Man you make it way too easy man. This is almost so easy that it's fun. First of all. I like how you did not respond to any of my points on the last two posts. I think I put your Neil Cavuto rant to rest. That was easy. Your idea that we were debt free under Clinton, that was easy. To be totally honest with you, you are one of the easiest guys to rip apart on ET because you never back up your statements with facts and when facts get presented to you you run to the race card and just completely ignore them. My statement about Jews in south Florida was 100% correct. I'm not going to be politically correct here because I'm not a sellout. I will speak my mind. You can cry about it later. So I will know back up my statements. Feel free to respond but I don't think you will because you have no argument. The first link is about the percentage of jewish voters who vote democratic. These are the facts. http://gcruse.typepad.com/the_owners_manual/2004/01/whither_the_jew.html Gore received 95% of Jewish voters over 65 years old and 82.4% of those 30 to 49. Average percentage of the Jewish vote won by the Democratic presidential candidate in the 1980s: 59 Average percentage since then: 79 For most of the 20th century the Jewish vote has simply not been in play. The last Republican candidate for President to carry it was Warren G. Harding in 1920. By 1928, Jews had moved overwhelmingly over to the Democratic Party in response to the candidacy of New York Governor Al Smith, the first Roman Catholic to be nominated for President. Smith lost (his religion was a big factor), but Jews stuck with the Democrats from that point on. There have been eighteen Presidential elections since 1928 and the Jewish vote for the Democrats has averaged above 70 per cent. The only other ethnic group offering such consistent support to the Democrats has been the African-American community OK, now let's move over to south Florida, this link will show you clearly the impact the Jewish vote has on south Florida. Enjoy RS! http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.10.18/news5.html Wolfson, whose home is in Palm Beach County, is not alone in her consternation. Throughout South Florida counties of Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Broward, where Jewish seniors like Wolfson comprise a sizeable percentage of the vote. While Jewish voters gave much of their primary vote to McBride's opponent, Clinton-era Attorney General Janet Reno, they tend to be staunch New Deal Democrats and will certainly support their party's nominee; indeed, they may give McBride the 80-85% of their vote that went to Gore, she said. http://www.bethyeshurun.org/democrat.htm There you go buddy. Now are you going to tell me that most Jews don't vote democrat? Now are you going to tell me that Jewish people do not make a sizeable percentage of the vote from Palm Beach county and Broward county? LOL. It's kind of hard when you get beat upside the head with facts isn't it? What are you going to say now? Oh yeah, I must hate Jewish people because I know their voting record. Yup, you got me. I state some facts that really hurt your argument and you pull out the race card. Nice. typical liberal stunt. That's why republicans can't mention poverty and african americans in the same sentence or liberals will call them racists. So instead we just pretend there are no poor black people. LOL. Seriously buddy, I know it's hard to make an argument when I use facts and you use rhetoric. Like I said, this is why you are one of the easiest people to debate on ET. Some of my other debaters actually come back at me with facts and therefore make my job a lot more challenging, but not you. LMAO.
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/11/palm_beach/index.html Cornelius Vanderbilt, William Rockefeller and their friends who once lived and played in the wildly wealthy town of Palm Beach -- a Republican fortress separated from rest of the county by a waterway -- must be rolling over in their burial vaults. The money is still here -- there's no GAP or Banana Republic on the main drag of Worth Avenue, only Chanel, Valentino, Armani and Gucci. But the local political power has gone "across the bridge to the mainland," as people here call it. Liberal elderly Jews have been pouring into the county steadily since the 1960s, joining the area's growing black community. In 1992 and 1996, they helped Bill Clinton win landslide victories in Palm Beach County. According to the first tally of the 2000 vote, they endowed Al Gore with an even larger winning margin -- 117,000 votes more than George W. Bush. "We have an historic alliance, the blacks and Jews," the Rev. Jesse Jackson said Thursday night in a fiery speech inside the New Macedonia Baptist Church in a black political stronghold "across the bridge." He cited a long history of Jewish and black cooperation for civil rights causes. The alliance Jackson is advocating would have been impossible 30 years ago. And the change in the politics of Palm Beach has been caused, more than anything, by the astounding immigration of Jews to the county.
OK dg, how would you re-phrase that? Based on the link I posted that said that Jews were quote "pouring in" to Palm Beach county. I used the term flooded, they used the term pouring in. See, this is childish. This is one of the things I hate about this country. I have to edit my words and we have to be so damn politically correct. Of course if the left does it, that's fine. No harm no foul. But I ask you again. How would you say that to convey the exact same meaning?
Oh and please tell me who is outraged over this statement? Although since it's coming from one of the boards perennial liberals, nobody will say anything. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=422505#post422505 "Imagine if Gore had a southern boy like Edwards in 2000, rather than the walking dead "jew boy" Liberman." Jew boy? Come on guys, where is the outrage here? Do I smell hypocrisy?
You really are an idiot. Throw around statistics all you want. What do they mean? You are so brilliant and I am "making it too easy"...OK, fine; what exactly am I making easy? I know you must be trying to make a point, but so far whatever it is has eluded anyone who has read your completely incoherent and constantly stereotypical and completely inaccurate essays. Which are pathetically devoid of reason and logic. You did your "Jewish capital of the country" rant, but WTF did it have to do with anything else you were trying to get across? Your "argument" is obviously in your own head. I have no idea what your point is. You said "liberals really really hate rich people". So WTF is the relationship between THAT statement, and the "flooded with Jews" concept? Are you trying to say that rich liberal Jews are somehow exempt from your hypothesis? And if so, why do you suppose that is? I will save you the very strenuous (for you) process of actual thought. I wouldn't want you to strain your tiny little brain. The explanation is really very simple. It is completely due to the very obvious fact that what you said is just not true. Simple enough for even you to understand? Gotta be real close. Get a clue. RS Again, I apologize to idiots the world over for calling Maverick one. I really did not mean to be like Maverick and stereotype anyone. Not even idiots.
RS, this is your quote, not mine, read it again: "And finally, due to the work my wife is involved in, I know or have met virtually all the very richest people in Palm Beach, one of the wealthiest communities on the planet. As far as I can tell, more of them vote Democrat than Republican. Sorry to be the bearer of this sad news." You basically said that the Palm Beach county and Broward county are very rich. To this we agree. You then stated that they vote primarily democrat. To this we also agree. I then went further and stated that the reason they voted democrat was not because they are rich, but because they are Jewish. I then backed up that claim with a few links. You have not backed up the claim that they are not. The reason for this is that you can't back it up. I have many friends down there. I have spent a lot of time in south Florida and I have provided you with links indicating such. There is nothing you can say to this. So the reason I brought the Jewish angle in was you were trying to tell me that rich people should not vote democrat if my argument is true, but I then explained to you why in this particular case they do. You can ignore this all you want, but Jewish people in this country have primarily supported democrats. And older Jewish voters almost entirely so. South Florida has a very large over 55 population and also a very large Jewish population. The numbers don't lie. If you don't believe me go to www.florida.gov and look at the demographics. Numbers don't lie. And once again, you have not refuted one single point I have made now in the last 4 posts. Every statement you make, every post you write, I dissect it and tear it apart and you have absolutely nothing to say in response except to call me names and accuse me of anti-semitism. I find that disgusting. But that is neither here nor there. Let me know if you ever decide to post some FACTS to back up any of your arguments. You know what facts are right, not rhetoric, but facts. I don't care where you get the information. Just post something, anything that refutes what I have said. Don't call me names, don't throw the race card at me, don't throw mud at the wall, just respond with facts. And you know, facts have a very funny way of winning arguments. They are clean, they are simple, they are self explanatory. Why don't you try finding some and maybe you will gain some credibility here. Otherwise you can only hope to go so far.
I have no need to go anywhere with you. Nor to prove anything. You have already done this for me. Your claim was that "liberals" and "Democrats" really really hate rich people" Now you say this isn't true IF THEY HAPPEN TO BE JEWISH. WHY IS THAT? The answer is that it suits your argument, which just AIN'T TRUE. You made a ridiculous claim. " 'Liberals' and Democrats really really HATE rich people". You come back and force an argument. What does the fact that Jewish people vote Democrat have to do with WHAT YOU SAID ABOUt LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS HATING RICH PEOPLE??????? Absolutely NOTHING! But you come on here celebrating that you have "won" your point? HOW????? Perhaps if you explained WHY Jews are the exception to "Democrats that really really hate rich people" THEN you could claim your "victory". Until then, you have said NOTHING to support your contention. You have only gone to prove your ignorance. RS
OK, let me explain this further. First of all, let's leave the Jewish thing out of this for a moment. The only reason I brought that up was because you mentioned all the rich people you know in Palm Beach that vote democrat. I then told you that is primarily because of the size of the Jewish population there, not because they are rich! OK, back to the rich people point. Let me amend that statement slightly to help you better understand. Let's remove the word rich and replace it with the word wealthy capitalists because I do think there is a distinction here. For the most part, most, not all, but most democrats shun wealthy capitalists if only for the reason that they don't have the same belief system. See capitalists generally believe in a winner take all attitude, survival of the fittest type of thing. They don't mind living in a world were some people make a billion dollars and some people go hungry. Afterall, in the game of capitalism, those that get rich, tend to do so at the expense of others. Much like trading. Although trading is not completely a zero sum game, as far as speculators are concerned, it is. We can't all get rich trading. Someone has to be giving their money to us. Same thing with capitalism. When Walmart opens a superstore in a small town in Ohio, five mom and pop stores go under. Capital is being transferred from the mom and pop stores to Walmart. This is capitalism. The restaurant industry is another example of this. There are only so many people that go out to eat on a regular basis. If I open up a restaurant across the street from yours, I might take all your business away. If I do, my wealth is being created at your expense. Do you follow? So in a capitalistic society, we have winners and losers. The winners can win very very big and the losers can lose very very big. Some of the consequences of living in this type of society is high crime, high poverty, high cost of education and expensive healthcare costs. Now, people on the right are ok with this because the rules of the game are known. And there is a sense of fairness to it, i.e. those that work hard and get a good education and obey the laws tend to be rewarded. But due to the mentality of a capitalistic society we have a very large game being played. And with this game comes game theory which I'm sure you are aware. With game theory we have a set of choices in which every person in society is trying to find the most optimal outcome. What you choose to do will affect what I choose to do. This translates very closely with trading. Some participants in this game will be inclined to cheat. We know this and this might lead us to cheat as well to get ahead of them. This is what leads us to the Enrons and the Global Crossings of the world, the corporate corruption. I could go on and on with this example but I think you see my point. Most democrats don't like this game. Why? Well lets look at this a little more closely. Who makes up a large part of the democratic base, Union workers, teachers, minorities, low income workers. These people tend to not benefit in a capitalistic society. In fact, one could argue they they are the ones who actually suffer the most in this type of society. So in general, note the word in general, they have a dislike for capitalism. And why shouldn't they. Wouldn't you dislike a system that profited at the expense of your suffering? Of course you would, this is only logical. Now, the rich people who tend not to be hated by the left tend to be be lawyers and doctors. Why? Because they are seen as doing good for society, providing a needed service. Lawyers are often seen as the great hope for the poor because they are the ones that have the ability to bring equality to society through lawsuits and litigation. So this brings me back to my original point. In general, democrats do not like capitalism as a whole, they in general would prefer a more socialistic form of society. Now don't get excited, I'm not saying they want full blown socialism, but rather a more socialistic leaning society if you will. Capitalists on the other hand want to get as far away from socialism as they can. For there is nothing for them to gain and everything for them to lose in that kind of society. So again to make my point, when I say democrats don't like rich people, what I am saying is that democrats for the most part do not like wealthy capitalists. They don't mind wealthy lawyers, doctors, university professors, actors, you get the point. I lived in NY for two years. I met people from all walks of life. But since I worked on Wall Street and around traders that was my crowd. And I could not find one guy, now I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm just saying I could not find one guy that was wealthy and in the business world that was a democrat. I know there are some, I just didn't meet any. Same is true when I lived in Florida, and other places that I have lived. If you want to argue this issue, make some valid points against what I just said. Don't attack me, don't call me names, don't tell me how young I am, don't tell me I'm ignorant, just make an argument. Use facts if they are available. You know I am right about this. You may not agree with it and that's fine, but you know I am right.
"You know I am right"...LOL. You borrowed a little slogan from Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign? He lost in a landslide too! I don't understand how you fail to see that you keep contradicting yourself. And yes, I apologize for calling you an "idiot". That was wrong. However it was partly in response to ME having been called a lot worse by those who only disagree with my political beliefs. Or believe they do, since they assume I am a "liberal" because I have said that I find a tremendous lack of leadership and integrity with GWB. That seems to be enough to cause some here to vilify me. Back to your hypothesis. You yourself have really disproved your own statement. The one statement I claimed to be absurd. Completely false and completely irrational. And that is that "Democrats and 'liberals" really really hate rich people". I cannot understand how you can be so thick-headed as to not see this. And again, while you have said you will "leave the Jews" out of this for now, you failed to explain how and why the Jews would be an exception to your "rule". It was a big victory for you to have found out WHY the rich people in Palm Beach vote for Democrats: Because they are Jewish. But you completely ignored the real issue. Which is WHAT DOES THEIR BEING JEWISH HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? They are rich. They vote for Democrats. Period. They clearly do not "really really hate rich people". THIS is the point I was arguing. So why not address it? Answer: You can't. There is no way to address it and keep your "beliefs" valid. You even seem to go out of your way to find poor examples to make your points. For example, if I sold underwear and socks, certainly I would not want a competing retail business that also sold underwear and socks to open across the street from my business. But somehow, you managed to use the most outstanding exception to the rule by citing the restaurant business as an example. AMAZING!!!!! Really, you could have gone through a list of every possible business on the planet, and not have found a worse example. I owned a restaurant. And the more restaurants that opened or were in business in close proximity to my establishment, the better. If you want reasons for this, I would be happy to accommodate you. But that is for another time and place. Just suffice it to say that you seem to have a magic touch for shooting yourself in the foot. So far you have managed to disprove your own point about who "really really hates the rich", by using your non-argument (and non resolved reasoning) of explaining that Jews are the exception to your hypothesis. With NO explanation of how this could possibly validate your assertion. (When in truth, it more than helps to disprove it). Again....Just for fun....WHY do Jews vote for Democrats? Why do the Democrats seem to carry the states with the most wealth? Again, are rich people self-hating? Look at the map of which states virtually always are carried by the Democratic candidate in the electoral college. How is this explained? How many blue collar union workers are there in Connecticut? Massachusetts? How much of the wealth is in New York and California? Then tell me about all the wealthy "capitalists" in the places that Republican candidates always carry. How many wealthy people in the Dakotas? Utah? Wyoming? Montana? West Virginia? Kansas? Nevada (excluding the Jew Steve Wynn)? Just look at the map of which states were carried by which candidate. Explain how you can make your argument given reality. If you can make a reasonable (not even necessarily convincing) argument to explain why Jews are the exception to your rule, or if you can make a reasonable argument as to why the states with the most wealth (highest mean and medium incomes) vote Democrat, then I will award you victory in your "debate" with me. I will admit to defeat. OK? Is that not fair? But the rules must apply. You can not just "prove" your point by claming to have "won"...By saying it's "too easy"...Making proclamations means nothing. Making sense means everything. You used statistics to "prove" that Jews vote for Democrats. Fine. ...in WHAT WAY does this go to help your case in the "really really hate rich people" absurdity? So far, you have managed not only to not make sense, but to just contradict your own arguments. (and to add a little spice to the incredible nonsense, you managed to use the restaurant business to make your point....the ONE business that really is an exception to what would have otherwise been a somewhat logical, though irrelevant argument). How do you manage to find ways to destroy your own points so thoroughly? Or are you just putting us all on? Are you really intentionally trying to make the "conservatives" outlook look ridiculous? If that's the case, then congratulations. You had me really going. And I have to hand it to you. You made your point and did it far better than I ever could have. RS