Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 10 Jul 2024, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 11:17 am

Did you invent your equipment out of thin air? Did you steal it?

If so, there is no difference. You're one of those people we reference when we say "they."

 
Sounds like Deezy is big fan of small "c" capitalism.
 

Sumela » 10 Jul 2024, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 11:21 am

:LOL:  
Sounds like Deezy is big fan of small "c" capitalism.
 

capitalizing off reasonable doubt isn't same thing as economic capitalism where every reproduction has equal opportunity to work within the social system to make a reality work equally for everyone of age to provide for themselves and their immediate family when old enough after birth to create a family of their own.

There are so many ways planned obsolescence and plausible deniability work against the average ancestor adapting equally alive each rotation living forward each rotation they are still living equally timed apart now.

Fairness and balancing are complete different outcomes. There is nothing fair equally timed apart balancing as eternally separated today. Realities where rank gets privileges doesn't make balancing better, just more corrupted every rotation forward.

Fuelman » 10 Jul 2024, 8:44 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 8:44 am

I think he's just like a lot of people looking for a short cut to **** you money, can't really fault him for that. Many try, most fail. The old fashioned way of simply saving money just isn't hip anymore. 

Seems those people who go down the "money changers" rabbit hole gain a defeatest attitude while using their newfound knowledge to bash just about everyone else.

He's smart enough to know the numbers and they are not great.

We won’t keep you in suspense. If you have more than $1 million saved in retirement accounts, you are in the top 3% of retirees. According to EBRI estimates based on the latest Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, 3.2% of retirees have over $1 million in their retirement accounts, while just 0.1% have $5 million or more.1

The next level for $500k to $999k was 4%

Is it the money changers, or as you frequently point out,  poor choices made by people that prevent them from reaching financial goals.

For some reason, I always thought Peepee was flat broke!

True, easy money is always a lure... I never had the stomach for it...too risky...

only 7%? I don't feel so bad...considering I was a blue collar worker...
 

31stArrival » 10 Jul 2024, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 8:14 am

My instinctive brain always considered Rickee Tavvy the same person that used Xavier Onassis screen name. the two shared a similar avatar.

so was never that intricate in his writings...
 

Cannonpointer » 10 Jul 2024, 11:17 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 11:17 am

Did you invent your equipment out of thin air? Did you steal it?

If so, there is no difference. You're one of those people we reference when we say "they."

Don't go all anti-Jewy on me, now.
Are you saying charging any money for loans is unethical? Or only the Jew thing?

I'm merely saying the act of charging someone to use my money temporarily isn't wrong.
Using my backyard for RV storage amounts to the same ethical non-dilemma.
You don't want to pay for temporary use of my property? Go buy a lot.

You want to add some level of **** I was not commenting on.
 

ROG62 » 10 Jul 2024, 6:04 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 6:04 am

Excellent point...apparently no IQ can't grasp the fact he's one of the have nots in neither money or finance prowess...methinks he's waiting for the free **** train while sitting at the bus stop lamenting about the oppressors...

What would be the PROPER way for him to expose the scam?

Or do you think it is the US government, and not a secret cartel, that issues the debt notes we are required to treat as tender?
 
 

DeezerShoove » 10 Jul 2024, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:01 pm

Don't go all anti-Jewy on me, now.

Where did I mention jews?

Did you just accidentally admit that you know whose dick is in your ***?

Wowza.

DeezerShoove » 10 Jul 2024, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:01 pm

Are you saying charging any money for loans is unethical? Or only the Jew thing?

I'm merely saying the act of charging someone to use my money temporarily isn't wrong.
Using my backyard for RV storage amounts to the same ethical non-dilemma.
You don't want to pay for temporary use of my property? Go buy a lot.

You want to add some level of **** I was not commenting on.

Cannonpointer » 10 Jul 2024, 1:05 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:05 pm

Where did I mention jews?

Did you just accidentally admit that you know whose dick is in your ***?

Wowza.

You want to add some level of **** I was not commenting on.

Big, big surprise what you meant. Gimme a break.
 

Sumela » 10 Jul 2024, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 11:21 am

 
Sounds like Deezy is big fan of small "c" capitalism.

Who cares?

DeezerShoove » 10 Jul 2024, 1:08 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:08 pm

Big, big surprise what you meant. Gimme a break.

No, no - you give ME a break.

What you were commenting on is contextualized by who you were commenting TO.

You brought up jews, and you have implicitly admitted that you tried to derail the thread by REDIRECTING me to comment exclusively on what you "meant," rather than commenting on what the OP is talking about.

You and you alone want to make this about your backyard and my imaginary RV - about your EARNED, OWNED equipment and not the stolen **** the OP is talking about. 

I wasn't being nice, or fair, and I need to GIVE YOU A BREAK, because my response to your post kept the OP's context instead of going along with your shabby attempt to ignore it and recontextualize the conversation.

Here's the thing: If you want to disagree with his contentions, nut up and do it without the passive aggression of a cheap contextual reframe that you will then demand I limit my response within.
 

Sumela » 10 Jul 2024, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 11:21 am

 
Sounds like Deezy is big fan of small "c" capitalism.

He certainly is no fan of the OP criticizing it, given his insistence on reframing the conversation and his demand that I respond exclusively within the strictures of his reframe and not answer him within the greater context of what the OP is talking about. 
 

Cannonpointer » 10 Jul 2024, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:22 pm

No, no - you give ME a break.

What you were commenting on is contextualized by who you were commenting TO.

You brought up jews, and you have implicitly admitted that you tried to derail the thread by REDIRECTING me to comment exclusively on what you "meant," rather than commenting on what the OP is talking about.

You and you alone want to make this about your backyard and my imaginary RV - about your EARNED, OWNED equipment and not the stolen **** the OP is talking about. 

I wasn't being nice, or fair, and I need to GIVE YOU A BREAK, because my response to your post kept the OP's context instead of going along with your shabby attempt to ignore it and recontextualize the conversation.

Here's the thing: If you want to disagree with his contentions, nut up and do it without the passive aggression of a cheap contextual reframe that you will then demand I limit my response within.

I merely said (in so many words) that there's nothing wrong with charging people for using your ****.

Nothing more. You assumed more was meant than that. You.

DeezerShoove » 10 Jul 2024, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:28 pm

I merely said (in so many words) that there's nothing wrong with charging people for using your ****.

And did that confute the OP? Was it INTENDED to confute the OP? To agree with/cosign the OP?

What was the INTENTION of your post? I will tell you mine. MY post was intended to SUPPORT the OP.

You could only have had three possible motives for your post:

1. To support the OP - in which case you and I are of one accord;
2. To refute the OP - in which case, my response to you was on point, since I support the OP; and
3. To derail the thread/passive-aggressively and sneakily confute the OP - and then demand that I respond EXCLUSIVELY within the limits of the passive/aggressive reframe, thus derailing the OP without truly addressing it.

Just tell me which one of those motives you had, and we might settle on whether my response to you was called for, sir.

 
 

DeezerShoove » 10 Jul 2024, 1:10 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:10 pm

Who cares?

These guys do  


 

ROG62 » 10 Jul 2024, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:00 pm

so was never that intricate in his writings...
 

words describe who a person rather have been since conceived when character matters more than understanding the self evident reason life is an eternal adapt or become situation for any reproduction occupying time the rotations they are alive since day conceived to rotation of death arrives as specific as conception did to each individual ever born, became a parent, became a grandparent, etc.

Reproductions are always unique to the whole process of ancestors becoming ancestry to future generation gaps tomorrow.

Intellectual time management of people alive today doesn't account for yesterday in rule of 72 formula to compounding results present today. Biological evolving works in series parallel changes never same total sum twice per individual living fertilized cell to decomposed corpse changes constantly when alive.

Humanity legally defines tomorrow midnight to noon each rotation using the international dateline or 0 degrees longitude midnight on a map where latitudes measure climate zones north and south of the equator same rotation all the time. 8 seasonal shifts an annual revolution around the star and both sides of the equator agree there are only 4 seasons a year. Rationalizing things to justify ignoring actual process of adapting as displaced.

anyway I keep trying to explain things people of character won't ever accept. But evolving leaves me with no other option than to keep trying.

GHETTOBLASTER » 10 Jul 2024, 6:32 am » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 6:32 am

"Joseph Goebbels was not a proponent of the "Big Lie". He and Hitler merely pointed out how it was the JEWS who were the great masters of this black art. In truth, Goebbels said that the BEST propaganda is that which is solidly based on truth."

NICE CATCH...!

It's usually the Jews who are the self appointed fact checkers...yet they some how missed this one.

Beakman » 10 Jul 2024, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:50 pm

If I had known it was one of your stupid,  time wasting replies...I wouldn't have bothered to look....  

Sumela » 10 Jul 2024, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:37 pm

These guys do  


 

I guess your comment was for them then.

Cannonpointer » 10 Jul 2024, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:03 pm

What would be the PROPER way for him to expose the scam?

Or do you think it is the US government, and not a secret cartel, that issues the debt notes we are required to treat as tender?

He's gaming the very system he's bitching about...

"muh holdings!"
 

Cannonpointer » 10 Jul 2024, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Jul 2024, 1:34 pm

And did that confute the OP? Was it INTENDED to confute the OP? To agree with/cosign the OP?

What was the INTENTION of your post? I will tell you mine. MY post was intended to SUPPORT the OP.

You could only have had three possible motives for your post:

1. To support the OP - in which case you and I are of one accord;
2. To refute the OP - in which case, my response to you was on point, since I support the OP; and
3. To derail the thread/passive-aggressively and sneakily confute the OP - and then demand that I respond EXCLUSIVELY within the limits of the passive/aggressive reframe, thus derailing the OP without truly addressing it.

Just tell me which one of those motives you had, and we might settle on whether my response to you was called for, sir.

Go with #3 if you need this win.
One comment about charging interest (sort of) sure gets your usury ruffled.

btw
Out of context **** is what we live on. Look at some of your own stuff for chrissakes.

btw2
**** the OP.