Do you get it?

[Liar]

It is bad rhetoric yet it still works when used in the right context.

Just like amplified farts do. I rest my case.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Do "I" get it? Well, yes. But so far, "it" has always cleared up after enough antibiotics.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Tom Collins]

Hurray! Someone who disagrees! I feel happy now. To be honest, you're generally more knowledgeable on most subjects than me anyway, so I argue with you to learn quite often.


Just on a side-note, I dislike my opinions being referenced through the filter of my age. I hold these opinions, because I've formed them from the information I have available. If I have different information, presented skillfully, then my opinions may change (As Colly will attest from the DU debate, where she argued so skillfully).

I am not a child and I am old enough to make my own opinions. I may be young, but my opinions come from the information I have.

Sorry, but that's a pet peeve. Saying that my opinions are due to my age-span is intimating that I'll grow out of them once I learn to think sensibly. I may change them when I get new info, but I'm old enough and ugly enough to think for myself.

The Earl

I don't think it's a matter of growing out of your opinions because you're too young to know better; I think it's a matter of age bringing different experiences and thus different views. My politics have changed alot since I was in my early 20's; I've been super liberal, super conservative and now a liberal moderate. So, mostly, I think it's not a criticism of you or a belittling of your opinions (tho there are some who do use it that way).

If I could just say this about what you two are saying? Opinions are like assholes...they change shape when you push things in or out of them.

Seriously! When you push out an opinion, the world will respond to it and you might change the shape of your opinion by the responce you get. When you take in information or other people's opinions the shape of yours might change.

 

[amicus]

"...Thye're not that scary. Mostly about high funding for education and local sport, lowering bureaucracy, removing Big Government, reducing taxes and unnecessary benefit/subsidies to reduce the poverty trap, removing as much intervention from the market as possible, vigorously Anglo-centric and patriotic.

Right wing, but not by a huge margin.

The Earl
__________________..."

Although I did not scroll back to the post wherein I posted that The Earl, 'just doesn't get it...' I think the above statement exemplifies what mystifies me about The Earl's basic philosophy, or economic and political theories.

He suggests he wants 'high funding for education and local sports...', but he wants lower bureaucracy and reduced taxes.

Well, my friends, you can't have both.

The Earl is full of contradictions in his posts, the philosophy is not consistent nor contruent, either to itself or to reality.

Which is why I said, 'he just don't get it'.

While I think education is a wonderful thing, I know it should be a matter of choice, not compulsion.

Now I know that to most, that is blasphemy, you simply cannot comprehend a free market system supplying quality education to all who seek it.

And, there are no McDonalds or Walmarts in the world supplying goods that people demand at the lowest possible prices.

The free market place works. Without a doubt, it works and it works better than any other system ever devised. But The Earl does not fully trust that market place. He wishes, in many ways, here and there, to modify, regulate, control that market place to better serve the public.

Now that is a fine sentiment for the socialist minded who want to tamper and tinker with the market by using the police power of government to tax and regulate.

But for those of us, and there are a few here, who respect individual human rights and liberty above all else, the threat of using force to make the market function 'as you want it to', is a contradiction in terms and a violation of human rights.

And for all the ladies with penis envy who take umbrage with the fact that I adore and worship the feminine in all things, I wish now and then, one or two of you would have the courage to be a true woman and defend the unique and wonderful way you see the world and relate to it.

Instead of high fiving and 'chest bumping' on the basketball court or the Soccer field.

Sighs, and my Lady Terps from U of Maryland (an old alma mater) came back from a 13 point deficit last night to win the NCAA championship with freshmen, sophomores and one Junior, not a senior on the starting team!

Demeaning the character of an individual is seldom, if ever, my style on this forum. I do often consider the person posting who justifies force and violence, to be somewhat less than human, however...

(The Earl is still pouting over 'Nation States' which he personally invited me to participate in, then took his panties and went home to mama) grins...naw, I didn't call him a sissy did I?)


Oh, by the way, I love the av's of Entitled and Recidiva, but wish I knew if they were real rather than psuedo....?

amicus...

 

[Recidiva]

The Earl is full of contradictions in his posts, the philosophy is not consistent nor contruent, either to itself or to reality.

Oh, by the way, I love the av's of Entitled and Recidiva, but wish I knew if they were real rather than psuedo....?

amicus...

First off, the first sentence makes me want to giggle insanely, mostly coming from you. Where would we be without contradictions? And I've already picked on your train of thought enough.

The Earl knows who Ostara is and can quote Buffy, that's good enough for me, dammit. He knows that all monkeys have French accents and why and I have offered to stalk him.

Whether or not I agree with everything is irrelevant. He's good company.

AND...yes, that's me. Taken last month on Valentine's Day. That's my husband's shoulder next to mine.

 

[neonlyte]

Hurray! Someone who disagrees! I feel happy now. To be honest, you're generally more knowledgeable on most subjects than me anyway, so I argue with you to learn quite often.


Just on a side-note, I dislike my opinions being referenced through the filter of my age. I hold these opinions, because I've formed them from the information I have available. If I have different information, presented skillfully, then my opinions may change (As Colly will attest from the DU debate, where she argued so skillfully).

I am not a child and I am old enough to make my own opinions. I may be young, but my opinions come from the information I have.

Sorry, but that's a pet peeve. Saying that my opinions are due to my age-span is intimating that I'll grow out of them once I learn to think sensibly. I may change them when I get new info, but I'm old enough and ugly enough to think for myself.

The Earl

No Earl didn't mean that at all. What I meant was the political and social circumstances that surround one in the formative years cannot help but condition the manner in which views and opinions are formulated. Age in the sense of 'times in which one lives'.

I remember clearly the first political rally I attended, a young Michael Heseltine was the speaker, eloquent, almost mesmurising in delivery. Education was the topic and I had been lucky enough to get into a select school. I saw the Conservative programme as the way forward, I was part of it. it was only later when I entered University that I began to seriously question my own beliefs, and they were driven politics routed in social deprivation and social responsibility. I was extremely vocal politically in my youth and managed in the space of six months both to be imprisoned over night and banned from entering Franco's Spain and banned from entering Russia, such were the polarisation of views I held. I've become much calmer over the years and was flattered to be asked to put myself up as Liberal candidate in the local elections three years ago.

So, I've crossed political divides. I understand the process of change, but only ever as a reflection of 'our times'.

 

[TheEarl]

Although I did not scroll back to the post wherein I posted that The Earl, 'just doesn't get it...' I think the above statement exemplifies what mystifies me about The Earl's basic philosophy, or economic and political theories.

He suggests he wants 'high funding for education and local sports...', but he wants lower bureaucracy and reduced taxes.

Well, my friends, you can't have both.

Why not?

You reduce bureaucracy, then you reduce the money needed to go into public services, while increasing investment. I'm writing from an English perspective and Labour have put in far too many quangos and committees that are just not necessary.

(The Earl is still pouting over 'Nation States' which he personally invited me to participate in, then took his panties and went home to mama) grins...naw, I didn't call him a sissy did I?)

Sorry? I invited you to play at Nation States and we had fun for a bit until both of us got bored with it. I don't recall storming off at all. You felt that you'd proved your point by having a nation which had a powerhouse economy and high political freedoms, compared to my more modest state. I felt I'd proved my state by there being anarchy on your streets, high infant mortality and low educational levels in Amicus2k compared to the low crime, high education and high happiness to be found in the centre-right Kingdom of The Earl.

I'm always happy to debate with you amicus, but you don't do yourself any favours with this kind of behaviour.

The Earl

 

[amicus]

Thank you for the info on your av, I appreciate that, nice to know who I am looking at and talking to.

I am not good company for anyone except small children, mainly little granddaughters who curl up and sleep in my lap on warm summer afternoons and leave me to think of all sorts of things.

As a boy, walking on railroad tracks, seeing how far I could go before losing my balance, consistency and non contradictory knowledge has been the focus of my intellectual life since my late teens.

I am amused by, and usually tolerant of the 'flibbertigibbet' female who babbles on about everything under the sun without end until I bite her on the neck.

But when I want a real conversation, I usually go to the classics in Literature and Philosophy, or drink a lot and talk to myself.

Be that as it may, a pleasure to know you and exchange thoughts.


amicus...

 

[Recidiva]

Thank you for the info on your av, I appreciate that, nice to know who I am looking at and talking to.

I am not good company for anyone except small children, mainly little granddaughters who curl up and sleep in my lap on warm summer afternoons and leave me to think of all sorts of things.

As a boy, walking on railroad tracks, seeing how far I could go before losing my balance, consistency and non contradictory knowledge has been the focus of my intellectual life since my late teens.

I am amused by, and usually tolerant of the 'flibbertigibbet' female who babbles on about everything under the sun without end until I bite her on the neck.

But when I want a real conversation, I usually go to the classics in Literature and Philosophy, or drink a lot and talk to myself.

Be that as it may, a pleasure to know you and exchange thoughts.


amicus...

Something childish just wants to say "Oh yeah!? Oh yeah?! Well, my...my...my standardized test scores could kick your standardized test scores' ass!"

But I don't.

I'm secure.

And I don't believe in standardized tests, but I think it's funny.

 

[amicus]

Well, damn, Earl, we are just not gonna see eye to eye on anything it appears.

I was about to ask you to dismiss my comment on 'Nation States' as a small attempt at humor, which was intended.

But then you had to go and whine about the condition of my Nation despite the obvious fact that the game is weighted towards social manipulation.

There were, at one time, 56 different Litsters with Nations in that game. And reflective of the majority opinion on this forum, most of the Nations were left wing to one degree or another.

The purpose of the game, as with all games, is to compete and win. On every issue, I refused to tax the Nation to support one group or another and was penalized by being identified as the 'worst' in several categories.

In particular, education. The game creator apparently believes that without tax supported, mandatory public education, a population will be illiterate.

I disagree. I think a free market education system would provide an even wider dissemination of education to a wider market and with more quality that does forced public education.

We all put our philosophy and economic viewpoints on the line in the game and the socialists lost and the capitalists won and I think that made a statement most of you do not wish to accomodate.

So be it. cheese and whine.

And no matter how many times you can claim to levy taxes for public programs and at the same time claim to reduce taxes and public programs, say it a thousand times and you still are saying a contradiction. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

amicus...

 

[cloudy]

Ami, ami, ami.....

What shall we do with you?

p.s. you want me.

 

[amicus]

:..."...Something childish just wants to say "Oh yeah!? Oh yeah?! Well, my...my...my standardized test scores could kick your standardized test scores' ass!"..."

~~~~~~~

chuckles....are your standardized tests gender weighted?


grins...

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Ami, ami, ami.....

What shall we do with you?

p.s. you want me.

~~~~~~~~~

Hey, I know about your Av's!

(still like em)

 

[TheEarl]

I'd like to point out that my nation was right wing. Which, technically puts me in your corner against the evil socialists. It's interesting how you managed to transmute my "I think we finished honours even on Nation States" as a whine. Would it be outrageous to suggest that you regard anything other than total agreement with you as unacceptable?

And no matter how many times you can claim to levy taxes for public programs and at the same time claim to reduce taxes and public programs, say it a thousand times and you still are saying a contradiction. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

amicus...

Once again, you prove to not understand the political situation of the UK. In the current situation, Labour have created so much waste that it is possible to have a small piece of cake and devour it voraciously.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Oh, and Amicus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
...came to see socialism as merely an intermediate stage of society in which most industry and property were owned in common but some class differences remained....


So, by that definition, you are misusing the term socialism when you state that Britain is a socialist country. Most industry and property in Britain is not owned in common.

You may wish to call a pig a pig, but it doesn't help your case when you point to a duck and shout, "Look, a pig!"

The Earl

The Earl

 

[Recidiva]

:..."...Something childish just wants to say "Oh yeah!? Oh yeah?! Well, my...my...my standardized test scores could kick your standardized test scores' ass!"..."

~~~~~~~

chuckles....are your standardized tests gender weighted?


grins...

amicus...

And now something immature wants me to say "Are you calling me fat?!"

But again, not going there.

Nope, I'm not.

*cough* National Merit Scholar *cough*

 

[oggbashan]

Once again, you prove to not understand the political situation of the UK. In the current situation, Labour have created so much waste that it is possible to have a small piece of cake and devour it voraciously.

The Earl

The Earl is right. (Put that in your signature, Earl!)

A different government in the UK would not raise as much taxes as the current Labour Government and would spend a smaller revenue in other ways.

However:

Supporting the US in Afghanistan and Iraq has and is costing this country a significant part of our GDP as well as our soldiers' lives. The financial cost has to be paid for from taxation.

The cost in blood? All we can do is be thankful that our troops are prepared to fight for us and remember the payment they have made and are still making for our country.

Whether we supported the war and the continuing conflicts or not is irrelevant. We are paying for both. Our troops are paying with a different currency.

Og

 

[amicus]

The Earl is right. (Put that in your signature, Earl!)

A different government in the UK would not raise as much taxes as the current Labour Government and would spend a smaller revenue in other ways.

However:

Supporting the US in Afghanistan and Iraq has and is costing this country a significant part of our GDP as well as our soldiers' lives. The financial cost has to be paid for from taxation.

The cost in blood? All we can do is be thankful that our troops are prepared to fight for us and remember the payment they have made and are still making for our country.

Whether we supported the war and the continuing conflicts or not is irrelevant. We are paying for both. Our troops are paying with a different currency.
~~~~~~~~~~~

You know, Og, thas a little cynical, I think.

There was a time, not that long ago, when 'the sun never sets on the British Empire...'

In many cases it was the Englishman who brought freedom and relief to oppressed people.

I rather think there are many in GB today who would see the 'coalition' formed with other free nations to liberate Kuwait in the 90's, Afghanistan and Iraq, as acts of national pride.

I think you are doing more than 'supporting America', in combatting terrorism around the world, I think you are continuing a national heritage.

You might show a little pride in it, especially as an 'elder patriarch'.

and...sighs...that little bit of cake, voraciously devoured, you no longer have that cake, once you have devoured it. You can either eat it or have it, not both.

amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

and...sighs...that little bit of cake, voraciously devoured, you no longer have that cake, once you have devoured it. You can either eat it or have it, not both.

amicus...

Income isn't a one-off thing amicus. It happens regularly. Therefore you'll continue to be able to eat the cake as it's a regular supply. What would you do with cake aside from eat it? What would you do with income aside from spend it?

The Earl

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=TheEarl]Income isn't a one-off thing amicus. It happens regularly. Therefore you'll continue to be able to eat the cake as it's a regular supply. What would you do with cake aside from eat it? What would you do with income aside from spend it?

The Earl[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~

Earl, it is a metaphor, an old one, 'you can't have your cake and eat it too.' I thought everyone knew that.

As I said, you just don't get it.

amicus...

 

[TheEarl]

~~~~~~~~~

Earl, it is a metaphor, an old one, 'you can't have your cake and eat it too.' I thought everyone knew that.

As I said, you just don't get it.

amicus...

Surprisingly enough, I'm aware of the adage. However, I'm stretching it to cover the point, something which you apparently can't get. So, simple English:

I'm saying that you in this case you can have both. The money is already there, just being wasted. If you stop the waste, then you can use some of it to fund new projects and some to reduce tax.

Thereby, having your cake and eating it.

Again, feel free to misinterpret me and reply to the misinterpretation.

The Earl

 

[Tom Collins]

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

amicus...

*clearing throat* Ummm...that's "Eat your cake and have it too."

One can, in point of fact, have cake and then eat it but can't eat it and still have it.

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

What I don't get is why anyone elses opinion of you, especially one so childish, would even concern you.

 

[TheEarl]

What I don't get is why anyone elses opinion of you, especially one so childish, would even concern you.

It doesn't. I just enjoy making a point when amicus says something so obviously risible.

The Earl

 

[gauchecritic]

Stretching metaphors

A non-profitable pursuit with the old and infirm.

I disgree with The on almost all his political opinions.

[adHominem]MiAmico is a Sun Reader.[/AdHominem]

Slightly less than Ad Hominem but indicative of my entrenched anticonservatism, The is a child of the Thatcher years.

(not a child at present, I mean a child when.... Oh forget it)

I HATE SMILIES. (but not similes)