1
   

The President is speaking in a bit (WATCH IT!)

 
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Apr, 2004 10:35 pm
Oh! That was a vicious flurry! And Bill is down!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 06:16 am
Shocked Please Kicky, you are speaking as if that post actually made any sense. Okay, time to debunk some more BS. :wink:

Alright InfraBlue: this is my second attempt to respond. In my first attempt; I was going to try to delete the insults and unrelated garbage first, but that left me with nothing to respond to. Rolling Eyes

InfraBlue wrote:
You're as sharp as the scissors given to first grade children, Bill.
Not bad. Probably the cleverest thing you've come up with so far. D+

InfraBlue wrote:
Once again, what I've posted here is relevant here

No, it's not. Your purpose from your very first post on this thread was to express your opinion that I am a racist and a hypocrite. Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with the topic; it was a clear-cut violation of the TOS. Had you ever bothered to read the TOS; you would know that this type of personal attack is relevant nowhere. No biggie; just be sure and get it all out of your system on this thread. Okay? :wink:

InfraBlue wrote:
If you can't grasp how this is relevant to this thread, you're a bigger moron than the president you so admire.
Who's a moron? Scream as loud as you want; it doesn't change the fact that your motivation for your Ad Hominem attack lies elsewhere. Perhaps in that post that you referred back to for, what is it now, 7 times? Or maybe you're a disgruntled former employee? Laughing

InfraBlue wrote:
That president who's human rights you'd violate because he not only exhibits natural linguistic phenomenon, he suffers from severe speech defects. But hey, if he'd negatively affect your wallet, f**k his human rights.

Let's get something straight here. Whether or not I choose hire someone, or not, is NOT a HUMAN RIGHTS issue. I asked you before if you knew how stupid that sounded. I guess the answer was no. Laughing In your feeble attempt to show that it was a HUMAN RIGHTS issue in MY opinion, you quoted me saying; "I view humans as humans and believe all should be entitled to basic sustenance, freedom and dignity." Listen closely now: One doesn't require a job from me to acquire these things, nor does being denied a job from me take any of them away. Idea Have you got that?

InfraBlue wrote:
You are a good business man, by the way. You don't let petty things like human rights get between you and your wallet. Your business skills should be commended.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you are being sarcastic here. Now I had thought that my exceedingly simple example about "Joe" would be sufficient clarification for even the most clueless idealist to understand. You responded by writing this.
InfraBlue wrote:
Joe is a racist acting on the racism intrinsic in his market which discriminates based on the speech patterns of a particular racial group--his customers really don't like "axe"--and Joe rationalizes it with his good friends, numbers, and measures it against his bottom line, his wallet. Joe is merely a cog in the racist system of his world. Poor, poor Joe. But Joe ain't a bad guy! He's got highfalutin ideals, and a great big bleeding heart for the victims of the big, bad ugly dictator half way around the globe, and as far from his imperfect, greyscale racist world. And he sobs at the thought of the human beings sacrificed in the name of ridding those poor, poor victims of that really, really bad guy. But hey, it's not directly affecting his wallet. Heck, he's even gotten a break on his taxes that are paying for the war he loves! Joe is a happy camper in his greyscale world.
Watch Joe doublethink.


Funny thing is; you must have been talking about me, not Joe, because in the example there was nothing to justify all that "great big bleeding heart" about the war stuff. Then you went right ahead and point-blank called Joe (me) a racist. Confused by this astonishingly foolish conclusion, I then asked you what you would do differently if you were Joe? You ducked the question and spat a couple more petty insults my way… so I asked again… and you responded with:

InfraBlue wrote:
If I were Joe I'd do one of two things. I'd either act on my great big bleeding heart, end my pursuit of money and join the peace corps., or I'd shut my great big sanctimonious trap, and risk being thought a hypocritical moron, than to open it and remove all doubt.

Now, at this point, you've point-blank called Joe (me) a racist and a moron, which needless to say, I wasn't too happy about.

Next Shocked , you flat out stun me with this ridiculous excuse for your childish, slanderous behavior:
InfraBlue wrote:
I was talking about Joe, Bill, and what I'd do if I were in his shoes.
The "Joe" example was pure business. No War. No information about Joe's politics whatsoever… Which means this is a bald faced lie and consequently proves beyond a reasonable doubt; that you are a liar. Rolling Eyes

InfraBlue wrote:
But, maybe Dubya should satellite-guide a MOAB right up your Approximate vicinity for even considering violating his human rights. Remember, he's a guy that acts on principles, and is willing to collaterally slaughter thousands upon thousands of innocents to get his guy in their name (what?). But then again, he's a raving hypocrite second only to you, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that's open to discussion.
Very impressive writing Rolling Eyes … No wonder your giving me a hard time about mine.

InfraBlue wrote:
You are getting redundant, Bill, and I'm getting tired of this
.
This, coming from the guy who has brought this same pointless, naïve garbage to several different threads… for the sole purpose of insult. Hell; you even brought up the same paragraph for at least the 7th time only this time you linked instead of quoted.
InfraBlue wrote:
If you ask me again what this has to do with your thread, go sit on a MOAB.
I think that's clear enough. As proven earlier; NOTHING.

Tell me; what's motivating you to continue making an ass of yourself anyway? You've failed miserably in your childish attempt to slander my character. In the mean time you've exhibited what appears to be a profound ignorance of business in the real world (you might be able to recover from that if can provide an intelligent alternative course of action for "Joe") Plus; you have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are a liar. Happy? Laughing
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 08:34 am
And Bill gets up after the furious deluge of punches, spits out a tooth, and comes back with a roundhouse to Blue's face that sends him flying out of the ring! Oh MY GOD! This could be the greatest fight in the history of the ring!

The ref is counting! Is Blue going to make it back into the ring?!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 08:46 am
If this is a 15-rounder, we have a ways to go Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 09:41 am
How many rounds have each won so far? LOL
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 02:27 pm
Psst, Blue, I think I heard Bill talking about your mother. You gonna take that?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 02:32 pm
That's dirty pool, but who's playing pool. LOL
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Apr, 2004 03:12 pm
Careful Kicky, Blue may decide to stalk your threads too. Shocked But then, you're not a sanctimonious racist hypocrite with poor writing skills, so you'll probably be okay. :wink:
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 12:18 am
Bill, firing a particular group of people ultimately because of other peoples' problems with their speech patterns isn't humanitarian. It violates their freedom, their dignity, their shot at a decent lot in life. It's cutthroat. That's business, though, right. That's the real world. You do what you have to to look out for your bottom line, your wallet. Money is the bottom line, not HUMAN BEINGS. So, when an individual decides to take this course of action, any kind of claim to compassion for human beings from him rings affected and hollow. When it's a claim to compassion for human beings as a justification of war, it goes beyond affected. Coming from an individual who's forgone humanitarianism in his everyday existence, it's hypocritical. And when that individual can't see the contradiction it's doublethink.

No, I'm not a former employee of yours, Bill. Once again, I'm merely commenting on the things you've posted. I've drawn direct quotes from you and commented on them. If the moderators think I'm violating the TOS--and remember, it was you who began with the abusive comments, derisively questioning my intelligence and literacy--then they should tell me, and I'll cease and desist.

Kicky has nothing to worry about. He hasn't come up with anything half as grossly contradictory as you have here, Bill.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 01:26 am
Seems to me there are valid reasons to discriminate in hiring that have nothing at all to do with prejudice or bigotry or racism.

It would be quite impractical to hire a white red headed freckled actor to play the part of a black man.

It would be pretty dumb to hire a 300 pound gal, no matter how pretty, as a model for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition.

And it would be imprudent to hire someone who cannot properly speak the English language to be a high profile salesperson where image is important. It's tough enough to have somebody who can't properly speak the English language on the drive through microphone at McDonalds.

And I don't think the Dallas Cowboys should have to let me try out for quarterback just because I would like to be a quarterback. Well I don't really want to be a quarterback, but I'd sure like the make the money a quarterback makes. Smile
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 01:44 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
Bill, firing a particular group of people ultimately because of other peoples' problems with their speech patterns isn't humanitarian.
That is pure BS. Firing a Sales person for poor Sales performance has nothing to do with humanitarianism. Keeping a poor performer on hand would, but would also be a foolish act perpetrated by an idealist moron who was doomed to go out of business.

InfraBlue wrote:
It violates their freedom, their dignity, their shot at a decent lot in life. It's cutthroat.
In no way does it violate their freedom, dignity or shot at a decent lot in life. If that were true; every sales person who'd ever lost their job could claim the same unfairness.

InfraBlue wrote:
That's business, though, right. That's the real world. You do what you have to to look out for your bottom line, your wallet. Money is the bottom line, not HUMAN BEINGS.
You are starting to get it. Accept, if you look back through the examples I've already given you; you will see that a true threat of harm to a HUMAN BEING results in the HUMAN BEING's welfare taking precedence over the bottom line and my wallet.

InfraBlue wrote:
So, when an individual decides to take this course of action, any kind of claim to compassion for human beings from him rings affected and hollow. When it's a claim to compassion for human beings as a justification of war, it goes beyond affected. Coming from an individual who's forgone humanitarianism in his everyday existence, it's hypocritical. And when that individual can't see the contradiction it's doublethink.
The problem with this logic chain is that it is utterly devoid of logic. When you employ sales people for any reason other than their sales ability, you set yourself up for failure. There are 150,000,000 jobs in this country, yet you think if I deny a person one of mine; I've denied him freedom, dignity and their shot at a decent lot in life. This is idealistic nonsense. The rest of your logic chain may work, if not for your faulty premise, but it wouldn't apply to me. Why don't you try answering what you would do different if you were Joe?

InfraBlue wrote:
No, I'm not a former employee of yours, Bill. Once again, I'm merely commenting on the things you've posted. I've drawn direct quotes from you and commented on them. If the moderators think I'm violating the TOS--and remember, it was you who began with the abusive comments, derisively questioning my intelligence and literacy--then they should tell me, and I'll cease and desist.
Your intention from word one constituted a personal attack on me, not anything I've written. Quoting things I've written does not change the nature of this attack. This is a clear violation of Heading III. Subsection b. paragraph 5 of the TOS. I chose not to report the abusive violation preferring to air it out for the groundless claim that it is. Providing you get it out of your system on this thread, I will continue to not report the obvious violation.

Instead of using your poetic talents to try and paint an ugly picture of my decisions, why don't you attempt to show me how you would do better? WHAT WOULD YOU DO DIFFERNENT IF YOU WERE JOE? Your refusal or inability to answer that question is what's making it so easy to debunk your idealistic nonsense.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 04:36 pm
that goddamn smoke again
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 04:40 pm
Inhaling happily Smile
(Wishing wimmen could smoke cigars and retain that feminine mystique.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 05:38 pm
Fox, Many women do smoke cigars and retain feminine mystique. Go for it! LOL
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 06:14 pm
Beat it Blatham. If a situation comes up that calls for blind hyper-partisan loyalty... I'll send you a PM.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 06:17 pm
Theoretically, I wouldn't see it.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 06:57 pm
Discriminatory hiring and firing, and employment practices based on groups of peoples' speech patterns is by definition discriminatory. And, it deprives people of freedom, dignity and a fair shot at a decent lot in life. When those discriminatory hiring and firing, and employment practices are applied specifically against Blacks because their particular speech patterns, because they say "aks," that discrimination is racially based and is therefor racist. A legal case could probably be made against you by this specific group of employees of yours hired, fired or detrimentally treated under your employ based on the criteria--with your neat software you've got racial discrimination down to a science--you've deliniated on this thread.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 06:58 pm
If I were Joe, I'd remove myself from the situation.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 07:05 pm
I wanna have a go with kicky. Ten bucks says I can whup him on any subject other than endorphin production through excessive self delight.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Apr, 2004 07:17 pm
Bill,

When you've admitted to your racism on these boards why spend so much time arguing against it?

Why not just do what you did last time and say "Don't hold my honesty against me."?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 09:03:14