BeeAre wrote:but let me be specific about my definition as a concession for you: I consider one hundred million to a billion a year in either personal income or total assets in control of moving if not able to be personally indulged in... to be RICH.
Wait. No. Hell no. So everything below
$100 million is a small business
? Everyone between $1,000,000 and $99,999,999 is poor
? Where do you draw the line?
BeeAre wrote:i am not going to get wrangled into an argument with you about ME, because that's not the thing we're discussing. You can attack ME elsewhere.
Good lord, man! Who's attacking you? I don't go out of my way to insult you in these discussions, and it boggles me as to how you can even think that. If I call you out on what I think is a misinformed idea, why does that automatically make it an insult?
See, I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the absurdity of your statement. Do you see the difference?
BeeAre wrote:Fox News and MSNBC and the majority of American Media has been the major attacker of rhetorical civility because they are ready to villify people without talking to them.
It's hard to take that idea seriously. I can villify someone without ever speaking to them because I know them to be sinister or whatever.
Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading. To use one's knowledge of one's own company to profit off her own stock downfall is nothing short of devious.
George Soros profited about $1 billion (that's $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0, btw) off the downfall of the British Pound in 1992. And this very same man is now targeting America. Jesus fucking Christ.
Mass murderer Jeffery Dhamer. 'Nuff said.
Do you see my point?
BeeAre wrote:Let me lay your fears to rest:
BeeAre wrote:I will not villify someone OR THE WHOLE OF THEIR IDEOLOGY willing to talk to me (including you, since I like to talk to you), which is what Fox News, MSNBC, etc have the opportunity to do with so many politicians, DIRECTLY TALK TO THEM, and then these media outlets waste these opportunities by villifying them and all they stand for rather than have any real sort of dialogue.
But didn't you just say that they villify people without talking to them? Are they not talking to them to their faces
Jokes aside, the fact that one news group (doesn't matter who
they are) might villify someone without talking to them doesn't mean they're wrong. Hell, I'll even give that to MSNBC, despite all the ridiculous comments I've heard their commentators make. (I have examples, but they're not relevant. Ask me later.)
Please don't think I'm trying to insult or villify you by rebutting to your claim. I don't know if you think that's what I'm doing, but you shouldn't get so angry when I say things that aren't an outright insult, because that's never how I intend it.