Yeah? Want to play double or nothing?
so I posted $58,250 or something. We'll round it down to $50,000 to keep it simple. So from here we each take turns doubling the prior amount from the other person until one of us can't match. So you're up, post 100k.
Call my bluff again :D
Anyone remember the time I got swift to withdraw $50,000 cash from his parents retirement account? That shit was hilarious
Anyone remember the time I got swift to withdraw $50,000 cash from his parents retirement account? That shit was hilarious
remember the time you said you could beat newb smeagol and got schooled 11-0 by him?
Anyone remember the time I got swift to withdraw $50,000 cash from his parents retirement account? That shit was hilarious
remember the time you said you could beat newb smeagol and got schooled 11-0 by him?
remember the time you made a fake account lenka and would have cybersex with yourself in "the chamber"
be honest. do u remember that
also i only posted 2700, so if we're doubling what we posted i gotta post 5400
Swift making up fake sexual partners again. Can't even post her ugly unimpressive breasts. Owned again
Anyone remember the time I got swift to withdraw $50,000 cash from his parents retirement account? That shit was hilarious
remember the time you said you could beat newb smeagol and got schooled 11-0 by him?
remember the time you made a fake account lenka and would have cybersex with yourself in "the chamber"
be honest. do u remember that
The way swift bad mouths people about money and women makes me think he may be Floyd Mayweather in real life.
Lol.
The way swift bad mouths people about money and women makes me think he may be Floyd Mayweather in real life.
Lol.
Anyone know what swift was going to say here, before he decided not to say it, but forgot to hit backspace? Any guesses? Hmm this is kind of like playing Wheel of Fortune along with the folks on TV!The way swift bad mouths people about money and women makes me think he may be Floyd Mayweather in real life.
Lol.
i would never be comfortable with being that short, or bla... nevermind
im young, im fly, im flashy, im rich. damn life is goodTell me you gonna give Manny a reamatch?
Anyone know what swift was going to say here, before he decided not to say it, but forgot to hit backspace? Any guesses? Hmm this is kind of like playing Wheel of Fortune along with the folks on TV!The way swift bad mouths people about money and women makes me think he may be Floyd Mayweather in real life.
Lol.
i would never be comfortable with being that short, or bla... nevermind
race card
Here Swift let me indulge you with one of my "sadistic fantasies" ;). Actually Swift could never be Mayweather because I highly doubt he could fight for shit. Here is how a fight between me and Swift would probably go down:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g89LSzDuuQ4[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g89LSzDuuQ4[/url])
Fast forward to 2:46 as embedded videos on site don't work with start at I guess.
Here Swift let me indulge you with one of my "sadistic fantasies" ;). Actually Swift could never be Mayweather because I highly doubt he could fight for shit. Here is how a fight between me and Swift would probably go down:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g89LSzDuuQ4[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g89LSzDuuQ4[/url])
Fast forward to 2:46 as embedded videos on site don't work with start at I guess.
Rome was a thoroughly badass series.
i didnt even know there was a season 2. d/ling that shit now
he's definitely gay on the show. huge pole smoker.
he has a cute little wife with smokin ta ta's and only wants to rage fk her. he has sexuality issues.
there's no doubt homos get shit done when they're not smokin pole. some homos any way. not the wrist flippers. just the ones who feel like they have to prove their due to the stigma attached to homosexuality
he has a cute little wife with smokin ta ta's and only wants to rage fk her. he has sexuality issues.Are you sure that wasn't his mother?
he has a cute little wife with smokin ta ta's and only wants to rage fk her. he has sexuality issues.Are you sure that wasn't his mother?
teach me? i don't adhere to american economics, they are retarded, and you'll come out dumber if you somehow do graduate. oh and milton friedman is a homo. also, stop blaming your inability to get a job on the economy and instead stop relying on someone else to employ you.lol you don't adhere to american economics? your entire career is dependant on the free market system. and not only will i come out much smarter, i'm already way ahead of the curb.
lol you don't adhere to american economics? your entire career is dependant on the free market system.
lol you don't adhere to american economics? your entire career is dependant on the free market system.
This is the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.
lol you don't adhere to american economics? your entire career is dependant on the free market system.
This is the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.
I'm just going to guess. In my words I would define economics as the eb and flow of currency within any particular groupeconomics has nothing to do with any currency what-so-ever.
lol. buyers and sellers markets don't excist in other countries. Other countries have centralized control over their housing markets. Reality investment is a Prime example of what you Can't do outside of a free market
[url]http://www.clickhole.com/clickventure/fight-glory-rome-2096[/url] ([url]http://www.clickhole.com/clickventure/fight-glory-rome-2096[/url])
I'm just going to guess. In my words I would define economics as the eb and flow of currency within any particular group
I like how you're talking about Buyer's Markets and Seller's Markets, you real estate magnate you, and also about good ol' facts about how they don't exist in any other countries (lol)
Also, I love doing "Reality" investments
buyers and sellers markets can't excist because it's not a free market. Because in this instance we're not talking about prices, like we would be in a free market, we're talking about what is allocated via the governments policies. And if you didn't know, America is the first free market in the history of the world, countries where you can do realestate investment like mexico, or some parts of africa, have adopted OUR economic systems. So saying you don't adhere to american economics, is totally ridiculous.
Typically i would agree with this. Had I known a single person in my entire life who actually could tell you the definition. Other than myself. This is a rare instance, and I picked economics for a very specific reason. Ignorance abroad. Our country is on the brink of extinction because of it.I'm just going to guess. In my words I would define economics as the eb and flow of currency within any particular group
Asking for the definition of the subject in the process of trying to prove his superior understanding of it is something children do in arguments, especially so when they don't know shit about the subject and just became fascinated with it two days prior and read a couple paragraphs.
you can take a quote, and you can say it's dumb. but you can't say why?buyers and sellers markets can't excist because it's not a free market. Because in this instance we're not talking about prices, like we would be in a free market, we're talking about what is allocated via the governments policies. And if you didn't know, America is the first free market in the history of the world, countries where you can do realestate investment like mexico, or some parts of africa, have adopted OUR economic systems. So saying you don't adhere to american economics, is totally ridiculous.
you are dumber than evil~ryu, and by a large margin
I just googled the definition and it pretty much exactly has everything to do with currency. Either directly or indirectlynah bro including currency makes the definition too limited. economy is all exchange of goods/currency/favors/anything between humans
I just googled the definition and it pretty much exactly has everything to do with currency. Either directly or indirectlynah bro including currency makes the definition too limited. economy is all exchange of goods/currency/favors/anything between humans
Read first and last sentence, didn't want to be caught reading the stupidity.
Just as a favor though, I'll help you out on this: A capitalist doesn't need to believe in the theory and framework of popular american economics in order to practice capitalism. This should be common sense though, sorry it went over your head.
yamon you shouldn't read one book and suddenly take yourself to be totally enlightened. not that i think you'd change your mind anyway seeing as how pumped up you are about capitalism and america, but really.lol i've done far more than read one book. but the lack of ethuisasm for captalisism is actually just pure ignorance. It's simple stuff. You do not look at the principles or proponents of an economic system. You look at the results. The argument i presume you would present, is an argument that is so old and tired, that it has been defeated 1000x over in America. Why? Because people look at the results of each system, and it's crystal clear, there is no system that can hold a handle to free enterprise. The standard of living in America , even for me, is of different magnitude than that in countries with centralized control. And it has been proven, that socialism or other centralized control systems do not appeal to intellectuals for their results, people think it's a moral issue. And this narrative can be heard anywhere on the internet and in dozens of books, and by the mouths of dozens of ignorant "intellectuals". Captalism is neither moral or immoral, humane or inhumane. It's a tired and defeated argument that keeps coming up due to ignorance.
the standard of living sure as hell ought to be better in america than anyone else, seeing as it occupies the most powerful position in the world and uses that position to exploit resources and labor from poorer nations the world over. here's a free book [url]http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf[/url])
Dr. Zacheriah if you need a 2v2 how ally let me know. I can train you some more if need be.i'm looking for some 1s if you want to practice with me
You do adhere to americon economics. It's that simple.
You do adhere to americon economics. It's that simple.
The popular economic theories and interpretations that you will be taught in pursuit of your degree are simply from a certain point of view, and they're not objective. It's a perspective on how to interpret and study economic systems. I do not have to believe in such theory to be a capitalist in practice, just as much as one doesn't have to adhere to modern American Christianity to live their life, or to be a christian for that matter (lol).
the standard of living sure as hell ought to be better in america than anyone else, seeing as it occupies the most powerful position in the world and uses that position to exploit resources and labor from poorer nations the world over. here's a free book [url]http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf[/url])
Lol. America is far from the nation with the most natural resources. America is far from the nation with the most land, or largest workforce. We are the most powerful country for one reason, one reason only. Captalism. Not because we steal resources. In fact, Russia has the most natural resources in the world. How are they doing? And to say we steal resources from other countries. I mean, I don't know if i can trust a book from a neoliberal to tell me whether or not america steals anything. People thought the Iraq war was over oil. We didn't drill a drop. But whether or not we steal anything is totally irrelevant. If you look back on history, stealing stuff from other countries would be considered a good thing. Why? Because hell if we can, why not do it? And look at America's intregity. Many people have been against such engagements as vietname, desert storm, or our involvement in Salmalia, But wtf we were doing there? Feeding people. I think a country that will risk the lives of it's children, to help another nations children, might be entitled to some resources. And we don't "exploit labor" from other countries. They get paid more working in america's outsource than they would in a regular job in their country. But i agree i think america should not outsource as much and hire it's own people. But the only reason companies are outsourcing to begin with, is government regulation in the workforce, and if our enterprise was 100% free, we wouldn't be outsourcing at all and we would always be able to get a job without such formalities as a college education in cosmetology to work a factory job
did you know before modern society, we had two options. Socialism or Monarchs.
did you know before modern society, we had two options. Socialism or Monarchs.
This is maybe the dumbest sentence ever written on this forum, which says a lot since Swift has 366 posts on here, which probably average about 500 sentences each on account of his frequent meltdowns.
You do adhere to americon economics. It's that simple.
The popular economic theories and interpretations that you will be taught in pursuit of your degree are simply from a certain point of view, and they're not objective. It's a perspective on how to interpret and study economic systems. I do not have to believe in such theory to be a capitalist in practice, just as much as one doesn't have to adhere to modern American Christianity to live their life, or to be a christian for that matter (lol).
You're both fucktards using different definitions of "adhere." Yamon is more correct by the specific definition of the word since your economic activity is dictated far more than the economic conditions of American society than whatever method of economic organization you personally think is optimal, you are correct that one doesn't have to specifically think capitalism is great to act as a capitalist. However it does make you a rather large hypocrite, especially since you seem to vacillate between "capitalism ftw! I'm better than you because I have money" and "capitalism actually kinda sucks I just do it to make money lol, Jesus saves folks" depending on who you're trying to paint yourself as superior to at the time.
the standard of living sure as hell ought to be better in america than anyone else, seeing as it occupies the most powerful position in the world and uses that position to exploit resources and labor from poorer nations the world over. here's a free book [url]http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf[/url])
Lol. America is far from the nation with the most natural resources. America is far from the nation with the most land, or largest workforce. We are the most powerful country for one reason, one reason only. Captalism. Not because we steal resources. In fact, Russia has the most natural resources in the world. How are they doing? And to say we steal resources from other countries. I mean, I don't know if i can trust a book from a neoliberal to tell me whether or not america steals anything. People thought the Iraq war was over oil. We didn't drill a drop. But whether or not we steal anything is totally irrelevant. If you look back on history, stealing stuff from other countries would be considered a good thing. Why? Because hell if we can, why not do it? And look at America's intregity. Many people have been against such engagements as vietname, desert storm, or our involvement in Salmalia, But wtf we were doing there? Feeding people. I think a country that will risk the lives of it's children, to help another nations children, might be entitled to some resources. And we don't "exploit labor" from other countries. They get paid more working in america's outsource than they would in a regular job in their country. But i agree i think america should not outsource as much and hire it's own people. But the only reason companies are outsourcing to begin with, is government regulation in the workforce, and if our enterprise was 100% free, we wouldn't be outsourcing at all and we would always be able to get a job without such formalities as a college education in cosmetology to work a factory job
You are extremely fucking retarded and practically everything in this post is false and/or unsubstantiated.
Socialism didn't exist before international global capitalism which didn't exist before colonialism, idiot.
Socialism didn't exist before international global capitalism which didn't exist before colonialism, idiot.
([url]http://trolledbot.net/shared/post_media/images/full_sized/91191.jpg[/url]) because when this guy shows up, we should take him seriously
Also, Yamon, you don't know what neoliberalism is. That book is critical of neoliberalism; it is not a neoliberalist book. You support neoliberalism.oh i see. regarldess they're all old arguments that hold no weight anyway. This is not a new thing.
It would be really awkward when armed forces came to my door at the White House to seize my assets, considering it would be I who empowered them to do so.Do you know how to cheat the irs? And get anyway with it?(No foreign bank accounts please.)
1. It's obvious that Yamon was arguing that I adhere to modern american economic studies by my practice of capitalism, while I was stating that I don't adhere to the studies in respect to them being absolute or dogma. This isn't something you needed to point out, as like I said it was obvious.
It's what I was explaining to him. Moreover, the context in which surrounded "adhere" in my posts clearly signifies my use of the word, in three separate posts - including the very first one he responded to. It was obvious from the get go that I was talking about the studies and theories that people place over the system as a whole, and that I do not take them astruths.
You're 0-1
2. I am not talking about which system is optimal, nor how moral capitalism is or isn't. You're going off subject completely.
You're 0-2.
3. I'm 100% anti-capitalism 24-7, and completely against it.
Anything I say in the contrary is a troll,
and I also don't think I am better than anyone due to bank accounts or any other such materialist/shallow measurement that others might go by.
I am also not interested in whether you believe this or not,
and I will continue to fuck with you and act to the contrary of my values when talking to you, and a few others... because you're jealous you are not a business mogul like myself ;)
0-3 for not seeing that the apparent ridiculousness and excessive contradictions are undoubtedly overplayed joking
by the way, socialism was around before Jesus.
by the way, socialism was around before Jesus.
No, it objectively was not, and you are a complete idiot.
by the way, socialism was around before Jesus.
No, it objectively was not, and you are a complete idiot.
([url]http://trolledbot.net/shared/post_media/images/full_sized/91191.jpg[/url])
google it
by the way, socialism was around before Jesus.
No, it objectively was not, and you are a complete idiot.
([url]http://trolledbot.net/shared/post_media/images/full_sized/91191.jpg[/url])
google it
I'm not an atheist.
Please show me an example of socialism existing before Jesus Christ, as you claimed.
haha, top results on yamon's link:
History of socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism[/url] ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism[/url])
Wikipedia
The first modern socialists were early 19th century Western European social critics. In this period socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social ...
Origins of socialism - Marxism and the socialist movement
socialism: The Early Theorists - Infoplease
[url=http://www.infoplease.com]www.infoplease.com[/url] ([url]http://www.infoplease.com[/url]) › ... › Political Science: Terms and Concepts
Socialism arose in the late 18th and early 19th cent. ... Although many thinkers in the past expressed ideas that were similar to later socialism, the first theorist who may properly be called socialist was François Noël Babeuf, who came to prominence during the French Revolution.
haha, top results on yamon's link:
History of socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism[/url] ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism[/url])
Wikipedia
The first modern socialists were early 19th century Western European social critics. In this period socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social ...
Origins of socialism - Marxism and the socialist movement
socialism: The Early Theorists - Infoplease
[url=http://www.infoplease.com]www.infoplease.com[/url] ([url]http://www.infoplease.com[/url]) › ... › Political Science: Terms and Concepts
Socialism arose in the late 18th and early 19th cent. ... Although many thinkers in the past expressed ideas that were similar to later socialism, the first theorist who may properly be called socialist was François Noël Babeuf, who came to prominence during the French Revolution.
buyers and sellers markets can't excist because it's not a free market. Because in this instance we're not talking about prices, like we would be in a free market, we're talking about what is allocated via the governments policies. And if you didn't know, America is the first free market in the history of the world, countries where you can do realestate investment like mexico, or some parts of africa, have adopted OUR economic systems. So saying you don't adhere to american economics, is totally ridiculous.
you are dumber than evil~ryu, and by a large margin
haha, top results on yamon's link:
History of socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism[/url] ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism[/url])
Wikipedia
The first modern socialists were early 19th century Western European social critics. In this period socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social ...
Origins of socialism - Marxism and the socialist movement
socialism: The Early Theorists - Infoplease
[url=http://www.infoplease.com]www.infoplease.com[/url] ([url]http://www.infoplease.com[/url]) › ... › Political Science: Terms and Concepts
Socialism arose in the late 18th and early 19th cent. ... Although many thinkers in the past expressed ideas that were similar to later socialism, the first theorist who may properly be called socialist was François Noël Babeuf, who came to prominence during the French Revolution.
it says it plain as day. MODERN socialism. I'm talking about the origins of socialism. Learn to use da google friends. You guys are supposed to be gradauted intellectuals? what the fuck did you get on your papers? Gold stars?
([url]http://api.ning.com/files/LCjSsx421tSovOBvbWpfmluyKbEImk5uTB7QFuGC[/url]*jod0bLudWsoo7uR-hBw0IhnloAAA8YjmcvWFLPe9K-EzG17t5wAortO/greatjob628x353.jpg)
if you actually look you can find that all sorts of cilivizations from B.C. battled against communistic and socialistic ideals. Sparta being the most famous.Haha what
if you actually look you can find that all sorts of cilivizations from B.C. battled against communistic and socialistic ideals. Sparta being the most famous.
if you actually look you can find that all sorts of cilivizations from B.C. battled against communistic and socialistic ideals. Sparta being the most famous.Haha what
haha, top results on yamon's link:
History of socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism[/url] ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism[/url])
Wikipedia
The first modern socialists were early 19th century Western European social critics. In this period socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social ...
Origins of socialism - Marxism and the socialist movement
socialism: The Early Theorists - Infoplease
[url=http://www.infoplease.com]www.infoplease.com[/url] ([url]http://www.infoplease.com[/url]) › ... › Political Science: Terms and Concepts
Socialism arose in the late 18th and early 19th cent. ... Although many thinkers in the past expressed ideas that were similar to later socialism, the first theorist who may properly be called socialist was François Noël Babeuf, who came to prominence during the French Revolution.
it says it plain as day. MODERN socialism. I'm talking about the origins of socialism. Learn to use da google friends. You guys are supposed to be gradauted intellectuals? what the fuck did you get on your papers? Gold stars?
([url]http://api.ning.com/files/LCjSsx421tSovOBvbWpfmluyKbEImk5uTB7QFuGC[/url]*jod0bLudWsoo7uR-hBw0IhnloAAA8YjmcvWFLPe9K-EzG17t5wAortO/greatjob628x353.jpg)
Please cite a specific example of socialism, either theory or action, before the time period when Jesus Christ was alive, as you claimed.
But like much of what i talk about it is very uncommon knowedlge and even hard to find on the internet.
now since you're just trying to win an argument and aren't interested in anything to do with this, i will inform you that i was specifically talking about centralized control.
But ancient societies have been battling communism, socialism empirism, monarchs and other since of centralized control.
Here is a written example [url]http://listverse.com/2014/10/03/10-communist-societies-that-predated-the-ussr/[/url] ([url]http://listverse.com/2014/10/03/10-communist-societies-that-predated-the-ussr/[/url])
But like much of what i talk about it is very uncommon knowedlge and even hard to find on the internet.
But like much of what i talk about it is very uncommon knowedlge and even hard to find on the internet.
try to find me the meaning of the American flag.
there are 100s of google results that are funded by anti-american organizations that will tell you that the flag means a bunch of ridiculous things, and one google link that will tell you the truth about the american flag
what's your tip?there are 100s of google results that are funded by anti-american organizations that will tell you that the flag means a bunch of ridiculous things, and one google link that will tell you the truth about the american flag
One weird tip from an insane retard.
what's your tip?there are 100s of google results that are funded by anti-american organizations that will tell you that the flag means a bunch of ridiculous things, and one google link that will tell you the truth about the american flag
One weird tip from an insane retard.
there are 100s of google results that are funded by anti-american organizations that will tell you that the flag means a bunch of ridiculous things, and one google link that will tell you the truth about the american flagHaha this is so flagrantly false.
lol try it thenthere are 100s of google results that are funded by anti-american organizations that will tell you that the flag means a bunch of ridiculous things, and one google link that will tell you the truth about the american flagHaha this is so flagrantly false.
Here you go:
([url]http://i.imgur.com/9wyxI74.png[/url])
Now you try to find me the anti-American flag descriptions.
Here you go:
([url]http://i.imgur.com/9wyxI74.png[/url])
Now you try to find me the anti-American flag descriptions.
you just did find it, here is the real meaning: [url]http://www.helpsaveamerica.com/meaning-of-our-flag.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.helpsaveamerica.com/meaning-of-our-flag.htm[/url])
Lol what? "These damn anti-American fuckers, saying the stars represent the number of states, and that the colors represent valor and purity."it's totally stripped of it's actual meaning. The war against Christianity in America and all over the world is raging. The red represents the blood of christ, the entire flag is Christian.
You like to say "its obvious" as a copout, but its not actually that obvious. You are talking past each other using two different definitions of the word "adhere," and I explained these two different definitions and how they manifest in your respective arguments.
Further, the means by which you don't "adhere to theories" is not really substantiated or explained. "Adhere" is a word that implies a certain amount of fidelity in action to a theoretical ideal, so how do you "not adhere" to "American capitalism?" Where does your economic activity depart from the precepts of American capitalism as it materially exists and as you yourself admit you materially practice it?
You're out of touch with reality dude, sorry to say it but really. You've just linked to a wikipedia image and then said it's a big secret. Also, that's an artist's rendition of a Ben Franklin proposal that ultimately wasn't adopted. The actual history is in the wikipedia article that you got the image from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States#First_committee
hassan if you were on the show Rome would you let lucius and titus tag team you from behind? tell the truth.I would let Gaia have her way with me.
hassan if you were on the show Rome would you let lucius and titus tag team you from behind? tell the truth.I would let Gaia have her way with me.
Yamon, you are delusional. I'm going to check out of this discussion now.
Good.hassan if you were on the show Rome would you let lucius and titus tag team you from behind? tell the truth.I would let Gaia have her way with me.
she's probably try to do it from behind too. that woman is vicious
Here's the definition of economics right off google: Economics is the social science that seeks to describe the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.
I don't practice the American social sciences that seek to describe the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services
In other words, I don't adhere to the studies of economies presented by popular American interpretations.
hassan if you were on the show Rome would you let lucius and titus tag team you from behind? tell the truth.
Yamon, you are delusional. I'm going to check out of this discussion now.
i can show my sources as to where i learned this, but i don't think you'll appreciate it very much. I went looking specifically for that image for like 30 minutes in referrance to what i've learned. What do you think i just randomly found an image and said something about it? I can't make this stuff up. Labeling me delusional is damaging for anyone who wants to listen to what i say and learn from it. Do you know even know what that image is of? Because I do, and it's not on the wikipedia. That is an image of moses and the 13 tribes of israel coming to the new israel, the united states.
hassan if you were on the show Rome would you let lucius and titus tag team you from behind? tell the truth.
I don't remember those characters very well.
I honestly think you should follow your own advice. How long have you been going untreated? 1715 posts of hate filled nonsense. I really think you should be banned. Pick up a hobby, grab a book, it'll do you some good. I went down to my local library and picked up quite a few, give it a try.Yamon, you are delusional. I'm going to check out of this discussion now.
i can show my sources as to where i learned this, but i don't think you'll appreciate it very much. I went looking specifically for that image for like 30 minutes in referrance to what i've learned. What do you think i just randomly found an image and said something about it? I can't make this stuff up. Labeling me delusional is damaging for anyone who wants to listen to what i say and learn from it. Do you know even know what that image is of? Because I do, and it's not on the wikipedia. That is an image of moses and the 13 tribes of israel coming to the new israel, the united states.
You are a delusional insane person and should seek professional help. Cheers.
hassan if you were on the show Rome would you let lucius and titus tag team you from behind? tell the truth.
I don't remember those characters very well.
they were the main characters! ... do you even Rome bro?
hassan if you were on the show Rome would you let lucius and titus tag team you from behind? tell the truth.
I don't remember those characters very well.
they were the main characters! ... do you even Rome bro?
I thought the main characters were relatively boring compared to the historical figures.
You'd be a retard to NOT get spit roasted by historical figures of that stature when you had the chance.
also, both of the main characters were actual historical figures
Economics has a number of definitions, and in the context of using a verb like "adhere" it makes more sense to assume one refers to a definition along the lines of "economic conditions," a definition also easily available with a quick Google search. Your use of the adjective "American" further reinforces this reading, since "American economics" is not a uniform branch of economics as a social science, while "American economics" with "economics" defined as "economic conditions" is something that can actually be defined and makes sense (the economic conditions of the US).
I have not backtracked at all, I used common definitions of each word and simply replaced them in my sentences. You’re the one backtracking.
You really never know when to concede. Yes, economics has multiple definitions. Of which, all conventional and frequent uses pertain to it as a study, or science.
Also, you’re trying to claim when it is and isn't practical/common place to use the word adhere. Sorry, but I can say "I don't adhere to the study of...." or "I don't adhere to the science of..." And it makes plenty of sense.
P.S. Just to be clear too: You keep throwing around "American Capitalism" - Capitalism, is the system itself, not the study of the system - the study of such systems is economics. You once again swapped these words like they were nothing (lol).
And what's interesting, after reading one of book i can easily say i know more about the economy than anyone on this forum.i have a minor in economics from an accredited university, and if you know more than me after reading one book then i'll be awfully pissed about paying for 19 credits.
You really never know when to concede. Yes, economics has multiple definitions. Of which, all conventional and frequent uses pertain to it as a study, or science.
It is definitely not true that "all conventional and frequent uses" pertain to economics as a study.
Please god Hop, get into a debate here. Also, say an occasional funny joke for the spectacle.think i'll just observe this one. pretty fun so far tbh. where'd yamon go though? he's 1 day into his 6 years of study so i feel like he has a lot more to offer the discussion.
2 months into my 8 years actuallyPlease god Hop, get into a debate here. Also, say an occasional funny joke for the spectacle.think i'll just observe this one. pretty fun so far tbh. where'd yamon go though? he's 1 day into his 6 years of study so i feel like he has a lot more to offer the discussion.
that was on the reading somewhere in the 19 credits.
What about economics as a science?
Could you provide a reputable source that defines "economics", in that exact suffix, as something other than a study, or science?
Could you also please be so kind as to define "science" or provide a reputable source that defines it?
Almost every definition defines it as a science or study.
Great, so maybe you found a FEW gray or slightly varying definitions that don't relate to economics being a base of knowledge, study or science. Unfortunately, for every one definition that suggests it is not a study/science/base of knowledge, there are 10+ more that do. Thanks for proving the same. The fact is, the vast majority of the time the word is used, it is used so as to pertaining to a study, or science, and as so shown - knowledge. With that in mind, we could end the debate between you and I right there, as it's obvious that if one were to assume how I were using the word "economics" - the very fact that 95%+ of the definitions explain it to be exactly what I suggested (pertaining to study/science), and the 5% are to grey to truly determine one way or another - is reason enough to learn towards the way I've been saying I used it.Hm, all very good, but has anyone figured out what "adhere" means yet?
So great, we have effectively substantiated what I've been saying all along. Good job team Swiftfuck. We now know that by stating "I do not adhere to american economics" It's almost entirely likely I'm saying "I do not adhere to american studies of... "I do not adhere to the american sciences of...." or "I do not adhere to the american knowledge/interpretation of..." .... Do I need to remind you that literally 95% of the definitions of economics, and science that we both posted prove the same?
Discussion is over.
Nonetheless, let's continue. Because for some reason, as if that simple sentence wasn't clear enough, you also managed not to figure out what I was saying through the context. I'm really glad you brought up context!
If I asked you: Are you current on your home mortgage? Or how rough was the current when you drifted the river last week?
You would see the same word with two distinctively different meanings, yet the context would allow you to decipher between the two.
To that end, you've also finally been made aware of a valuable conundrum within the English language: many of our words have multiple meanings, but for the most part, we aren’t confused by them. That’s because the other important element of language is context. Maybe using the word "current" gives for an overwhelming simple example, but it's to make a point nonetheless.
Let's evaluate the context in mine and Zack's discussion as it pertains to "not adhering to american economics" and see if we can't conclude that the context alone was set to easily clear up any unwarranted confusion you and him have had.
My first response: "teach me? i don't adhere to american economics, they are retarded, and you'll come out dumber if you somehow do graduate. oh and milton friedman is a homo."
(The bolded words will hereinafter be referred to as "the words in question)
1. the words in question do immediately follow "teach me?" which is obviously in reference to his talks of going to school to study economic theory. Thus it's reasonable to conclude that I was referencing his schooling (see studies, sciences, knowledge) as to what I do not adhere to.
2. then immediately following the words in question i replied with an insult in regards to his goal to graduate - further showing that I was still on the subject of economics as it pertains to studies.
3. Miltion friedman was/is a renowned american economist and shooting him down falls in line with the rest of the context.
My second Reply: "A capitalist doesn't need to believe in the theory and framework of popular american economics in order to practice capitalism."
I don't even need to explain that one to you, do I? Come on. Zack responded to both of these replies unable to comprehend what I was talking about even with sufficient context provided. Then I made another reply, and you acted as if my prior replies didn't suffice? silly newb.
The debate is clearly over. It's overwhelming substantiated by both you and I that the words in question were sufficient enough for one to conclude as to what I was talking about, and moreover it is also substantiated that the context provides the same.
You are owned, it doesn't matter if you dissect the post or go with an "lmfao"/ "meltdown" type reply. I have effectively proven without a doubt, that I am right and you are wrong. I'm more interested to watch you squirm, as you always do, and see if you can some how manage to get me to reply with your weak post that is most likely to follow.
Great, so maybe you found a FEW gray or slightly varying definitions that don't relate to economics being a base of knowledge, study or science. Unfortunately, for every one definition that suggests it is not a study/science/base of knowledge, there are 10+ more that do. Thanks for proving the same. The fact is, the vast majority of the time the word is used, it is used so as to pertaining to a study, or science, and as so shown - knowledge. With that in mind, we could end the debate between you and I right there, as it's obvious that if one were to assume how I were using the word "economics" - the very fact that 95%+ of the definitions explain it to be exactly what I suggested (pertaining to study/science), and the 5% are to grey to truly determine one way or another - is reason enough to learn towards the way I've been saying I used it.
So great, we have effectively substantiated what I've been saying all along. Good job team Swiftfuck. We now know that by stating "I do not adhere to american economics" It's almost entirely likely I'm saying "I do not adhere to american studies of... "I do not adhere to the american sciences of...." or "I do not adhere to the american knowledge/interpretation of..." .... Do I need to remind you that literally 95% of the definitions of economics, and science that we both posted prove the same?
Discussion is over.
Nonetheless, let's continue. Because for some reason, as if that simple sentence wasn't clear enough, you also managed not to figure out what I was saying through the context. I'm really glad you brought up context!
If I asked you: Are you current on your home mortgage? Or how rough was the current when you drifted the river last week?
You would see the same word with two distinctively different meanings, yet the context would allow you to decipher between the two.
To that end, you've also finally been made aware of a valuable conundrum within the English language: many of our words have multiple meanings, but for the most part, we aren’t confused by them. That’s because the other important element of language is context. Maybe using the word "current" gives for an overwhelming simple example, but it's to make a point nonetheless.
Let's evaluate the context in mine and Zack's discussion as it pertains to "not adhering to american economics" and see if we can't conclude that the context alone was set to easily clear up any unwarranted confusion you and him have had.
My first response: "teach me? i don't adhere to american economics, they are retarded, and you'll come out dumber if you somehow do graduate. oh and milton friedman is a homo."
(The bolded words will hereinafter be referred to as "the words in question)
1. the words in question do immediately follow "teach me?" which is obviously in reference to his talks of going to school to study economic theory. Thus it's reasonable to conclude that I was referencing his schooling (see studies, sciences, knowledge) as to what I do not adhere to.
2. then immediately following the words in question i replied with an insult in regards to his goal to graduate - further showing that I was still on the subject of economics as it pertains to studies.
3. Miltion friedman was/is a renowned american economist and shooting him down falls in line with the rest of the context.
My second Reply: "A capitalist doesn't need to believe in the theory and framework of popular american economics in order to practice capitalism."
I don't even need to explain that one to you, do I? Come on. Zack responded to both of these replies unable to comprehend what I was talking about even with sufficient context provided. Then I made another reply, and you acted as if my prior replies didn't suffice? silly newb.
The debate is clearly over. It's overwhelming substantiated by both you and I that the words in question were sufficient enough for one to conclude as to what I was talking about, and moreover it is also substantiated that the context provides the same.
You are owned, it doesn't matter if you dissect the post or go with an "lmfao"/ "meltdown" type reply. I have effectively proven without a doubt, that I am right and you are wrong. I'm more interested to watch you squirm, as you always do, and see if you can some how manage to get me to reply with your weak post that is most likely to follow.
Great, so maybe you found a FEW gray or slightly varying definitions that don't relate to economics being a base of knowledge, study or science. Unfortunately, for every one definition that suggests it is not a study/science/base of knowledge, there are 10+ more that do. Thanks for proving the same. The fact is, the vast majority of the time the word is used, it is used so as to pertaining to a study, or science, and as so shown - knowledge. With that in mind, we could end the debate between you and I right there, as it's obvious that if one were to assume how I were using the word "economics" - the very fact that 95%+ of the definitions explain it to be exactly what I suggested (pertaining to study/science), and the 5% are to grey to truly determine one way or another - is reason enough to learn towards the way I've been saying I used it.Hm, all very good, but has anyone figured out what "adhere" means yet?
So great, we have effectively substantiated what I've been saying all along. Good job team Swiftfuck. We now know that by stating "I do not adhere to american economics" It's almost entirely likely I'm saying "I do not adhere to american studies of... "I do not adhere to the american sciences of...." or "I do not adhere to the american knowledge/interpretation of..." .... Do I need to remind you that literally 95% of the definitions of economics, and science that we both posted prove the same?
Discussion is over.
Nonetheless, let's continue. Because for some reason, as if that simple sentence wasn't clear enough, you also managed not to figure out what I was saying through the context. I'm really glad you brought up context!
If I asked you: Are you current on your home mortgage? Or how rough was the current when you drifted the river last week?
You would see the same word with two distinctively different meanings, yet the context would allow you to decipher between the two.
To that end, you've also finally been made aware of a valuable conundrum within the English language: many of our words have multiple meanings, but for the most part, we aren’t confused by them. That’s because the other important element of language is context. Maybe using the word "current" gives for an overwhelming simple example, but it's to make a point nonetheless.
Let's evaluate the context in mine and Zack's discussion as it pertains to "not adhering to american economics" and see if we can't conclude that the context alone was set to easily clear up any unwarranted confusion you and him have had.
My first response: "teach me? i don't adhere to american economics, they are retarded, and you'll come out dumber if you somehow do graduate. oh and milton friedman is a homo."
(The bolded words will hereinafter be referred to as "the words in question)
1. the words in question do immediately follow "teach me?" which is obviously in reference to his talks of going to school to study economic theory. Thus it's reasonable to conclude that I was referencing his schooling (see studies, sciences, knowledge) as to what I do not adhere to.
2. then immediately following the words in question i replied with an insult in regards to his goal to graduate - further showing that I was still on the subject of economics as it pertains to studies.
3. Miltion friedman was/is a renowned american economist and shooting him down falls in line with the rest of the context.
My second Reply: "A capitalist doesn't need to believe in the theory and framework of popular american economics in order to practice capitalism."
I don't even need to explain that one to you, do I? Come on. Zack responded to both of these replies unable to comprehend what I was talking about even with sufficient context provided. Then I made another reply, and you acted as if my prior replies didn't suffice? silly newb.
The debate is clearly over. It's overwhelming substantiated by both you and I that the words in question were sufficient enough for one to conclude as to what I was talking about, and moreover it is also substantiated that the context provides the same.
You are owned, it doesn't matter if you dissect the post or go with an "lmfao"/ "meltdown" type reply. I have effectively proven without a doubt, that I am right and you are wrong. I'm more interested to watch you squirm, as you always do, and see if you can some how manage to get me to reply with your weak post that is most likely to follow.
Yamon -
Please be advised, it is evident that GN- has indirectly conceded that I am right and that the context of the posts in question, along with the 95%+ of the definitions that define economics, science, and adhere, prove the same. alternatively, you could reach the same conclusion by simply rereading that last post of mine, as I have shown that it is undeniable - I provided sufficient language and context in all three posts to you to express what I meant when I said that I do not adhere to american economics. Unfortunately, we were rudely interrupted and I hope that it does not happen again.
I hope that we can come to a mutual meeting of the minds, one where we are gathered around the fact that the whole economics framework that you wish to subscribe to is a bunch of bullshit. In a collective effort to meet that end, please reply to my third post on the matter. I believe it is on page 8.
Yamon -
Please be advised, it is evident that GN- has indirectly conceded that I am right and that the context of the posts in question, along with the 95%+ of the definitions that define economics, science, and adhere, prove the same. alternatively, you could reach the same conclusion by simply rereading that last post of mine, as I have shown that it is undeniable - I provided sufficient language and context in all three posts to you to express what I meant when I said that I do not adhere to american economics. Unfortunately, we were rudely interrupted and I hope that it does not happen again.
I hope that we can come to a mutual meeting of the minds, one where we are gathered around the fact that the whole economics framework that you wish to subscribe to is a bunch of bullshit. In a collective effort to meet that end, please reply to my third post on the matter. I believe it is on page 8.
TK - do you think my ugly stripper wife is disappointed that $2,700 is the most money I could come up with to post on an internet forum?
Almost every definition defines it as a science or study.
Words have more than one meaning Swift, especially in different contexts. The rest of your post makes no sense.
No you definitely got owned and look like a total moron lmao - glad you got to learn what adhere, economics and science mean, as well as the importance of context.I still don't know what adhere means.
also i never said i lied about "having a girlfriend" that's just more proof of you twisting things :D
No you definitely got owned and look like a total moron lmao - glad you got to learn what adhere, economics and science mean, as well as the importance of context.
also i never said i lied about "having a girlfriend" that's just more proof of you twisting things :D
Thats my second clearest victory vs you ever ;DThis thread is amazing.
Thats my second clearest victory vs you ever ;D
because yamon came back in to talk about economics, and then ghostnuke didn't know what that word meant (along with others)Wow talk about off topic.
oh definitely, I mean he handed that one to me on a silver platter though due to recklessly coming in here all mad about our other argument and he just desperately attacked the first thing I said that he thought he could win an argument over, only to lose again. At this point, GN is just padding my forum record.