thecantaur, I will address much of what you just stated at a later time, as I am on my way to the gym now.
A few brief thoughts before I go pump up these old, tired, muscles of mine.
"Hugh Jordans" ... a very funny, on topic, line. Made me laugh
The word 'ignorant'
You will know few people who are better versed in dealing with ignorance than myself. I won't bore you detailing why that is the case, you will need to take me at my word.
You would make a good politician, or litigation attorney, as you do a great job of putting a spin on my comments, as well as your responses to them. And you referred to me as some sort of 'semantic contortionist'??? Pot, meet kettle. I will address this later.
You do make a couple of points which I will have to fools, and possibly reassess my own points. Again, I will address this later.
Lastly, for now, I am many things, but a lefty leaning liberal is most definitely not one of them.
See you when I come back pumped like Arnold Schwarzenegger
Yeah I didn't have you pegged as such, but a disagreement is fine and as long as you are willing to reassess so am I. Much more civilized than name calling and insults like some on here do
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
thecantaur, I will address much of what you just stated at a later time, as I am on my way to the gym now.
A few brief thoughts before I go pump up these old, tired, muscles of mine.
"Hugh Jordans" ... a very funny, on topic, line. Made me laugh
The word 'ignorant'
You will know few people who are better versed in dealing with ignorance than myself. I won't bore you detailing why that is the case, you will need to take me at my word.
You would make a good politician, or litigation attorney, as you do a great job of putting a spin on my comments, as well as your responses to them. And you referred to me as some sort of 'semantic contortionist'??? Pot, meet kettle. I will address this later.
You do make a couple of points which I will have to fools, and possibly reassess my own points. Again, I will address this later.
Lastly, for now, I am many things, but a lefty leaning liberal is most definitely not one of them.
See you when I come back pumped like Arnold Schwarzenegger
Yeah I didn't have you pegged as such, but a disagreement is fine and as long as you are willing to reassess so am I. Much more civilized than name calling and insults like some on here do
thecantaur, I will address much of what you just stated at a later time, as I am on my way to the gym now.
A few brief thoughts before I go pump up these old, tired, muscles of mine.
"Hugh Jordans" ... a very funny, on topic, line. Made me laugh
The word 'ignorant'
You will know few people who are better versed in dealing with ignorance than myself. I won't bore you detailing why that is the case, you will need to take me at my word.
You would make a good politician, or litigation attorney, as you do a great job of putting a spin on my comments, as well as your responses to them. And you referred to me as some sort of 'semantic contortionist'??? Pot, meet kettle. I will address this later.
You do make a couple of points which I will have to fools, and possibly reassess my own points. Again, I will address this later.
Lastly, for now, I am many things, but a lefty leaning liberal is most definitely not one of them.
See you when I come back pumped like Arnold Schwarzenegger
thecantaur, I will address much of what you just stated at a later time, as I am on my way to the gym now.
A few brief thoughts before I go pump up these old, tired, muscles of mine.
"Hugh Jordans" ... a very funny, on topic, line. Made me laugh
The word 'ignorant'
You will know few people who are better versed in dealing with ignorance than myself. I won't bore you detailing why that is the case, you will need to take me at my word.
You would make a good politician, or litigation attorney, as you do a great job of putting a spin on my comments, as well as your responses to them. And you referred to me as some sort of 'semantic contortionist'??? Pot, meet kettle. I will address this later.
You do make a couple of points which I will have to fools, and possibly reassess my own points. Again, I will address this later.
Lastly, for now, I am many things, but a lefty leaning liberal is most definitely not one of them.
See you when I come back pumped like Arnold Schwarzenegger
Couple of things I would like to address here Hugh Jordans:
-The liberal use of the word "ignorant" by the left. Liberal is defined as lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular
I realize it was a mistake on your part, but you wrote "Liberal" where you meant to write "ignorant"
It kinda lends a whole new meaning to your point, doesn't it?
Or maybe it was a Freudian slip?
bigreds daddy
Quote Originally Posted by thecentaur:
Couple of things I would like to address here Hugh Jordans:
-The liberal use of the word "ignorant" by the left. Liberal is defined as lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular
I realize it was a mistake on your part, but you wrote "Liberal" where you meant to write "ignorant"
It kinda lends a whole new meaning to your point, doesn't it?
Couple of things I would like to address here Hugh Jordans: -No I am not saying big businesses are more interested in happy rights than corporate profits, and that isn't what I said.
Sure it is ...
In post #3, in regards to corporations, you wrote ...
"They have said screw the bottom line, let's inject a social agenda because we need to teach these peasants how to think. Really sucks"
bigreds daddy
Quote Originally Posted by thecentaur:
Couple of things I would like to address here Hugh Jordans: -No I am not saying big businesses are more interested in happy rights than corporate profits, and that isn't what I said.
Sure it is ...
In post #3, in regards to corporations, you wrote ...
"They have said screw the bottom line, let's inject a social agenda because we need to teach these peasants how to think. Really sucks"
Couple of things I would like to address here Hugh Jordans:
They did not air commercials portraying open homosexuality negatively, as opposed to these other corporations who consciously and purposefully inject open homosexuality into their commercials which the vast majority of the time has nothing to do with their product. Big difference Hugh Jordans.
For the purpose of clarity, the "they" in your post above was regarding Chick-Fill-A.
I do not believe that most corporations care about social (gaye) issues. I believe they are focused on the bottom line, as they should be.
If a certain company were to run an ad in which it seemed that they were attempting to appeal to gayes, then IMO they believe that gayes were an economically feasible group to advertise to. I don't not believe in obvious, nor hidden agenda's when dollars are at stake.
bigreds daddy
Quote Originally Posted by thecentaur:
Couple of things I would like to address here Hugh Jordans:
They did not air commercials portraying open homosexuality negatively, as opposed to these other corporations who consciously and purposefully inject open homosexuality into their commercials which the vast majority of the time has nothing to do with their product. Big difference Hugh Jordans.
For the purpose of clarity, the "they" in your post above was regarding Chick-Fill-A.
I do not believe that most corporations care about social (gaye) issues. I believe they are focused on the bottom line, as they should be.
If a certain company were to run an ad in which it seemed that they were attempting to appeal to gayes, then IMO they believe that gayes were an economically feasible group to advertise to. I don't not believe in obvious, nor hidden agenda's when dollars are at stake.
Centaur, I apologize if the manner in which I am responding to your points creates a situation of unfair or deceptive debate. Specifically, my copying some of your sentences, while omitting other sentences of yours that may have supported your argument.
This is honestly not my intent.
Problem is, your post was so friggin long, and you said so friggin much, that I need to piecemeal it in order to digest it all and put forth sufficient responses.
Anyway, I need to shower so that I do not offend my wife, nor the other guests at the restaurant, with my body stench.
I shall return tomorrow to finish the chat.
Enjoy your night
bigreds daddy
Centaur, I apologize if the manner in which I am responding to your points creates a situation of unfair or deceptive debate. Specifically, my copying some of your sentences, while omitting other sentences of yours that may have supported your argument.
This is honestly not my intent.
Problem is, your post was so friggin long, and you said so friggin much, that I need to piecemeal it in order to digest it all and put forth sufficient responses.
Anyway, I need to shower so that I do not offend my wife, nor the other guests at the restaurant, with my body stench.
In post #3, in regards to corporations, you wrote ...
"They have said screw the bottom line, let's inject a social agenda because we need to teach these peasants how to think. Really sucks"
Yeah I can see how that sounds like what you are saying. To clarify, what I meant was the corporations made a decision to take a hit to their bottom line to push an agenda
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
Sure it is ...
In post #3, in regards to corporations, you wrote ...
"They have said screw the bottom line, let's inject a social agenda because we need to teach these peasants how to think. Really sucks"
Yeah I can see how that sounds like what you are saying. To clarify, what I meant was the corporations made a decision to take a hit to their bottom line to push an agenda
For the purpose of clarity, the "they" in your post above was regarding Chick-Fill-A.
I do not believe that most corporations care about social (gaye) issues. I believe they are focused on the bottom line, as they should be.
If a certain company were to run an ad in which it seemed that they were attempting to appeal to gayes, then IMO they believe that gayes were an economically feasible group to advertise to. I don't not believe in obvious, nor hidden agenda's when dollars are at stake.
Just do a little research on my example of lovehasnolabels.com, a division of the adcouncil. The stated goal of that organization is to raise awareness about social issues, and they can afford all the commercials through donations from companies. I didn't find that Nike was one of the sponsors, but the sponsors could only be found at the very bottom of the website. Not very conspicuous and not announced in the commercials, so they certainly aren't doing it for publicity or exposure. Naked agenda pushing, because there is little to no impact when people don't know who the sponsors of the commercials are.
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
For the purpose of clarity, the "they" in your post above was regarding Chick-Fill-A.
I do not believe that most corporations care about social (gaye) issues. I believe they are focused on the bottom line, as they should be.
If a certain company were to run an ad in which it seemed that they were attempting to appeal to gayes, then IMO they believe that gayes were an economically feasible group to advertise to. I don't not believe in obvious, nor hidden agenda's when dollars are at stake.
Just do a little research on my example of lovehasnolabels.com, a division of the adcouncil. The stated goal of that organization is to raise awareness about social issues, and they can afford all the commercials through donations from companies. I didn't find that Nike was one of the sponsors, but the sponsors could only be found at the very bottom of the website. Not very conspicuous and not announced in the commercials, so they certainly aren't doing it for publicity or exposure. Naked agenda pushing, because there is little to no impact when people don't know who the sponsors of the commercials are.
Centaur, I apologize if the manner in which I am responding to your points creates a situation of unfair or deceptive debate. Specifically, my copying some of your sentences, while omitting other sentences of yours that may have supported your argument.
This is honestly not my intent.
No problem, I didn't see it that way
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
Centaur, I apologize if the manner in which I am responding to your points creates a situation of unfair or deceptive debate. Specifically, my copying some of your sentences, while omitting other sentences of yours that may have supported your argument.
Just do a little research on my example of lovehasnolabels.com, a division of the adcouncil. The stated goal of that organization is to raise awareness about social issues, and they can afford all the commercials through donations from companies. I didn't find that Nike was one of the sponsors, but the sponsors could only be found at the very bottom of the website. Not very conspicuous and not announced in the commercials, so they certainly aren't doing it for publicity or exposure. Naked agenda pushing, because there is little to no impact when people don't know who the sponsors of the commercials are.
Meaning economic impact for the company
Quote Originally Posted by thecentaur:
Just do a little research on my example of lovehasnolabels.com, a division of the adcouncil. The stated goal of that organization is to raise awareness about social issues, and they can afford all the commercials through donations from companies. I didn't find that Nike was one of the sponsors, but the sponsors could only be found at the very bottom of the website. Not very conspicuous and not announced in the commercials, so they certainly aren't doing it for publicity or exposure. Naked agenda pushing, because there is little to no impact when people don't know who the sponsors of the commercials are.
What I hike- in,in the woods isn't determined by the maker's stance on global warming and Nike has changed the way it makes it's shoes from providing support on the court/turf to the impression the color scheme makes in the discotheque.(Unscientific opinion)
What I hike- in,in the woods isn't determined by the maker's stance on global warming and Nike has changed the way it makes it's shoes from providing support on the court/turf to the impression the color scheme makes in the discotheque.(Unscientific opinion)
So, you were buying Nike before that, because Kobe told you to do so?
No, just another shoe/warm-ups company to me back then. But then, with MJ being a jerk (retiring/baseball, retiring/unretiring, never took a stance on anything except 'buy Nike') and then Kobe, and the relentless ad campaigns..............I decided to become part of the minority. Believe me, a LOT of folks thought the same way.
Not that Kobe was EVER GUILTY or anything, but after he bought his wife that 4 million dollar, 8-carat ring 3 days after being charged with rape in Denver, I kind of stopped believing every damn thing that came out of his mouth.........
Quote Originally Posted by wizardofroz:
So, you were buying Nike before that, because Kobe told you to do so?
No, just another shoe/warm-ups company to me back then. But then, with MJ being a jerk (retiring/baseball, retiring/unretiring, never took a stance on anything except 'buy Nike') and then Kobe, and the relentless ad campaigns..............I decided to become part of the minority. Believe me, a LOT of folks thought the same way.
Not that Kobe was EVER GUILTY or anything, but after he bought his wife that 4 million dollar, 8-carat ring 3 days after being charged with rape in Denver, I kind of stopped believing every damn thing that came out of his mouth.........
never skip leg day
Hot Forum Topics
