The Holy Republican Empire?

[merrylander]

Ay Dios Mio.

[glen65]

Originally Posted by noonereal

The poor also have to pay more for insurance on the car. They pay more for food. It's way stacked against the poor.

Are you saying the poor have to pay higher premiums?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by glen65

Depends on the context, Pete was talking strictly in terms of monetary purchasing power
brought about by increased financial wealth. In that context the wealthy obviously have more
choices.

I was speaking about the grammatical error. Because choices are something one could enumerate, less is not a proper modifier - the correct word is fewer. They have fewer choices, not less. I was giving Pete a hard time, because - well because he is Pete. I know he can take it, and I fully expect him to dish it back out.

When you have people who like to debate, you can see arguments about further - farther; accept - except; affect - effect; fewer - less; lay - lie; and my favorite "very unique."

Regards,

D-Ray

[glen65]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

One doesn't necessarily need to have lots of money, or fancy things to be fortunate,nor is one necessarily poor if he has little money, but does have good friends and a family who loves him.

I wish more people understood this.

Dave

No argument here,
But I don't see anyone here really suggesting that lots of money
is the key to happiness.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

First, I want to say thanks for answering my questions honestly. Your second paragraph, however, took a huge jump in logic. If you followed the slave analogy through (As some tea partiers have), having to buy health insurance, having to buy auto insurance, having federal funds tied to particular policies (i.e. equal opportunities in school, or working on federal buildings), or having to list ingredients on products turns us into slaves. I'd trade that type of slavery for wondering whether you are going to keep the heat on because you were laid off to increase the CEO's bonus; or figuring out if you can afford to drive while Exxon made $45 billion in profit last year.

Regards,

D-Ray

I wasn't saying we are slaves (although?), just pointing out a comfortable slavery is still slavery, and a robust culture would rather have rough freedom.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Pete, I'm not picking on you - well yes I am, but you're used to it - but the above is one of my pet grammatical peeves. The poor might have less money, and IMHO less freedom but they don't have less choices. They have FEWER choices. They have less money, but fewer dollars.

At least you did not use the abomination "very unique" or you might have faced capital punishment.

Regards,

D-Ray

We have a very unique situation here

And dang it, I know there's a mad hatter paraphrase in there somewhere but I can't find it.

When I look at this: 'the poor have less choices than the rich' I get the feeling there may be another mistake, perhaps it should be 'the poor have less choice than the rich'. Close enough for gov't work, more or fewer

Pete

Sticker on gas pump: 'Please Prepay in Advance'

[glen65]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I was speaking about the grammatical error. Because choices are something one could enumerate, less is not a proper modifier - the correct word is fewer. They have fewer choices, not less. I was giving Pete a hard time, because - well because he is Pete.

Despite grammar used in the post the main point was clear enough.

I know he can take it, and I fully expect him to dish it back out.

Then the question becomes "can you take it"?
And when he or someone else does dish it out
are you going to take your negative view of that
person and drag it back to the audio forum?

When you have people who like to debate, you can see arguments about further - farther; accept - except; affect - effect; fewer - less; lay - lie; and my favorite "very unique."

I generally don't waste a bunch of time picking apart grammar and spelling.
If I see something and don't understand I'll simply ask him to elaborate or rephrase.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by glen65

Then the question becomes "can you take it"?
And when he or someone else does dish it out
are you going to take your negative view of that
person and drag it back to the audio forum?

Where did that come from?

You certainly misread my posts. Pete and I disagree a lot, but I also respect him a lot. Pete has an interesting sense of humor, and I expected the type of fun, in your face, response I got from him. I try to keep my disagreements here civil, and even more so on the audio side. One of the people whose views over here I have the least respect for, is someone whose audio ideas and contributions I greatly respect.

What I have a lot of trouble respecting are arguments from someone who would parrot Boss Rush or the Court Jester over at Fox, and not have any evidence or logic to back it up.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I wasn't saying we are slaves (although?), just pointing out a comfortable slavery is still slavery, and a robust culture would rather have rough freedom.

Pete

Sticker on gas pump: 'Please Prepay in Advance'

Pete, do you believe that there is something like economic slavery? If so, in what circumstances do you think it would exist?

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Where did that come from?

You certainly misread my posts. Pete and I disagree a lot, but I also respect him a lot. Pete has an interesting sense of humor, and I expected the type of fun, in your face, response I got from him. I try to keep my disagreements here civil, and even more so on the audio side. One of the people whose views over here I have the least respect for, is someone whose audio ideas and contributions I greatly respect.

What I have a lot of trouble respecting are arguments from someone who would parrot Boss Rush or the Court Jester over at Fox, and not have any evidence or logic to back it up.

Regards,

D-Ray

Thanks D. You're alright - for a commie lawyer

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Pete, do you believe that there is something like economic slavery? If so, in what circumstances do you think it would exist?

Regards,

D-Ray

Company towns spring to mind, heck any real monopoly. And government control over economic activity - 'legal' monopoly.

Pete

[glen65]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Where did that come from?

You certainly misread my posts. Pete and I disagree a lot, but I also respect him a lot. Pete has an interesting sense of humor, and I expected the type of fun, in your face, response I got from him. I try to keep my disagreements here civil, and even more so on the audio side. One of the people whose views over here I have the least respect for, is someone whose audio ideas and contributions I greatly respect.

What I have a lot of trouble respecting are arguments from someone who would parrot Boss Rush or the Court Jester over at Fox, and not have any evidence or logic to back it up.

Regards,

D-Ray

It was simply a question,
I based around what you said earlier when you said this...

I was giving Pete a hard time, because - well because he is Pete. I know he can take it, and I fully expect him to dish it back out.

So here you are clearly telling me that you are giving
him a hard time simply because of 1, who he is and
2, because he can take it. Well ok, if he can take it fine.
I simply asked the question can you take it when and if he
decides to throw some of it back at you.