The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Fios wrote:I AM GOD ... is the correct forum to finally admit that?

I'm fairly certain that, as God, the rules permit you to pretty much use any forum as you see fit.

If, however, you are merely a highly grandiose fluid receptacle, you would probably be limited to posting within the Smack forum... (you'd probably want to check that with a Mod who was not claiming to be God, though)

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Yes, I am not only an academic but a highly paid one at that.

I'm sure this comment serves some purpose.

Further, at my University, we sit on the heads of anti-socialists who think that university statisticians are paid to create misleading data.

Yes... Universities are all about free speech, eh? (please note: sarcasm is in effect) That free speech is only for liberals and leftists on most campuses is really no surprize.

Yep. I guess you've got us nailed. Everyone who teaches at a college or a university is pretty much a free-loading hippy socialist who can't make a living in the real world so spends his excess time making up phony data to support left wing-nut schemes to give your hard-earned tax dollars to wetbacks and welfare queens. Oh yeah, we're also dedicated to stifling free speech, especially yours, and fail to support good old boy traditions--
like racism, the divinity of the rich, the banning of Darwin, the destruction of the environment, American invasions for profit, and torture.

Hmmmm... nice to see you come clean. That must have felt... liberating...

I hate the poor!

Irn-Bru wrote:I hate the poor!

The rich are usually rich because they have been given money, been able to borrow it, have been able to profit from the work of others, have been able to steal it, have gotten flat-out lucky with investments, been favored by some government, or been paid for playing some game, moving drugs, taking advantage of the old or young or stupid, charging too much, cheating employees, destroying the environment or the health of the nation, making bombs, or promoting some fantasy.

If you are unimpressed by wealth and the rich, you are on the same page with the intelligent and Jesus.

The one thing I really cannot stand about some professors is the far left or far right point of views they try to inject into the classroom. If I PAID for an english class! I want to learn how to write and I do not care about why you think Cheney is the devil! Teach me about comma splices; not idiot politicians.

On the getting rich part that crazyhorse was talking about. Did Bill Gates earn his money the dishonest way? Does he not donate millions every year to charities? Is he evil because he used his brain to come up with a GUI interface? He may have been somewhat lucky, but we all get lucky from time to time. Lumping all rich into one category isn't a good way to justify anything about "how they act."

Cappster wrote:The one thing I really cannot stand about some professors is the far left or far right point of views they try to inject into the classroom. If I PAID for an english class! I want to learn how to write and I do not care about why you think Cheney is the devil! Teach me about comma splices; not idiot politicians.

On the getting rich part that crazyhorse was talking about. Did Bill Gates earn his money the dishonest way? Does he not donate millions every year to charities? Is he evil because he used his brain to come up with a GUI interface? He may have been somewhat lucky, but we all get lucky from time to time. Lumping all rich into one category isn't a good way to justify anything about "how they act."

I was careful to quote different categories of the non-deserving rich. I didn't lump all of any group into one category.

Bill Gates earned his money by using the inventions of others and then the business practices of a robber baron, all of which earned him massive law suits as well as his billions.

Personally, I don't discuss politics in my English classes and am politics blind when grading. Contrary to popular notion, a professor can be dismissed for wandering away from his subject matter.

By the way, I would have thought your post more considered had you also observed that lumping all the poor into one category is not a good way to discribe "how they act."

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Cappster wrote:The one thing I really cannot stand about some professors is the far left or far right point of views they try to inject into the classroom. If I PAID for an english class! I want to learn how to write and I do not care about why you think Cheney is the devil! Teach me about comma splices; not idiot politicians.

On the getting rich part that crazyhorse was talking about. Did Bill Gates earn his money the dishonest way? Does he not donate millions every year to charities? Is he evil because he used his brain to come up with a GUI interface? He may have been somewhat lucky, but we all get lucky from time to time. Lumping all rich into one category isn't a good way to justify anything about "how they act."

I was careful to quote different categories of the non-deserving rich. I didn't lump all of any group into one category.

Bill Gates earned his money by using the inventions of others and then the business practices of a robber baron, all of which earned him massive law suits as well as his billions.

Personally, I don't discuss politics in my English classes and am politics blind when grading. Contrary to popular notion, a professor can be dismissed for wandering away from his subject matter.

By the way, I would have thought your post more considered had you also observed that lumping all the poor into one category is not a good way to discribe "how they act."

I agree that "lumping" or stereotyping the class of poor citizens is not correct either. My grandparents, who have worked hard their whole lives and now are living off the "system," are not the same as some freeloader that hasn't contributed anything to society.

Let me not forget about the middle class. I am considered a middle class citizen. To me, that is rather funny. I guess it is true in some ways because I do own a townhouse and two cars but I've had a lot of help getting to where I am today. I feel poor because I have no savings because all of my money is spent on paying bills.

In a capitalistic society, you are going to have poor, middle, and rich. What the world is missing today is honest, hardworking people that care about society as a whole. We need to get people out of poverty and into the "American dream" way of living. The federal government taking my money and giving it to other people is ok in some ways. Everyone needs help and I understand that (example: my grandparents). The one thing I don't want is the government giving my money to someone who hasn't or doesn't put any effort into earning my money.

Cappster wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:

Cappster wrote:The one thing I really cannot stand about some professors is the far left or far right point of views they try to inject into the classroom. If I PAID for an english class! I want to learn how to write and I do not care about why you think Cheney is the devil! Teach me about comma splices; not idiot politicians.

On the getting rich part that crazyhorse was talking about. Did Bill Gates earn his money the dishonest way? Does he not donate millions every year to charities? Is he evil because he used his brain to come up with a GUI interface? He may have been somewhat lucky, but we all get lucky from time to time. Lumping all rich into one category isn't a good way to justify anything about "how they act."

I was careful to quote different categories of the non-deserving rich. I didn't lump all of any group into one category.

Bill Gates earned his money by using the inventions of others and then the business practices of a robber baron, all of which earned him massive law suits as well as his billions.

Personally, I don't discuss politics in my English classes and am politics blind when grading. Contrary to popular notion, a professor can be dismissed for wandering away from his subject matter.

By the way, I would have thought your post more considered had you also observed that lumping all the poor into one category is not a good way to discribe "how they act."

I agree that "lumping" or stereotyping the class of poor citizens is not correct either. My grandparents, who have worked hard their whole lives and now are living off the "system," are not the same as some freeloader that hasn't contributed anything to society.

Let me not forget about the middle class. I am considered a middle class citizen. To me, that is rather funny. I guess it is true in some ways because I do own a townhouse and two cars but I've had a lot of help getting to where I am today. I feel poor because I have no savings because all of my money is spent on paying bills.

In a capitalistic society, you are going to have poor, middle, and rich. What the world is missing today is honest, hardworking people that care about society as a whole. We need to get people out of poverty and into the "American dream" way of living. The federal government taking my money and giving it to other people is ok in some ways. Everyone needs help and I understand that (example: my grandparents). The one thing I don't want is the government giving my money to someone who hasn't or doesn't put any effort into earning my money.

My friend, Cappster

I totally understand your position and don't want loafers living off my money either. What I am trying to get across to you is that poor loafers are stealing pennies from you and that rich loafers are literally stealing thousands a year-- on insurance costs, medicine, government loans to and tax breaks for the rich, the destruction of the environment, no-bid contracts, boon doggles, re-writing laws, etc. They are also stealing your freedoms, one by one, under this administration, as well as killing our young and national reputation for the sake of the oil and other industries.

Iraq has never been about terrorism. The terrorists were in Afghanistan and Pakistan when Bush attacked Iraq based on flat-out lies. Bush was put in office by the rich (including corporations) and has never served anyone's interests other than theirs. All of those dollars spent in Iraq are going into the pockets of the likes of Halliburtorn, Blackwater, and the arms industry. All of it is blood money that is coming out of your pocket and the pockets of your grandchildren.

The figure could go as high as a trillion dollars in no time at all.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Iraq has never been about terrorism. The terrorists were in Afghanistan and Pakistan when Bush attacked Iraq based on flat-out lies. Bush was put in office by the rich (including corporations) and has never served anyone's interests other than theirs. All of those dollars spent in Iraq are going into the pockets of the likes of Halliburtorn, Blackwater, and the arms industry. All of it is blood money that is coming out of your pocket and the pockets of your grandchildren.

You'd think someone with a PhD (like the aptly named DICK Cheney) would understand this. Does he and he's just that messed up? Funny how the "surge" is praised. Kinda like dousing a house with gas, lighting it, and then being praised for bring extra water to put out the living room.

DarthMonk

crazyhorse1 wrote:Standard of Living

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium...

crazyhorse1 wrote:How do you know these lists were compiled by socialists?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:Standard of Living

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium...

crazyhorse1 wrote:How do you know these lists were compiled by socialists?

You're beginning to lose your mind.

Do you actually believe that a list that shows socialists countries at the top of the heap must of necessity be composed by socialists?

Do you seriously believe socialists or people other than you are incapable of being objective?

Do you believe a group of capitalists to be incapable of giving high ratings to socialist countries even if the facts prove they deserve them.

Is everyone in the world a homer?

Or, more cogently, do you think that everything that doesn't prove out your world view is of necessity a product of biased conspirators?

Have you considered getting professional help?

I like the irony of your argument.

crazyhorse: Here's a list presented by a socialist proving that socialism provides the highest standard of living and capitalism sucks because it's dominated by socialist countries. No source, no criteria, it's just a list.

kaz: I don't think so.

crazyhorse: You're BIASED! You can't dispute my self serving unsourced lists without any stated criteria without EVIDENCE!

Yeah. "I" am biased in this. But on to the questions.

crazyhorse1 wrote:You're beginning to lose your mind

Beginning?

crazyhorse1 wrote:Do you actually believe that a list that shows socialists countries at the top of the heap must of necessity be composed by socialists?

You incorrectly go from the specific to the general. I cannot speak to the general. I can say anyone who thinks those 4 countries specifically have THE highest standard of living in the world LOVES government and believes it's the answer to any question. I.E., a socialist.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Do you seriously believe socialists or people other than you are incapable of being objective?

No, I believe that anyone with a stake in the outcome should not be trusted to be objective. But again, to pick those countries as #1 through #4 is only achievable by their view of standard of living = being provided for by government. There's no other way to get to that list. You could try with annual snowfall, but then you can't explain Belgium.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Do you believe a group of capitalists to be incapable of giving high ratings to socialist countries even if the facts prove they deserve them.

No. Nor do I see the relavance of the question.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Is everyone in the world a homer?

Well since you and I are in the world, I'll say no.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Or, more cogently, do you think that everything that doesn't prove out your world view is of necessity a product of biased conspirators?

No, I think a list of the who's who of socialism hitting #1 through #4 is. And the wealthy capitalist pigs being down the list is laughable. We are 1/20th the world population and control 1/3 the wealth and that's not getting us a sniff of highest standard of living? It's laughable.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Have you considered getting professional help?

Not so far, why do you ask?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I like the irony of your argument.

crazyhorse: Here's a list presented by a socialist proving that socialism provides the highest standard of living and capitalism sucks because it's dominated by socialist countries. No source, no criteria, it's just a list.

kaz: I don't think so.

crazyhorse: You're BIASED! You can't dispute my self serving unsourced lists without any stated criteria without EVIDENCE!

Yeah. "I" am biased in this. But on to the questions.

crazyhorse1 wrote:You're beginning to lose your mind

Beginning?

crazyhorse1 wrote:Do you actually believe that a list that shows socialists countries at the top of the heap must of necessity be composed by socialists?

You incorrectly go from the specific to the general. I cannot speak to the general. I can say anyone who thinks those 4 countries specifically have THE highest standard of living in the world LOVES government and believes it's the answer to any question. I.E., a socialist.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Do you seriously believe socialists or people other than you are incapable of being objective?

No, I believe that anyone with a stake in the outcome should not be trusted to be objective. But again, to pick those countries as #1 through #4 is only achievable by their view of standard of living = being provided for by government. There's no other way to get to that list. You could try with annual snowfall, but then you can't explain Belgium.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Do you believe a group of capitalists to be incapable of giving high ratings to socialist countries even if the facts prove they deserve them.

No. Nor do I see the relavance of the question.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Is everyone in the world a homer?

Well since you and I are in the world, I'll say no.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Or, more cogently, do you think that everything that doesn't prove out your world view is of necessity a product of biased conspirators?

No, I think a list of the who's who of socialism hitting #1 through #4 is. And the wealthy capitalist pigs being down the list is laughable. We are 1/20th the world population and control 1/3 the wealth and that's not getting us a sniff of highest standard of living? It's laughable.

[

quote="crazyhorse1"]Have you considered getting professional help?

Not so far, why do you ask?

[/quote]

For one thing, you're from North Carolina.