, whereas if you purchase way more than you need using funds you acquired via family inheritance, or marrying wealth, then that is worse somehow? Is that how you feel you occupy a morally higher ground than Ann Romney ?
Actually, prior to you disturbing me, I made several statements unrelated to any of the above. It wasn't until you created an argument to entice a discussion with me which I defended. And if you paid any attention, I attributed someone's greed to their own value system. One cannot acquire $200 million by not being greedy and in the same breath convince fellow Americans that he will represent them as their potential CIC.

I'm not sure what comment you were hoping for in your homeless man scenario. If he bites the hand that feeds him, eventually they will notice, stop feeding him, and then he will begin to starve. That's natural selection. I got no problem with that.
I presented that example to show you how a man who has nothing can still be greedy which calls into question your logic that me driving a 414HP, expensive car is greed because I'm middle class and can afford it. There are plenty of dignified homeless people who do not exploit their situation by stealing or exhibiting greedy behavior. It's all about values. You argument is ignorant and does not address one's values.

Tell you what, you pick a point that I havent addressed yet, and I'll address that just as soon as you can explain your assertion that those who seek less union influence are commies.
Although wordy, my responses to you are necessary and complete. I at least provide an organized reply to you. You however, skip responses because you're probably more enthusiastic about the act of replying than you are about actually having a dialog.

Because he can shelter those funds from taxes. Why else do you think? What do you think he (and others like him) will do with what $ is left in US accounts if Obama gets his way and starts cranking up their tax rates even more?
What tax rates are you speaking of specifically? How can a presidential candidate be trusted if he himself exploits the very same rules that govern the land he wishes to command?

Last edited by 48Laws; 09-25-2012 at 08:59 PM.