It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Do Math! Feat. Herman Cain.

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WoundedByHonesty
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I am not going to quantify plain English. If you don't know what "free and clear" means, I cannot help you. You don't get it and by "it" I mean anything I am talking about. I tried. You failed. Good day.


Well are you going to dance around "free and clear"? Or are you going to explain what it means? A term or phrase isn't always "plain" English. You are pussy-footing around it. You can dance around it all you want, it just shows your lack of ability to actually engage in a discussion over what you posted.

But you are right. I don't get "it" and yet here I am asking you to explain, expound and clarify yet you failed to even do that by half ass attempt to brush me off. Fine by me. I gave up on ATS a long time ago but I always give things a second go around to see if maybe the "A" team wasn't on their game. Sadly by your ability to even fail to retain a conversation about your "suggestion" is telling that I was sadly wrong.




posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MentalGiant
The rediculousness of Herman Cains statement is only surpassed at this attempt to cloud the fact that herman cain doe4s not care about you or anyone who is not rich. The poster above seems to me one of those people who defend politicians, but does not have a clue about reality...Her Man cain could care less about the bloke above convoluting the Op's brilliant outing of Herman Cain.


Where do I start with this. First off, where do I come off defending politicians? I am asking the OP to clarify his post so that an actual discussion can occur rather than this ridiculous back and forth doesn't have to happen. But from your use of the English language and rhetoric, I think you are already in the tank for the "poor vs. rich" argument and language such as "herman cain doe4s not care about you or anyone who is not rich" or "Her Man cain...."; this last one says it all. Why argue facts when you can call names, even if it is not directed at another poster.


An infant can understand that the rich have stolen everything in the ast 10 years they could. From Bush's $785 Billion Bailout 2 months before he left, and Obamas $750 Bail Out to the banks to ramp up the ecomnomy and give them a cash injection so they can open up the doors again and start loaning money to people. This crap has not been done.


Since you quoted my whole post, I will infer that you are directing the rest of your post towards what I posted rather than expounding on the whole of the thread. I never once ever said that the People have not been screwed. We have been. Bankers and politicians alike have been running a game in the shadows. The collusion between the State and Corporations (please read as the mega conglomerates that have been skewing the market place in their favor) has been rampant and out of control for over the past 15 years and the makings of such has been in place for far longer than that.


The rich make a run on the money. Herman Cain will rape this guy as well. My 7 year old understands that herman Cainn is the wolf sent to the sheep who have to vote for the black guy but hates Obama Now. He is just a different type of the same loser.


I have no doubt that your 7 year old is smart as a whip. Mine are too. Both my sons actually. My post made no contentions nor endorsements of Mr. Cain's ideals nor arguments. It was a call to the OP to clarify and hone his argument and points. Both at which he has now just danced around in several posts.

But your words beg the question. Your 7 year old knows macroeconomics and can coherently and intelligently explain why Mr. Cain's (or any other candidate, politician or economists') ideas are right or wrong?
edit on 8-10-2011 by ownbestenemy because: Fixed grammatical errors.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

Dear ownbestenemy,

I share your confusion (although I think I know what "free and clear" means) and have only a tentative suggestion to offer. Based on the heat that's been generated by the discussion of math and the definition of "rich," I'm beginning to think that the problem lies elsewhere, in the interpretation of Mr. Cain's words.

I offer this only as a hypothesis, and desire WoundedByHonesty to offer any correction he feels necessary. Could it be that some are offended by the concept that lack of wealth is the responsibility of the poor? To put it more crudely, Mr.Cain is not allowing people to shift the blame.

Twelve-step programs require the participant to admit they have a problem before anything else is done. Is that what's being asked for here? Is the problem that it's hard to admit "I screwed up?"

The other possible objection to Mr. Cain's remarks is that they are overbroad. I agree. There are people who, by accident of birth, or injury, or disease, will have a vastly more difficult path than others. There are some who can't be rich, ever. But I still believe that objection does not defeat the thrust of his remarks. If there is someone to blame, it is not the system. It may be that being born with a diseased brain is to blame, but not Wall Street.

Anyway, that's a possibility. We'll see if it's worth discussing.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I share your confusion (although I think I know what "free and clear" means) and have only a tentative suggestion to offer. Based on the heat that's been generated by the discussion of math and the definition of "rich," I'm beginning to think that the problem lies elsewhere, in the interpretation of Mr. Cain's words.


First, thank you for your reply. I know you do not speak for anyone else other than yourself and are only engaging in the conversation at hand with the information and onions presented. Regardless, it is very much welcomed from my end.

Personally I have no contentions with what Mr. Cain stated. I am in the position that I am in because of me and my decisions. No bank or job has placed me here. My life choices have placed me here and to that, I can agree with the limited quoted remark that the OP made regarding Mr. Cain.



I offer this only as a hypothesis, and desire WoundedByHonesty to offer any correction he feels necessary. Could it be that some are offended by the concept that lack of wealth is the responsibility of the poor? To put it more crudely, Mr.Cain is not allowing people to shift the blame.


Your assertion may very well be correct. It is actually a much deeper question that cannot be solved with one saying this is rich and this is poor while someone like me questions that assertion. This is why I offered my opinion that "rich" or the status or monetary suggestion of what is "rich" is subjective.

Twelve-step programs require the participant to admit they have a problem before anything else is done. Is that what's being asked for here? Is the problem that it's hard to admit "I screwed up?"



The other possible objection to Mr. Cain's remarks is that they are overbroad. I agree. There are people who, by accident of birth, or injury, or disease, will have a vastly more difficult path than others. There are some who can't be rich, ever.


I have to object to this premise. While I do understand it, I have seen people that were "consigned" to a life where society has deemed them as forever "poor"; rise up and obtain wealth in a manner in which they were deemed rich. To say some people will never be "rich" is the define what is "rich". The whole point being is: What is the amount of one that is "rich"? It is subjective.



But I still believe that objection does not defeat the thrust of his remarks. If there is someone to blame, it is not the system. It may be that being born with a diseased brain is to blame, but not Wall Street.

Anyway, that's a possibility. We'll see if it's worth discussing.

With respect,
Charles1952


Charles; your remarks and opinion on this end are highly appreciated. Even if we were not to disagree, I am a firm believer in hearing it all. Yes I seek explanation and focus on ones opinions. Yes I will question people even if I agree with their premise.

I do not discount the OP's remarks, only seek clarification and seek to dig deeper into his argument and discussion. Unfortunately as I perceive their responses, they do not want to actually go deeper than what they have posted.

Best wishes Charles; OBE



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
OK... if clarification is really needed, I will give it. I will even do so respectfully.

If you have one million dollars in your wallet in cash money, it is "free and clear."

Is that clear? It is literally impossible to discuss taxes that may be applied as you spend that cash money. The sales tax in Cali is not the same as in New Hampshire, nor the property tax, etc.

So can we please let go of the mathematical argument that I was using as a simple example of Herman Cain's lack of understanding of one basic concept? IT IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR EVERYBODY TO BE RICH!!!

I am saddened that my post has failed to make it's proper point, and that is my own fault. Dummies don't help, but such is life. Herman Cain said something that is literally impossible, and I demonstrated it by using an example of hypothetical numbers, but the logic is sound. Please produce math that proves it IS possible for every American to be rich. I don't mind criticism, but I do mind misrepresentation of the argument.

I hope that helps to clarify the situation.


edit on 8-10-2011 by WoundedByHonesty because: ocd ^^



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Dear ownbestenemy,

Let me assure you that this exchange is a delight for me. Allow me to clear up the one or two points of misunderstanding which I caused. The easy one first.

I know a young lady, her body is 15 years old, but her mind? Who knows? She is still working on forming her first word. At the age of six weeks her father crushed her skull with a claw hammer. The doctors gave her six months to live. She can sometimes walk a few yards on her own, she smiles, and makes sounds. She is fed through a tube in her stomach.

In any economic sense she will never be rich. She will never own anything or have any money. If that is the sense that WoundedByHonesty means when he uses "rich," I have to agree that Mr. Cain's statement was an over-generalization. But in the subjective sense, she is rich. Food, clothing, housing, medical care, safety, and companionship are all hers.

May I offer a suggestion for getting around the definitional problem? Notice, not a solution, just a way to get around it. Let's try assigning three different definitions to "rich" and see what happens.

If "rich" is a state of satisfaction with what we have, even if it's very little cash or assets, then Mr. Cain is absolutely right. It is not a problem involving Wall Street or banks.

If "rich" means not living in poverty, but having a modest income sufficient to supply things that 90% of the world envies, then I think Mr. Cain is correct again (except for the girl in my example).

If "rich" is the top 1% of America in assets, I would submit that this is not what Mr. Cain intended his remarks to mean. Still, if you took an average young, college student (which is who he was talking to after all) I can easily see them having a million dollars in assets at the end of a forty year career.

As I understand you, I can't see any areas of significant disagreement between us.

If my thinking in these areas is correct, then it becomes harder to see what WoundedByHonesty's objection is. I hope he, or his representative, comes back to explain things.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by WoundedByHonesty
 

It's difficult to know how to respond to your thread. My post was a discussion with ownbestenemy on the definition of the word "rich." As I'm sure you know, an argument can only proceed logically if there is an agreement as to the meaning of words.

In your opening post you chose a definition for "rich" that onebestenemy disagreed with. I thought you were putting words into Mr. Cain's mouth, making a "straw man" argument. Resolving these questions are essential to discussing your conclusion.

We have been treating your argument as though it were serious, and analyzing it as anyone would. Your anger is misplaced. I was hoping that you would work with us to find common ground.

My understanding is that you can't cancel your membership by any single act, but not logging in for 30 days does trigger something. You may want to U2U one of the Mods.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
alrighty fact everyone is created equal in this country but that is not a guarantee of equal outcome for every single person living here.

you cant legislate wealth or success they are only obtained from your own actions it is a simple concept


“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” — Benjamin Franklin


Ya!

Neo has his hopes on the trillionaire, because billionaires fear their heating bills in the winter



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
wow if thats not ironic, the OP talking about others making no point.

FYI OP, you did do this wrong. and you should be pretty embarrassed by the logic beatdown you got from ownbestenemy.

you have literally NO POINT at all, just some ridiculous straw man argument about something i dont think Cain even said.

or did i miss the part where he said everyone CAN be rich at the same time (your straw man argument)? im pretty sure, especially if you just look at your provided quotation of "Don't blame Wall Street. Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself.", that he simply said that instead of blaming others about your financial means, you should blame yourself. and i know that because he said "blame yourself" very clearly.

perhaps i missed the rest of his speech though, and he really did somewhere say that everyone can, and should be rich or whatever your argument is supposedly about? but probably not. ive seen the interview where he said that, and not a mention anywhere about your argument.

so 1, you have no argument. Cain never stated that. you made it up.
2. who cares what your opinion on who is "rich" is?
3. there is no such thing as "free and clear" money. period. and if there is, it doesnt matter, because money you are literally doing NOTHING with, means just that. NOTHING. in your example, if you have a million dollars in your theoretical wallet, but cant spend it, because it would ruin your theoretical "free and clear". then the million dollars means nothing. you cant spend it, and you cant invest it or do anything with it because it will no longer be "free and clear". it might as well be toilet paper.
4. mr Cain is not blaming his employees at his pizza chain for anything. he did however take the worst performing market for the chain and turn it around into the best performing in under 2 years (if i recall correctly, might be off there)
5. 1 million in your pocket is not really "rich" anymore.
6. to even assume that money should be equally distributed, or whatever your point about the total circulated money being equally split up is supposed to be, is rather socialist dont you think?
7. again, Cain never said anything about everyone being rich. he said that people should take responsibility for their own actions.


im guessing OP claims to be a liberal of some sort. typical attitude of one at least.


edit: charles beat me to pointing out your straw man BS. doh. though really, anybody who is capable of thinking for themselves would easily spot that too.










edit on 9-10-2011 by pngxp because: slow typer



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by WoundedByHonesty
reply to post by charles1952
 


With all due respect, what, in the name of anything that anybody considers to be holy, are you talking about? Do you think for one second that Herman Cain is talking about girls and hammers? Are you stark-raving incompetent when it come to discussing salient issues? Do you know what the word "CONTEXT" means? I give up... again. It just isn't worth my time. How does one unsubscribe from ATS? Congrats, I want to leave, it figures the least intelligent people would show up to make no point whatsoever. This is such an intelligence operation... I would know, I'm going to school for it. Nice to know you, ATS ^^


I agree Wounded. This place is full of convoluted BS, it is sickening. The people responding to your posts have got to be intentionally polluting your thread because noone can be that stupid. They post 1,000 word replies but say absolutly nothing. They add weird context to your thread, they add weird isolated personal stories to your generalized thread. They add "personal opinions" of what is rich in ones heart and all that carap to your thread.

No worries, your point is well taken and easily read. herman cain is misdirecting the issues intentionally, shifting the blame to the receivers of evil policy, and clearly showing elitist shatus with his statement.

In my opinion, any one posting here in your thread (whether agreeing with you or not) that does not understand your point in the original post has to be intentionally "convoluting your message", because your message is very clear.

I havent found a way to "unregister" either. This place is an intelligence operation. Now I just hang around and abuse the ones I believe to be a part of the disinformation campaign. Maybe they will ban me one day, and I can finally bury the hatchet on this place.

FYI, in my opinion, you made your point. When someone starts disceting your math, it is because the get your point and are trying to derail the point. Childplay 1+1=2



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by WoundedByHonesty
OK... if clarification is really needed, I will give it. I will even do so respectfully.

If you have one million dollars in your wallet in cash money, it is "free and clear."

Is that clear? It is literally impossible to discuss taxes that may be applied as you spend that cash money. The sales tax in Cali is not the same as in New Hampshire, nor the property tax, etc.


Ha! Fantastic. Okay so you are equating "rich" to the physical circulation of money and to this I agree with your premise that not everyone can be "rich" and have such amount of cash on hand. But that is and has never been how "rich" and wealth has ever been defined.


So can we please let go of the mathematical argument that I was using as a simple example of Herman Cain's lack of understanding of one basic concept? IT IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR EVERYBODY TO BE RICH!!!


Wait -- the title of this thread is "Let's Do Math!" yet when someone questions your premise and discussion points you now change the course of discussion and proclaim "let go of the mathematical argument". So what is it? Do you want posters to look at your math and look at your logic or do you want them to not look at that and attach to the emotional argument?


I am saddened that my post has failed to make it's proper point, and that is my own fault. Dummies don't help, but such is life.


So much for that respectfulness you claimed you would bring in this very reply.


Herman Cain said something that is literally impossible, and I demonstrated it by using an example of hypothetical numbers, but the logic is sound. Please produce math that proves it IS possible for every American to be rich. I don't mind criticism, but I do mind misrepresentation of the argument.


Okay if that is now your argument then we now have clarity. How does Mr Cain's statements, which never said that ALL people can be rich, but rather don't pass the buck on your situation in life without first looking at your own personal choices, equate to this argument you are making?

--From the inferred "dummy"



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


To such as I agree. I never intended to get into a game of semantics; nor attempted to derail the OPs thread. The initial response I opened with was to understand what exactly was the OP trying to convey.

Since they are using conjecture and taking the context of what Mr. Cain said and using to for his own argument, I just felt some clarification was needed.

I agree that there are different degrees of and different views of the word and definition of "rich". Finding out what exactly the OP has in mind, which I believe we finally did in his latest response now at least puts this thread on course for a discussion; but my guess is I am still on of the "dummies" he so respectfully explained his "logically sound" argument with.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I would say I am surprised that the OP decided to abandon his thread; but then again, I truly am not. The OP was confronted on their premise and when they could not coherently present it, they dodged, attacked and ran away.

So to the OP. What in the snippet (and even full interview that the snippet was derived from) have to entail with every single person in the United States of America being "rich"?

You started with a math problem and then stated "drop the math" when challenged and questioned. Why?

Drive by ATS'ers at their finest is what I believe.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join