Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:What leads you to believe that's the case? I know...your buddy moderators told you, right?

Oh hey, can't let this one slip by. The mods tell me nothing. Like I said, we're not exactly on speaking terms after the last appletini and crochet party. I'm just speculating and intuiting. You give me a lot of material to work with. But hey, thanks for proving once again that you're a tattle tale! This shows that you have been reporting me since you "came back". HAHA! I'm right!

Please don't send me an angry private message tonight detailing the methods you will employ to murder me. I'm getting kind of numb to that theme of threatening PM at this point. Wait until tomorrow. Sleep on it. Maybe you'll come up with something original tomorrow.

On the other hand, please don't send me any more or post mean comments about me in the forum, because it hurts my feelings.

Army of GOD wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Do you believe people are entitled to a certain standard of living, just because they had it at one time?

Like if a husband and wife divorce, is one of them entitled to money from the other to maintain the standard of living that was established during the marriage? (Alimony) What if they were living on credit cards?

If a husband and wife divorce, are the children entitled to massive piles of cash to maintain a standard of living that was established during the marriage? Should there be a limit on it? If you believe they are entitled to maintain the same standard of living, what if parents decide to just "cut their kids off" to avoid them becoming spoiled brats? Should that be illegal?

Not only should it be legal, but it should be illegal to support a child that is older than 18 up to a certain amount. I'm all for working your ass off and making money, but because you worked your ass off shouldn't be a reason for you to spoil your children to the point where they don't have to work at all.

... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

Woodruff wrote:There we go...I've fallen for your trolling again!

No Woodruff. You aren't the helpless victim! I am! I've fallen for your trolling. You trolled me first! You've been trolling me for months by calling me names openly all over the forum, sending me hateful private messages, and constantly trying to get me banned. Yet you continue to pretend to not understand why I don't like you and don't worship you for your wonderful contribution to the forum (putting others down constantly, flexing your narcissism muscles and creating nothing)!

I'm very deeply hurt as I've demonstrated in photographs. If this post had a sponsor it would be Kleenex. Words hurt Woodruff. And you've called me very mean names and I think you should say you're sorry. Then you should say something nice. But I don't have to say anything nice to you, because you're the one who's trolled me! Praise the Lord!

Nobunaga wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

bedub1 wrote:Do you believe people are entitled to a certain standard of living, just because they had it at one time?

Like if a husband and wife divorce, is one of them entitled to money from the other to maintain the standard of living that was established during the marriage? (Alimony) What if they were living on credit cards?

If a husband and wife divorce, are the children entitled to massive piles of cash to maintain a standard of living that was established during the marriage? Should there be a limit on it? If you believe they are entitled to maintain the same standard of living, what if parents decide to just "cut their kids off" to avoid them becoming spoiled brats? Should that be illegal?

Not only should it be legal, but it should be illegal to support a child that is older than 18 up to a certain amount. I'm all for working your ass off and making money, but because you worked your ass off shouldn't be a reason for you to spoil your children to the point where they don't have to work at all.

... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Good point.

pimpdave wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

... I was just repeating what Player told me many times. Success in life is a roll of the dice, not a damned thing we can do about it.

....

Nobunaga wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

... I was just repeating what Player told me many times. Success in life is a roll of the dice, not a damned thing we can do about it.

....

Sure, if you're of the mindset that you are powerless to change your environment.

There's a large group of people who think that they have a large influence over their environment. They make their own "luck." Those kind of people tend to succeed with that kind of mentality.

By blaming one's external environment on things like "luck," then those kind of people would tend not to blame themselves. By doing so, then how can they begin to target what's wrong with themselves in order to fix their situation/environment?

Woodruff wrote:
Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

What if they are deadbeats because they are on drugs? No leniency?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote: ...it should be illegal to support a child that is older than 18 up to a certain amount. I'm all for working your ass off and making money, but because you worked your ass off shouldn't be a reason for you to spoil your children to the point where they don't have to work at all.

I agree, to a point. However, if a child is going to college, working hard and the parents can afford to help, they should. The cost of tuition to some of the better colleges, in particular, is too high for most students to work their way through. (I realize that cost of college is overrun in some cases, but that is a different topic. Just saying that going to college is not "being lazy" or "spoiling", IF they are working at it).

its also in the parents interest because they are going to need to count on help from their children when they are retired and no longer working, and this is true now more than ever. I hope this next generation is up to the responsibility. Just a comment no reply necesary

pimpdave wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

how did the family get the money?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

... I was just repeating what Player told me many times. Success in life is a roll of the dice, not a damned thing we can do about it.

....

Sure, if you're of the mindset that you are powerless to change your environment.

There's a large group of people who think that they have a large influence over their environment. They make their own "luck." Those kind of people tend to succeed with that kind of mentality.

By blaming one's external environment on things like "luck," then those kind of people would tend not to blame themselves. By doing so, then how can they begin to target what's wrong with themselves in order to fix their situation/environment?

I'm pretty sure Nobu was engaging in some serious tounge-in-cheek hyperbole, there. I'm also positive he's wildly exaggerating what player said, even if he legitimately agrees with her. I personally am all about can-do and positivity, but there's a limit to the impact hard work and intelligence have on economic outcomes. You're always talking about reading, try some Malcolm Gladwell.

The two reviews summed it up pretty well . =P (the way he writes sounds great though, so I'll check it out if it's at a library)


Yeah, I agree that work ethic and intelligence are effective up to some point, whatever that may be... Attractiveness and emotional intelligence are significant too...

I still have problems with people who extend blame outwards and hardly ever internally examine themselves. They prevent themselves from "getting better at getting better," and that frustrates me.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

What if they are deadbeats because they are on drugs? No leniency?

When have I ever advocated that drug use is a legitimate reason for abdicating one's responsibilities? Unlike you, I do try at least to be consistent.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

What if they are deadbeats because they are on drugs? No leniency?

Nope...no leniency. But they can collect welfare and spend it on drugs.

Nobunaga wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

... I was just repeating what Player told me many times. Success in life is a roll of the dice, not a damned thing we can do about it.

....

I have never said that. I HAVE said that where anybody sits involves both luck and skill.

You don't get to the highest income levels without a good deal of luck. By the same token, you can wind up in the lowest levels just by luck (though you can also get there by doing the absolute wrong things).

Most people fall somewhere in between. We are where we are through a combination of skill and luck.

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote: ...it should be illegal to support a child that is older than 18 up to a certain amount. I'm all for working your ass off and making money, but because you worked your ass off shouldn't be a reason for you to spoil your children to the point where they don't have to work at all.

I agree, to a point. However, if a child is going to college, working hard and the parents can afford to help, they should. The cost of tuition to some of the better colleges, in particular, is too high for most students to work their way through. (I realize that cost of college is overrun in some cases, but that is a different topic. Just saying that going to college is not "being lazy" or "spoiling", IF they are working at it).

its also in the parents interest because they are going to need to count on help from their children when they are retired and no longer working, and this is true now more than ever. I hope this next generation is up to the responsibility. Just a comment no reply necesary

Once in a while we actually agree!

Good comment. I do think of this, but did not think to mention it here.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... Money has nothing to do with working hard. It's all about luck.

...

Luck is generally defined as what kind of money the family you're born into has.

... I was just repeating what Player told me many times. Success in life is a roll of the dice, not a damned thing we can do about it.

....

I have never said that. I HAVE said that where anybody sits involves both luck and skill.

You don't get to the highest income levels without a good deal of luck. By the same token, you can wind up in the lowest levels just by luck (though you can also get there by doing the absolute wrong things).

Most people fall somewhere in between. We are where we are through a combination of skill and luck.

Why do you think CEOs are paid so much money?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do you think CEOs are paid so much money?

Given the many recent examples I've seen, I'm pretty sure it's because Boards of Directors are stupid fucks.

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do you think CEOs are paid so much money?

Given the many recent examples I've seen, I'm pretty sure it's because Boards of Directors are stupid fucks.

Who are often more or less in cahoots with the CEO.

spurgistan wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do you think CEOs are paid so much money?

Given the many recent examples I've seen, I'm pretty sure it's because Boards of Directors are stupid fucks.

Who are often more or less in cahoots with the CEO.

Which doesn't really make sense. If you're paying the CEO $20 million, that's $20 million that's not being paid in dividends.

keiths31 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

What if they are deadbeats because they are on drugs? No leniency?

Nope...no leniency. But they can collect welfare and spend it on drugs.

NEWSFLASH. Deadbeat dads cannot collect welfare or much of any other government assistance. That said, if they are not making money, they can sometimes get legal exemptions, but judges tend to be pretty strict on that... much more than in any other case. You can call someone who is liad off or injured "deadbeat" because they don't make the same payments, but most people consider that in a different category. Most people consider deadbeats to be those who are legally supposed to make payments and do not or who pretend excuses , maybe even take a lower paying job, in order to pay less.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

keiths31 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
Also, long-term deadbeat dads should be hunted down and shot. I'm not really kidding either.

What if they are deadbeats because they are on drugs? No leniency?

Nope...no leniency. But they can collect welfare and spend it on drugs.

NEWSFLASH. Deadbeat dads cannot collect welfare or much of any other government assistance. That said, if they are not making money, they can sometimes get legal exemptions, but judges tend to be pretty strict on that... much more than in any other case. You can call someone who is liad off or injured "deadbeat" because they don't make the same payments, but most people consider that in a different category. Most people consider deadbeats to be those who are legally supposed to make payments and do not or who pretend excuses , maybe even take a lower paying job, in order to pay less.

Whoa...somebody seriously fucked up the quote-machine here.

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do you think CEOs are paid so much money?

Given the many recent examples I've seen, I'm pretty sure it's because Boards of Directors are stupid fucks.

All of the above, and stockholders who care for nothing but making a short term dollar.

OR, to put it another way, a system that encourages absentee owners to take whatever profits they can, however they can and the boot out, leaving the workers and others to take the brunt.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why do you think CEOs are paid so much money?

Given the many recent examples I've seen, I'm pretty sure it's because Boards of Directors are stupid fucks.

All of the above, and stockholders who care for nothing but making a short term dollar.

OR, to put it another way, a system that encourages absentee owners to take whatever profits they can, however they can and the boot out, leaving the workers and others to take the brunt.

If stockholders wanted to make a "short term dollar," why are they paying $20 million for a CEO?

BigBallinStalin wrote: Why do you think CEOs are paid so much money?

Thought I answered this earlier. The most basic answer is "because someone is willing to pay them".

The cynical answer is as given above (about all being stupid).

The real answer gets more complicated, but actually is not the real problem. CEOs get paid a lot because, theoretically, they are supposed to be making the company, or at least stockholders, more money and therefore are 'worth" what they earn. Some actually do, by all economic measures. Some might seem to make "sense" in pure economic terms, but really do things like "cutting costs" by selling off margianally profitable branches, or just moving companies overseas, not really and truly increasing production., it truly hurts the economy When those companies are given tax breaks..( or, as greekdog would say, not assessed certain taxes "rightfully") it disgusts many people.

However, that is just a symptom, not the real problem. The real problem is that our tax structure and many of our regulations are not really about encouraging production, building up our nation in any way, its just about letting some people keep more of their money on the theory that plopping down a few dollars makes you inherently more valuable a person, more worthwhile than even someone who works hard fulltime.