I say that because I'm actuallly hoping he's intelligent enough to realize that I'm not making any racist comments, and intelligent enough NOT to be one of those kinds of people. See? Although, all he (she?) does in reply to my post is quote Shakespeare, not really explain his (her?) position. 

Geez.

 

Granted, his comment wasn't constructive by any means.

If you meant nothing by the *you people* comment then the simplest and most logical thing to say was something to the effect that you didn't mean it that way even though that particular turn of a phase was perhaps not your best choice of words. That would have pretty much been the end of the story.

However instead you chose to respond with the implication that anyone that could possibly take what you said in a negative light must be lacking in intelligence, be overly sensitive and/or literal, and, be of questionable masculinity.

The point of the quote is that the greater the vehemence of the denial, the less likely that denial is to be true.

As far as my position on the OP let’s just say that I sympathize far more with people that are concerned about being able to save enough money for retirement than I am about bonuses and raises to highly paid executives of companies that received TARP assistance. But this is just an expression of the basic difference between how I view things versus the bias typically expressed on this site.

The funny thing is that I suspect that of those that are so protective of the rights of the “rich” to become “richer”, the predominate group are those that hope to some day be rich but in reality have no real chance at achieving it as opposed to those that are, or actually may become rich, whereas I’m more protective of what I consider to be the “middle class” even though my income makes me what many would consider rich. Ironic heh?

"questionable masculinity."--mumble

I said this because I really don't know your gender; I haven't really been paying that close attention.

As to everything else, no....there was no racism intended. I personally see nothing wrong with people being rich, and don't question the possibility that someone could, still, become so. Look at that amoral goofball who started the "Girls Gone Wild" series; not exactly a rags to riches tale, but fairly close. All you still have to do is work at it; either apply yourself and make the effort in an established field, or happen to find some marketable service or product, and apply yourself there. Of course, here in the next few years, even that avenue could be closed.

My problem was that, from two completely innocuous words, "you people", you seemed to brand me as a racist. I know people like that; I work with such a woman. A very rude, self-serious black lady, always looking for reasons to be offended; and that irritates me. In my experience, people who do so are "of questionable intelligence".

I don't recall ever using the term racist here. It seems that you intuited as much simply from my repetition of your two innocuous words. It seems that perhaps they aren't quite as innocuous as you pretend.

You clearly are struggling to make your arguments convincing, if you keep trying perhaps you will be successful in convincing yourself.

RW you're being baited, you don't have to play the semantics game.

Yeah; I guess you're right. I was playing along, trying to give mumbles credit, thinking maybe we just weren't connecting here, but.....

Thanks, Nitro, for reminding me that some people just aren't worth the effort.

NP. I'm not coming down on anyone, everyone here has their own style of banter, that's cool. it's up to the individual to roll with it or not.

 

*sighs* That really comes across as such a cop-out. Why not address it? Debate and discuss much anyone...?I didn't realize forums were for ideological pats on the backs.

 

Be well, ~Alderic

 

 

 

What's to debate? It's off topic and rude to hijack someone else's article for such purpose. I realize some enjoy the sideshows, but their jollies don't need to take priority.

 

Mmm, I just felt it was on topic because it was concerning the structure of the debate. *shrugs* Whatever.

Excellent.

That makes the compensation system more transparent.

So what's the problem now? Obama did something useful and now the left are angry at him too?