Lots of people ‘know someone at IBM’. Why aren’t they billionaires?
Ethics? Why the hell didn’t Paul Allen stand up for himself? He expected to get half and let himself be chiselled? Send him some Alpha Male.
BTW: for the lefties, read about old man Watson (of IBM) making tons of cash out of the Holocaust. The numbers tattooed on the death camp victims is an IBM Hollerith Machine code. Fodder for the lefties…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I must have missed this. Why do you assume you know what my plans are? “Grubbing off the government”? You obviously have no clue what you speak of. [/quote]
Review Your own posts and the assumptions you’ve made. If anybody has made the mistake of being presumptive and ignorant it is you.
However, in order to avoid laying out my personal plans on a public forum, if you truly want to know my goals and intentions, pm me. Otherwise, you simply make yourself look stupid for assuming you know anything about me or my goals in life.[/quote]
So, What do you call this?
What? What table have you been accepted at? That question is truly rhetorical because name dropping will simply make this comment seem worse. A wealthy man joking with you right before he asks for coffee or you dating his daughter doesn’t equal “sitting at the table”.
Looks to me like you are assuming that I’m a waiter of some sort or that I can only know anybody of any social status by dating their daughter. That is not only assumptive but also disparraging and completely wrong.
I laid out my accomplishments to refute that steaming heap of crap. I’d have to say that in light of the statements you’ve made based on the assumptions you’ve drawn-
Yup, You look prety damned stupid.
Beyond that, no one disparaged your accomplishments. You were questioned as far as why you think you are better than others. I will never understand why many conservatives are the first to cry “elitist” even though they carry the exact same notions in their heads. [/quote]
There is a big difference between someone with a strong sense of entitlement and someone with a strong sense of entitlement who will go out and earn a good life. Take one look at the thread of the 23 year old who scoffs at 12K a year when he has no experience at anything, and whon’t get off his ass to create the life he desires.
One thing I am damned sure envious of is the ability to copy and paste that stuff and keep the quote gray. How in the hell do you do that? Every time I try I screw it up.
Prof, also try to bear in mind that I’m not speaking as representative of any political or religious group. I don’t pledge allegiance to anything other than the flag and don’t worship anything other than a god of my own understanding.
Political and religious groups should feel free to breath a sigh of relief at this point;)
[quote] Vroom, That’s a whole lot of what if and no what is.
I work and exist in the what is not the what if.
If you plan on being successfull in your own consulting practice you better get real handy with that concept.
What if all of those what ifs come true? See the part where I dust it off and move on. Besides, there is something fresh and exhilirating about starting something from scratch.[/quote]
Sky, I’m reasonably “aged” at this point. The what if’s I’m raising may just be “what ifs” now, but I’ve seen most of them happen to people around me and a few of them happen to me.
I’ve done the “from scratch” thing enough times to know what that is all about and how much of yourself you can put into something.
You can toss around motivational buzzwords until the cows come home, it isn’t going to change the nature of the world around you.
Anyhow, on the concept of real life, good luck at what sounds like a new position. Hopefully you’ll like it there and reach some of your goals.
Thanks Vroom. I wish the same for you.
All though not quite as aged, I have seen a good bit of tragedy and misfortune too. I don’t necessarily mean “throw all caution to the wind and go for it!”, but to seize opportunity when it is presented by calculating risk/reward with the main factors being what you have, what you have to gain, and what you have to lose.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Review Your own posts and the assumptions you’ve made. If anybody has made the mistake of being presumptive and ignorant it is you.[/quote]
No, show me what assumptions were made. You proved you thought you were better than poor people by listing ways you are better than poor people. No one has “assumed” anything about you. I took what you wrote and gave it back to you.
[quote]
So, What do you call this?
What? What table have you been accepted at? That question is truly rhetorical because name dropping will simply make this comment seem worse. A wealthy man joking with you right before he asks for coffee or you dating his daughter doesn’t equal “sitting at the table”.
Looks to me like you are assuming that I’m a waiter of some sort or that I can only know anybody of any social status by dating their daughter. That is not only assumptive but also disparraging and completely wrong.[/quote]
Then you need to realize what is being said to you. You stated that you are working class. You are not “at the table” of the wealthy because you are not wealthy. You may brown-nose, network, or even casually get to know some wealthy people, but you are not wealthy yourself. Until you are, any belief you have of being “at the table” of the wealthy is your own mental concoction. You wish to place yourself above those in your same financial status by believing you are better in ways that you yourself listed. I am amazed you are now trying to act as if these are assumptions when this is info YOU listed.
[quote]
I laid out my accomplishments to refute that steaming heap of crap. I’d have to say that in light of the statements you’ve made based on the assumptions you’ve drawn-
Yup, You look prety damned stupid.[/quote]
What assumptions? You can’t even tell the difference between metaphores and reality. No one thought you were a waiter or whatever it is you got from what was written. I never assumed to know what it is you do specifically.
[quote]
There is a big difference between someone with a strong sense of entitlement and someone with a strong sense of entitlement who will go out and earn a good life. Take one look at the thread of the 23 year old who scoffs at 12K a year when he has no experience at anything, and whon’t get off his ass to create the life he desires.[/quote]
What are you even talking about here? Why do you feel “entitled” to anything? Aren’t we constantly hearing how blacks shouldn’t feel “entitled” to anything on these forums? But it is ok for conservatives?
You aren’t “entitled” to jack shit other than what you have already earned. If you aren’t wealthy right now, you are NOT entitled to be wealthy. You are not guaranteed to be wealthy. Therefore, you are not so much better than the very people you put yourself above. But I’m stupid?
Hey, you are the “entitled” superior mind here…figure it out.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I personally don’t understand why money has become the driving focus of the “Christian Right”. Someone is obviously not attending Sunday School. I was under the impression that life itself was about more than that. [/quote]
I am not sure where this statement comes from. There are always those that identify with any group that are not necessarily a good representation of what that particular group stands for. Why do you feel that the “Christian Right” is all about making money? I would probably be considered a part of that group, but I laid out my philosophy in a previous post (which was never responded to), and while helping the poor is a worthwhile goal, it does take resources.
Government has no money in and of itself. It is your money and my money. I think it is reasonable to question where this money is being used.
[quote]deanec wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I personally don’t understand why money has become the driving focus of the “Christian Right”. Someone is obviously not attending Sunday School. I was under the impression that life itself was about more than that.
I am not sure where this statement comes from. There are always those that identify with any group that are not necessarily a good representation of what that particular group stands for. Why do you feel that the “Christian Right” is all about making money? I would probably be considered a part of that group, but I laid out my philosophy in a previous post (which was never responded to), and while helping the poor is a worthwhile goal, it does take resources.
Government has no money in and of itself. It is your money and my money. I think it is reasonable to question where this money is being used.
[/quote]
That statement comes from many of the comments seen posted on this site. Did you think any other impression would be gathered when the main focus seems to be putting down those who are poor on a regular basis (lazy and “government leaches” are the usual tags…unless the discussion falls into blaming poor and/or blacks for looting while largely being less pissed off by white collar crime) and hyping big business as if it is the shining apple that we all are trying to grab?
I am all for being successful. I work hard to do the same. I make a conscious choice to avoid labels as far as my personal political association because I don’t have one. I look at issues individually whether those issues are gun ownership or helping Katrina victims. I mean, I hate to point this out to you, but this current administration, the public leader of the supposed Republican party, has been one of the most seemingly power/money hungry administrations that I personally have ever been knowledgeable of. I admit, I haven’t seen all that many different presidents, but the “Reagan 80’s” don’t have a damn thing on the current efforts to own not just business, but some could argue our personal lives as well.
You haven’t noticed this? Success is no longer about bettering yourself or even helping others. It has become all about the dollar. I am a little surprised that this has slipped past your perception until now.
[quote]hspder wrote:
The Mage wrote:
It wasn’t Bill Gate’s computer knowledge that made him the richest person on the planet, it was his business skills. (Whether you like them or not.)
Actually, it was the fact that his mommy knew somebody at IBM and helped getting him the contract for MS-DOS, and his pop financed the thing.
At Harvard, he spent most of his time playing poker.
Pretty typical story.
Oh, and if you’re wondering about his ethics…
Back in the late 70s, when they founded MS, Bill thought he deserved more stock than Paul, and based his argument on the fact that Paul, as the new head of software development for MITS, had more than one job. This ignores the important fact that Allen was not only half of the Microsoft team, he was also Microsoft’s only customer. Relentlessly pushing the argument that as the only Microsoft employee totally devoted to serving the MITS account, Gates deserved more Microsoft shares, he of course got his way. Bill Gates received 64 percent of Microsoft to Paul Allen’s 36 percent, which explains why Gates is the richest man in the world and Allen is only number two or three on the list.
Ironically, Gates later went to MITS president Ed Roberts to beg for a job. This is according to Roberts, who agreed to hire the “impoverished” Gates for $10 per hour. Under these changed circumstances, one might have expected Paul Allen to call for a redistribution of shares, but he didn’t. Bill was allowed to keep his victory.
This is just one story. There are many more.
You brought him up, not me…[/quote]
And maybe you didn’t get the fact that it still was business skill that made him big. Mommy’s connections, and Daddy’s money might help get a start, but he still had to build it. He is a ruthless businessman.
And as far as his ethics, remember he is a democrat.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
deanec wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I personally don’t understand why money has become the driving focus of the “Christian Right”. Someone is obviously not attending Sunday School. I was under the impression that life itself was about more than that.
I am not sure where this statement comes from. There are always those that identify with any group that are not necessarily a good representation of what that particular group stands for. Why do you feel that the “Christian Right” is all about making money? I would probably be considered a part of that group, but I laid out my philosophy in a previous post (which was never responded to), and while helping the poor is a worthwhile goal, it does take resources.
Government has no money in and of itself. It is your money and my money. I think it is reasonable to question where this money is being used.
That statement comes from many of the comments seen posted on this site. Did you think any other impression would be gathered when the main focus seems to be putting down those who are poor on a regular basis (lazy and “government leaches” are the usual tags…unless the discussion falls into blaming poor and/or blacks for looting while largely being less pissed off by white collar crime) and hyping big business as if it is the shining apple that we all are trying to grab?
I am all for being successful. I work hard to do the same. I make a conscious choice to avoid labels as far as my personal political association because I don’t have one. I look at issues individually whether those issues are gun ownership or helping Katrina victims. I mean, I hate to point this out to you, but this current administration, the public leader of the supposed Republican party, has been one of the most seemingly power/money hungry administrations that I personally have ever been knowledgeable of. I admit, I haven’t seen all that many different presidents, but the “Reagan 80’s” don’t have a damn thing on the current efforts to own not just business, but some could argue our personal lives as well.
You haven’t noticed this? Success is no longer about bettering yourself or even helping others. It has become all about the dollar. I am a little surprised that this has slipped past your perception until now. [/quote]
C’mon now X, you and I both know the chase for the almighty dollar didn’t begin and won’t end with the current leadership. It also didn’t start with the rise of the “Christian Right”. In my estimation the only difference between rich conservatives and rich liberals is that the liberals have better PR; they are very good at making people think they care without actually doing anything about the root of the problem.
Labels work both ways; in the same way that you don’t want poor people labeled “lazy”, because we both know that is not always true, conservatism should not be labeled greedy. Am I greedy because I want control of the fruit of my own labor?
I am interested in your perception of current leadership as particularly more money grubbing than any other. What leads you to this conclusion?
[quote]deanec wrote:
I am interested in your perception of current leadership as particularly more money grubbing than any other. What leads you to this conclusion?
[/quote]
You mean, besides current events? I am even more interested in how you DON’T see them as “money grubbing”. You look at this administration and see great honesty, caring about your fellow man and an attempt to bring unity of thought in the United States? If your answer is, yes, discussing this any further would be a waste of my time. Your eyes clearly don’t see what mine do.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You mean, besides current events? I am even more interested in how you DON’T see them as “money grubbing”. You look at this administration and see great honesty, caring about your fellow man and an attempt to bring unity of thought in the United States? If your answer is, yes, discussing this any further would be a waste of my time. Your eyes clearly don’t see what mine do.
[/quote]
Avoided that question.
I personally do not see what you see, and in fact found the Clinton administration much more into power/money then the Bush administration, or any administration I can remember. (Back to Carter.)
[quote]Professor X wrote:
deanec wrote:
I am interested in your perception of current leadership as particularly more money grubbing than any other. What leads you to this conclusion?
You mean, besides current events? I am even more interested in how you DON’T see them as “money grubbing”. You look at this administration and see great honesty, caring about your fellow man and an attempt to bring unity of thought in the United States? If your answer is, yes, discussing this any further would be a waste of my time. Your eyes clearly don’t see what mine do.
[/quote]
I am asking for specifics. If you don’t wish to provide any, that is your choice. It is easy to throw around generalities, they are immune to analysis and discurage debate. Saying someone doesn’t care does not make it so. Unity of thought? Dissent and debate is what makes this country great. You and I can rationally look at the same issues and come to different conclusions.
I know that my upbringing and circumstances have colored my worldview. I am not right all the time. Either are you or anyone else. This thread contains a lot of mudslinging, but is painfully lacking in solutions. Being good at pointing out shortcomings doesn’t really do much to help. How would you do things differently, and why?
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You mean, besides current events? I am even more interested in how you DON’T see them as “money grubbing”. You look at this administration and see great honesty, caring about your fellow man and an attempt to bring unity of thought in the United States? If your answer is, yes, discussing this any further would be a waste of my time. Your eyes clearly don’t see what mine do.
Avoided that question.
I personally do not see what you see, and in fact found the Clinton administration much more into power/money then the Bush administration, or any administration I can remember. (Back to Carter.)
[/quote]
I didn’t think it was avoided. I simply wasn’t about to go searching for each and every topic we have discussed over the past year or so just to list for him what I have issues with. This is a discussion forum, not a term paper. I do believe my opinion on most issues is well documented in this forum. If anyone is confused, all they have to do is search my name.
As far as being power or money hungry, Carter was about to initiate a Patriot Act (pushed extremely hard) that granted so much power to the government? If it weren’t for a few people raising hell about it, there would have been no revisions made to it. The latest issue with the NSA vs the federal government for invasion of privacy even concerning internet web browsing just waltzes right past you and you relate this to what exactly in the Carter or Clinton admin?
[quote]deanec wrote:
How would you do things differently, and why?[/quote]
I wouldn’t have pushed the US into a war based on ‘faulty’ intel without allowing our investigators to finish their job. I would not have done this on the heels of 9/11 just so that I could gain the support of the masses who simply wanted blood due to a massive tragedy…even if Bin Laden has yet to be captured after 5 years.
I would not so blatantly enforce a “Patriot Act” that would appear to give the US government enough control to truly be dangerous to the people should the wrong leader ever actually walk into office and take full advantage of it. There are many more…but that is just for starters.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
deanec wrote:
How would you do things differently, and why?
I wouldn’t have pushed the US into a war based on ‘faulty’ intel without allowing our investigators to finish their job. I would not have done this on the heels of 9/11 just so that I could gain the support of the masses who simply wanted blood due to a massive tragedy…even if Bin Laden has yet to be captured after 5 years.
I would not so blatantly enforce a “Patriot Act” that would appear to give the US government enough control to truly be dangerous to the people should the wrong leader ever actually walk into office and take full advantage of it. There are many more…but that is just for starters.[/quote]
I look at the same circumstances and see it differently. What was the benefit for Bush to prosecute this war other than his stated reasons? Do we allow attacks on US soil to occur without repercussion? Did the ineffectiveness of the former administrations policies embolden acts of aggression against us? Do we want to be proactive or reactive in our policies against our enemies?
I suspect no amount of evidence would be considered enough by those who are against this action. Fair enough, if you don’t agree you don’t agree. However those who voted to enforce the resolutions should not be backtracking now. Hindsight is 20/20. How many resolutions have to be passed and how many times should they be broken before action is taken?
I don’t like a lot of the Patriot act either. However I suspect many who criticize this piece of legislation would be the first in line to blast the administration in the event of another attack on US soil. Decisions have to be made. I don’t like many of the Presidents policies. I do like the fact that he generally does not back down in the face of criticism and is not as prone as his immediate predecessor to govern via polling data.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I didn’t think it was avoided. I simply wasn’t about to go searching for each and every topic we have discussed over the past year or so just to list for him what I have issues with. This is a discussion forum, not a term paper. I do believe my opinion on most issues is well documented in this forum. If anyone is confused, all they have to do is search my name.
As far as being power or money hungry, Carter was about to initiate a Patriot Act (pushed extremely hard) that granted so much power to the government? If it weren’t for a few people raising hell about it, there would have been no revisions made to it. The latest issue with the NSA vs the federal government for invasion of privacy even concerning internet web browsing just waltzes right past you and you relate this to what exactly in the Carter or Clinton admin?[/quote]
I wasn’t relating anything to the Carter administration, but I was to the Clinton administration. Carter was just used to indicate my timeline.
In Clintons last budget, he did ask for $240 million to pay telephone companies to make wiretapping easier for the federal government. Doubled the budget to $100 million to enhance the “automated data processing and telecommunications and technical investigative equipment”. He blocked this countries development of encryption technology, and demanded a backdoor be given to the government to be able to decrypt everything. (This pretty much ruined the American encryption business.)
You do remember the attempt at taking over the medical industry, and how his wife actually made money by shorting shares in medical companies before making her speeches about doing this. (It was found she could not get in trouble because she didn’t actually work for the government.)
I remember how I originally was interested in voting for Clinton, and then watched him make speech after speech, completely contradicting himself over and over again. This person was willing to say anything to get power. And it worked. (Yes, I almost voted for Clinton.)
His administration got into hot water for accepting donations from China (interestingly before it was revealed they got their hands on our nuclear secrets,) plus all the questions about his brother selling pardons.
Bush doesn’t do everything right, but what he does really seems to be intended to fight terrorism. I trust he believes in his ideology, and that guides him. I have yet to see any real proof of the opposite. But I saw nothing of the sort with the Clinton Administration.
I believe Clinton would have run as a Republican if he thought it would have gotten him power. (I don’t think this of his wife though.) I do not believe he was actually following a Democratic agenda or ideology as much as trying to gain power. I do not believe this of any other Democrat or Republican currently in the House or Senate right now.
[quote]deanec wrote:
I look at the same circumstances and see it differently. What was the benefit for Bush to prosecute this war other than his stated reasons? [/quote]
The man is already wealthy and rich. I would assume he wants what most powerful and wealthy men want…more power. I don’t believe he acted with any intent of misleading the public, but rather full intent of using a tragedy as a springboard to launch his own agenda. The issue isn’t that went to war at all…it is how and when.
[quote]
Do we allow attacks on US soil to occur without repercussion? [/quote]
What does this have to do with Saddam?
[quote]
Did the ineffectiveness of the former administrations policies embolden acts of aggression against us?[/quote]
I would imagine that any actions would have emboldened our enemy. It isn’t like they are “afraid” of us now. They simply find it much harder to get through an airport. I feel that particular aspect could have been handled without war. That takes an increase in security and public knowledge of a threat. Again, America’s only enemies are not in Iraq.
[quote]
Do we want to be proactive or reactive in our policies against our enemies?[/quote]
That would depend on each individual case. The war in Iraq is “proactive”? We are fighting insurgents, not the ones who are already here in sleeper cells waiting for the right opportunity. These people aren’t that stupid. I know it makes some feel better to think of them as “idiots and cowards”, but I think it ill-prepares us for the possibility of another strike that may be planned for efficiently than the last.
[quote]
I suspect no amount of evidence would be considered enough by those who are against this action. [/quote]
Ridiculous. No American is hoping to just sit back and wait to be hit. The other perspective is the understanding that our efforts in Iraq aren’t what will prevent an attack on our own soil using our own resources as was done last time.
[quote]
Fair enough, if you don’t agree you don’t agree. However those who voted to enforce the resolutions should not be backtracking now. Hindsight is 20/20. How many resolutions have to be passed and how many times should they be broken before action is taken? [/quote]
It isn’t about never taking action. It is about choosing the right time when half of the country doesn’t believe that the war in Iraq was instigated due to the WTC tragedy. You can pretend that the tragedy wasn’t used to gain support for military action all you want to.
[quote]
I don’t like a lot of the Patriot act either. However I suspect many who criticize this piece of legislation would be the first in line to blast the administration in the event of another attack on US soil.[/quote]
Who cares? This isn’t supposed to even be about “protecting the image of your president”. It is about the freedom of the American people. Why do you associate them as if they are one in the same?
[quote]
Decisions have to be made. I don’t like many of the Presidents policies. I do like the fact that he generally does not back down in the face of criticism and is not as prone as his immediate predecessor to govern via polling data. [/quote]
Bush’s entire public speaking agenda lately would seem to indicate otherwise. I suspect polls are only ignored up to a point.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
In Clintons last budget, he did ask for $240 million to pay telephone companies to make wiretapping easier for the federal government. Doubled the budget to $100 million to enhance the “automated data processing and telecommunications and technical investigative equipment”.[/quote]
Wait, so he made sure that technology would be available if necessary? How does this relate directly to the issues now hitting the fan as far as actually using wire tapping and spying on internet searches of Americans? One president enhanced technology to be used if necessary. The other used it and it is still questionable as to how and why. I don’t consider either man a saint, but if we are looking at which action could be the most potentially dangerous to our own freedoms, you look at Clinton?
[quote]
He blocked this countries development of encryption technology, and demanded a backdoor be given to the government to be able to decrypt everything. (This pretty much ruined the American encryption business.)[/quote]
Please support this if you can. How does creating a backdoor to encryption data destroy the encryption business unless this info is given freely? Most systems are created initially with backdoors for designers to my limited knowledge as far as computer systems. I don’t claim to be an expert on encryption, but I’m not clueless to the tech either.
[quote]
You do remember the attempt at taking over the medical industry, and how his wife actually made money by shorting shares in medical companies before making her speeches about doing this. (It was found she could not get in trouble because she didn’t actually work for the government.) [/quote]
Take over the medical industry? How do you jump to that from shorting shares in medical companies? I am truly interested because that is a fairly large claim.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What are you even talking about here? Why do you feel “entitled” to anything? Aren’t we constantly hearing how blacks shouldn’t feel “entitled” to anything on these forums? But it is ok for conservatives?
You aren’t “entitled” to jack shit other than what you have already earned. If you aren’t wealthy right now, you are NOT entitled to be wealthy. You are not guaranteed to be wealthy. Therefore, you are not so much better than the very people you put yourself above. But I’m stupid?
[/quote]
Theres a breakthrough.
Now your starting to sound like a republican!
Atta Boy Professor. I knew you’d come around.
(checkmate)