This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - jeffislouie
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8  10 11 12 13 14 ... 52
« on: September 19, 2008, 05:16:34 PM »
IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.
Ummmm...... Anger management issues much?
So much for the sanctity of life.
Thanks, lib troll.
A defenseless child deserves protection. A jerkoff who thinks its okay to talk about people's mothers in this way does not. Interesting that libs jump at the chance to keep people who are convicted of raping children, then killing them, but unborn babies? Let's kill them. According to Obama, any who survive botched abortions should simply be left to die in pain untreated.
If you want to discuss my feelings on abortion, I'm happy to do so (I believe it is a state's rights issue fwiw, not that you care). Tell me, do you find personal joy in applying misinformed labels to people, or just to people you disagree with?
« on: September 19, 2008, 05:13:30 PM »
IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.
Ummmm...... Anger management issues much?
Yes. I would say that someone speaking about my mother in an insanely disrespectful way is one method of making me uncontrollably angry. Maybe you don't mind people asking if your mother got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you, but I actually love my mother. I also respect her. And any a-hole who wants to treat her otherwise should expect a violent, angry response. You know damn well that if anyone said that to you in the real world, you'd blow up too.
I find it ridiculous that you would criticize my anger management without noting the rude, disgusting, and disrespectful comment. It is interesting that you don't object to that, just my reaction to it. Go ask your mom if she got 'lucky' or 'worked' while conceiving you and make sure to take a picture of the slap mark on your face.
« on: September 19, 2008, 05:05:26 PM »
For jeffislouie to be conceived, did his mom get lucky or did she get worked?
Die in a fire. People like you are revolting as humans and don't deserve even basic human respect.
Instead of discussing the issues, folks like you find humor and joy in tearing into people's parents. Seriously, I wish horrible, unspeakable things upon you. No joke. IRL, I'd have beaten you to death and gone to jail okay with it all.
I wonder if your parents would be proud of what you just said? Perhaps they'd mourn your death until someone informed them what a scumbag they ended up raising.
Way to show just how classy you are.
Don't talk about my mother. Ever. You can disrespect me all you want (you are good at it), but even dirtbags like you should have lines they wont cross.......
« on: September 19, 2008, 02:12:17 PM »
I think you are either misunderstanding us or misunderstanding your wiki article. None of us here have taken something other than a rationalist view of "luck." We are not contrasting what you have described (a series of occurrences beyond your control that combine to produce a certain result) to some kind of metaphysical charm that draws in good or bad things. We are arguing, rather, that the series of occurrences you reference (your parents being smart, their having sex, etc.) and your resulting endowments (intellect) have absolutely nothing to do with your hard work, which you describe as the foundation of success. To break it down:
1. You claim success is within people's individual control because it results from hard work.
2. We say, instead, that success has a lot to do with factors beyond individual control -- which some of us have called luck. You can call it whatever you want.
I'll also note that I haven't personally insulted you during this discussion. For instance, I didn't insert the word "purported" when referencing your intellect. So what's your excuse for always ignoring me?
I mean no offense by not responding to some of your queries. I am busy and tend to simply respond to as many of the arguments as I can. I have limited time to discuss this stuff. I applaud you for refraining from personal attacks. I know it's hard and some simply can't avoid the temptation.
Perhaps we have fallen too far off topic - but all the 'luck' in the world won't equate to success. Hard work is the foundation for success. The rest is merely contributive in nature. I don't have time to respond further.
« on: September 19, 2008, 12:53:02 PM »
I think you nice folks have missed the point. "luck" is a silly, humanistic work we use to explain things that we refuse to think through.
I am not 'lucky' to have genes from intelligent parents. My parents had sex and I was born with the genes I have. There is no 'luck' involved.
Rather than try to explain it again, I'll quote a wiki article that does a decent job of explaining my view on luck.
"Another view holds that "luck is probability taken personally". A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy, which argues that because two events are connected sequentially, they are connected causally as well:
A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A caused B.
In this particular perspective, probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections. A brick falling on a person walking below, therefore, is not a function of that person's luck, but is instead the result of a collection of understood (or explainable) occurrences. Statistically, every person walking near the building was just as likely to have the brick fall on them.
The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck. They involve denying the unpredictability of random events: "I haven't rolled a seven all week, so I'll definitely roll one tonight".
Luck is merely an expression noting an extended period of noted outcomes, completely consistent with random walk probability theory. Wishing one "good luck" will not cause such an extended period, but it expresses positive feelings toward the one -- not necessarily wholly undesirable."
The interesting thing is that some of you have called me 'delusional' and attempted to make fun of me for these beliefs. So just for fun, I thought it might be interesting to list a few names of people you've probably heard of that think similarly:
They were all called delusional too....
That doesn't make it so.
« on: September 18, 2008, 06:15:50 PM »
Sure lets leave energy policy to the rebuplicants, maybe they'll do as good a job with it as they did with the economy.
Ah yes, yet another loyal blind democrat who believes everything their lying party tells them. Pelosi says the democrats had nothing to do with the economic crisis and you fools buy in without bothering to check.
So, I checked for you. I know, I'm a liar and couldn't possibly be telling the truth because what I am about to tell you proves that the democrat party is made up of liars (ever since Dr. Dean took it over).
1. Almost all of the financial problems we see today are based on bad mortgage lending. That would be lending money to people to buy homes who didn't qualify for a loan.
2. The Democrats, under Clinton, strengthened a government-created monster called the "Community Reinvestment Act." This law was then used by "activists" and "community organizers" (like Obama?) to coerce lending institutions to make these bad loans ... millions of them.
3. Now we see what happens when political "wisdom" supplants good loan underwriting. When private financial institutions are virtually forced to make loans to people with a bad credit and job history .. this is what you get. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75586
"A review of Federal Election Commission records back to 1989 reveals Obama in his three complete years in the Senate is the second largest recipient of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae campaign contributions, behind only Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the powerful chairman of the Senate banking committee. Dodd was first elected to the Senate in 1980.
According to OpenSecrets.com, from 1989 to 2008, Dodd received $165,400 in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, including contributions from PACs and individuals, followed by Obama, who received $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004.
In contrast, McCain warned of the coming mortgage crisis as he pressed in 2005 for regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – known as government-sponsored entities or GSEs – and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market," McCain said on the floor of the Senate in 2005, speaking in favor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.
McCain pointed out Fannie Mae's regulator had stated the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The bill passed the House but was never brought up for a vote in the Senate, largely because of Democratic opposition to change in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory structure that remained in place until the Treasury takeover two weeks ago.
As evidenced by the failure to pass the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, the Democrats in Congress have repeatedly fought back Republican Party efforts to reform the two mortgage banking giants.
Instead, Democrats in Congress have sought to preserve the quasi-governmental status of the mortgage giants, seeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as places to locate former top Democratic Party operatives, where they have earned millions in compensation, despite a continuing series of financial scandals. Enron-like accounting manipulation, for example, boosted earnings to a level at which massive executive bonuses could be paid.
In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.
All three Obama-related executives earned millions in compensation from Fannie Mae.
Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003, according to author David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
All three have been involved in mortgage-related financial scandals.
In 1998, according to the Washington Post, Gorelick, as Fannie Mae vice chairman, received a bonus of $779,625, despite a scandal in which employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions to manipulate books to meet 1998 earning targets. The moves, in turn, triggered multi-million-dollar bonuses for top executives.
Gorelick was embroiled in another controversy over an alleged conflict of interest when a 1995 memo she authored as deputy attorney general surfaced while she was a member of the 9/11 commission.
The memo, which became known as the "Gorelick Wall," appeared to establish barriers that barred federal anti-terrorist criminal investigators from accessing various federal records and databases that may have assisted them in their criminal investigations.
According to the Associated Press, Raines and several other Fannie Mae top executives were ordered in a civil lawsuit to pay nearly $31.4 million for manipulating Fannie Mae earnings over a period of six years to trigger their massive bonuses.
Raines was also forced in the settlement to give up Fannie Mae stock options valued at $15.6 million.
Last year, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Freddie Mac had engaged in accounting fraud from 2000 to 2002, imposing a $50 million fine on the company and on four executives fines for amounts ranging from $65,000 to $250,000.
Raines currently advises Obama on housing policy.
Johnson was appointed to head Obama's vice presidential selection committee, until a controversy concerning an alleged $7 millions in questionable real estate loans he received on favorable terms from failed sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial surfaced and forced him to step down.
WND previously reported a panel chaired by Elena Kagan, dean and professor of law at Harvard Law School, speculated at the June two-day meeting of the American Constitution Society that Gorelick was a possible attorney general cabinet appointment if Obama should be elected president."
Yup. It's all Bush's fault. Never mind that Obama took fat money from the now failed organizations. Never mind that the executives who destroyed these financial institutions and caused this mortgage and credit meltdown now work for Obama. Never mind that McCain called for reforms and the dems fought him tooth and nail. Never mind that this all started under Clinton, when dems forced legislation that demanded lenders dole out loans to people who have absolutely no business buying homes.
The dems had 'nothing' to do with it! It's all Bush's fault! Those folks who destroyed fannie mae and freddie mac? Those are Obama people. People who bought their way on to his campaign as 'advisers' and who just can't wait to get their sweet cabinet appointments.
Wake up liberals! Your party is lying to you while looking you square in the face and you are either unwilling or just too plain stupid to see it.....
« on: September 18, 2008, 02:08:15 PM »
Nice theory. I'm a realist and not an idealogue.
It isn't my fault that your parents tought you that success is due to luck and not hard work.
It isn't my fault that when you fail you blame someone else and when you succeed you choose to attribute it to luck.
I believe in making my own luck and it has served me quite well.
You believe that life is luck. I would label THAT belief as delusional.
"A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception."
You are right, hard work is fanciful and derived from deception. Luck on the other hand, isn't. Good point. My how I have been so wrong.
I'm off to buy a rabbits foot.....
« on: September 18, 2008, 01:12:30 PM »
50 hours working at bar/restaurant is not hard work. IS NOT HARD WORK. I've done it for 6 months, as a bar back, which is often the hardest job in the place because you are busting your butt physically to get everythign where it needs to be, all the time. DO NOT CONFUSE LONG HOURS WITH HARD WORK. Working long hours is difficult, but it doesn't mean the difficulty of the work is high. And do not confuse stress level with difficulty or hard work. Stress is something completely internal.
We have a coal factory in my town, and most people who don't go to college end up there. I've done it. It blows. I can't do it, and I've done nearly every sort of job under the sun. It kills them early. I wish I could have you go down there and tell them working in a bar is hard work. I've worked construction, roofing, 40 hours a week. That is much more difficult than being at a bar. I'm not saying that working at a bar is easy by any means, because its not, but it annoys me that you cite that as a job to illustrate how you have this great ability to work hard and thats why you succeeded. You succeeded because you worked intelligently and intuitively, and probably because you have, outside of online forums, great social skills.
The average successful, rich person, works no harder than the average working class joe. They just understand the system, which is more an indicator of intelligence.
Only lucky people say there's no luck involved with where the are. Well, the ones that are completely out of touch with reality, that is. What about your luck that you were born smart(as you stated, which I am inclined to doubt)? Or somehow you are smart because you worked hard in the womb, right? What about your person of average intelligence from the lower class? Or a person with minimal social skills?
Please don't be ignorant about the great amount of luck in your life. Please.
Wow. A whole 6 months? I bet you were really involved, which is why you stayed so long. Managing restaurants and turning them around IS hard work. Waiting tables IS hard work. Bartending IS hard work. The fact that you have no respect for those jobs speaks to your ridiculous elitism. I work in a law firm as a clerk. I laugh when the lawyers talk about hard work. These guys actually work less than 5 or 6 hours a day, and those are the hard days. Sure they are there long hours. Sure their job is tough, but I worked much harder to turn a failing restaurant into a successful one than they ever do.
I can't get next to you because you are so skewed and ridiculous. I am not 'lucky' to have been born smart. Both of my parents were smart. It's genetics. Not luck. And I know people who I don't think are as smart as me who are extremely successful. My cousin, who was never particularly bright, busted his ass, started a company after getting an associates degree, and through hard work turned himself into a millionaire who drives a lambo. I called him the other day and asked him if he thought he was lucky in business. His answer? No. f-ing. Way. He almost lost his business, almost went bankrupt, and almost quit. Instead, he refused to allow himself to rely on luck and busted his ass to grow his company and earn his money. If you ask him, he'd tell you that he isn't particularly smart. He'll tell you that he is stubborn and works hard. He'll tell you that he tried his best and THAT'S why he succeeded.
Luck is horseshit. It's loser talk. It is a word invented so that losers who fail have something to point at when they think about someone who succeeds. It is also a favorite work for liberals who wish to redistribute income. Those companies that make people rich? The guys who created it were just lucky. They didn't EARN their money, they lucked into it. They didn't work hard, they were lucky. So why not take money from those corporations and give it to people who can't be bothered with hard work?
Nonsense. Bill Gates wasn't lucky. Warren Buffet wasn't lucky. Find me a successful person who thinks their success is due to luck and I'll show you a moron. Lucky people win the lottery.
And I wasn't 'lucky' to be born an American either. My grandparents escaped the holocaust. They took their son, my dad who was born in germany during the war while my grandparents were running from nazi's, and found a way to immigrate to the US. My grandparents had third grade educations and didn't speak english. They worked alternating 12 hour a day jobs and encouraged their kids to embrace education and hard work. They produced a lawyer and two doctors. I was with my uncle last night and he doesn't attribute his success to luck - he almost failed out of med school. He believes he made it through because he was willing to do whatever it took to do well.
He wasn't lucky. He was dedicated.
Hey, if you want to go through life thinking 'luck' is going to make you successful, enjoy being unsuccessful. Maybe you'll get 'lucky' and things will pay off. While you are focusing on luck, folks like me will be working hard and succeeding.
« on: September 18, 2008, 12:02:14 AM »
Please do not say what hard work is. Working 50 hours at a bar/restaurant is not hard work, and apparently you were in the military, so you should know that. You got to where you are, not by working hard, but working (i assume, and hope) long hours, which is difficult in itself, and by working intelligently. And, mostly, by luck. I guess that is the difference, you took a favorable situation, worked it, and succeeded, and you view the cause to be your own hard work and your innate abilities, where most people would see it as a combination of luck, hard work, and your innate abilities.
First of all, who the heck are you to say that working 50 hours a week in a bar/restaurant is not hard work? Have you ever worked 50 hours a week at a bar/restaurant?
I doubt it, or you wouldn't say that (unless, of course, you were terrible at the job, made no money, and/or burned out quickly).
Not that I worked 50 hours a week. My first job as a bouncer/barback, I worked 4 days a week from 6 pm to 5 am, one day a week from 7 pm to 6 am and once every two weeks, added a shift from 10 am to 5 pm. When I was the GM, I worked from 60-80 hours a week depending on need. For about a month, after I had to fire a manager for leaving the doors unlocked overnight, I worked 90-100 hours a week.
But you naturally assumed that what I meant was 50 hours a week. I wish it was only 50 hours a week. After I left that job and went to another company, I worked 50-60 hours a week, most of that time on my feet, until I quit to go back to school. I can't remember the last time when I was employed full time, in a restaurant or otherwise, where I have worked LESS than 50 hours a week.
Luck? Grow up. Morons think luck is why people succeed. Smart people make their own luck. Smart people know that luck is when preparation meets opportunity. I spent years learning to be the best server I could be. I started with zero experience at an Olive Garden and within 2 months, I was outearning everyone else that worked there. Each time I changed jobs, I worked HARD to go from the new guy to the money guy. I never left a waiting job that I hadn't outgrown. Each time I left a place, I left as the number one earner in the store. When I became a barback/bouncer, I busted my ass to become the best I could be at both jobs. It didn't take long for management to notice. It took even less time for upper management to notice. I was promoted to manager at the direct request of the then only district manager in the company. He became the VP of operations and the company grew to a $200million + restaurant group. I was promoted due to hard work, dedication, and a result oriented attitude faster than any manager in the history of the company. Just before I became GM of my own unit, they started sending me to units with operational and financial issues to fix the problems. The last place I 'fixed' was where I ended up being asked by the owners and VP personally to take the store over. When I took it over, the store was on the way out. The financials were terrible (the first store to lose money since they launched the concept) and the unit was an operational nightmare. The month I took over, day one, I had the financials on my desk. I was told to make it work. That month I managed to shift the P&L numbers drastically. I kept the financials. I'm looking at them now:
the month before I took over, the net profit was $ - 4507. The month after, it was $ 6,290. Each month after that net income grew or stayed consistent.
It wasn't 'luck' that I was able to do that. It was operational know how developed over a long career where I paid attention and worked my ass off to be better than the next guy. When I left that company, I had made record high profit percentages at 10.8% while increasing business, decreasing turnover, and resolving virtually every issue that unit had. Three months after I left, sales had tanked and profit was flat, well below the industry standard 4-6%. Six months later, they tried a new concept in the same building. A year later, they paid a penalty to be released from their lease on the property.
This 'luck' you think successful people catch is a load of crap. Being in the right place isn't a mistake. Being there at the right time is crap too. I was where I was because I saw the potential of being there. Being there at the right time is really being able to step up your game when someone else needs you to.
Losers talk about luck. Losers think life is bunch of random occurances and if you happen to be where it all goes down when it all goes down, you are just lucky. I've made my own luck. I made it by working hard, learning, asking questions, and giving it my best. Whether you are a lawyer or a waiter, folks like partners and owners look for that sort of thing when they look for the future of their company or firm. I wasn't lucky. I was good.
By the way, if you really look at successful people, they aren't 'lucky'. They just did it right, often when others did it wrong or did just enough to NOT get noticed.
I highly recommend that you try to think about this when you go out and practice. Go make your own 'luck'. Try putting in more hours than the next guy, doing better work than he does, and doing what I used to call 'and one'. 'And One' means doing what is asked of you 'and one' more thing. Take one extra step to get something done that HASN'T been asked of you. Go ahead, give it a shot. I guarantee someone will notice. It will lead to good things.
OR you could be one of those folks who hide from life and do just enough to get by and not get noticed. Playing it safe works out great, so long as you don't mind a life of mediocrity....
« on: September 17, 2008, 05:44:44 PM »
Not just a car bomb. Sadly, this was a fairly organized, al-qaeda style attack. The attackers sent in the car bomb and detonated it. Then snipers started picking off first responders (aka ambulances and EMT's). The SOB's want to show us that they can still hurt us. Maybe Obama can talk to them and make them love us....
We need to find and destroy them at their training camps, no matter what country they are in. OR, we can make fun of the Bush doctrine and make believe that we can talk them out of hating us and into loving us. Let it be known: the more we as a nation female dog and moan about taking action and promoting peace, the more they see exactly how effective they are.
They are winning because we just don't have the resolve to fight them the way they know how to fight us.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8  10 11 12 13 14 ... 52