**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

This does not address the point and it changes the subject.

No, he's using a word that means 'wanting things in excess' and applying it to people it doesn't apply to, and asking why it applies to people it does apply to. At best, that makes him a person who doesn't understand the words he's using.

If instead he had said 'people who don't work hard shouldn't expect people who do work hard to give them money', that would be a cogent and wholly defensible argument because it doesn't imply that the hard working people are rolling in excess and the lazy people are asking for untold riches. But because that's already been said a million times, he instead perverts the language to make the point he's trying to get across sound poignant, so people who don't see through the logical stupidity of what he said sit back and go 'oooh'.

In fact the only thing more retarded than what he said is then quoting what he said, putting it in a nice font and having a nice picture of him next to it, as if it's a quote from Einstein, instead of from a retard who doesn't articulate what he means.

[wufwugy]

No, he's using a word that means 'wanting things in excess' and applying it to people it doesn't apply to, and asking why it applies to people it does apply to. At best, that makes him a person who doesn't understand the words he's using.

If instead he had said 'people who don't work hard shouldn't expect people who do work hard to give them money', that would be a cogent and wholly defensible argument because it doesn't imply that the hard working people are rolling in excess and the lazy people are asking for untold riches. But because that's already been said a million times, he instead perverts the language to make the point he's trying to get across sound poignant, so people who don't see through the logical stupidity of what he said sit back and go 'oooh'.

In fact the only thing more retarded than what he said is then quoting what he said, putting it in a nice font and having a nice picture of him next to it, as if it's a quote from Einstein, instead of from a retard who doesn't articulate what he means.

His statement is a way of describing how this view confuses him. His statement is a way of describing that he believes that "wanting things in excess" includes thinking that one has rightful acquisition of something one has not earned, and curiously that it is not considered "wanting things in excess" when one wants to keep what one has earned.

[Poopadoop]

I know what he's trying to say because it's already been said a million times, except with clarity. My problem is with him phrasing it as though he's somehow saying something profound when it fact he's just butchering the language. What makes it more annoying is that his quote is being framed like it is profound.