RE: Do you agree?

RE: Do you agree? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Do you agree?

Yes

53% (7)

46% (6)

Total Votes : 13

(last vote on : 9/1/2014 9:20:23 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Do you agree? (8/31/2014 9:22:22 AM)
ORIGINAL: FieryOpal I don't think there are any kinky women out there bad enough for you who aren't for hire. [:-] (Whom you can readily procure for yourself, it should go without saying.) He does seem to have acquired a pool of women infected with the common sense and logic virus. Being a leech on the look out I thought it prudent to inquire since he obviously does not appreciate talent when it offers to poke him in the ass. quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer She obviously has the hots for you. You've a good eye mate but it takes a bit more than heat to create a fire capable of cooking up somethiing tasty. She's a crafty one and not likely to put up with just anyone who takes a fancy to her... Nope. I'm holding out for the (unattached) male sub version of freedomdwarf. [;)] See I told you the lady had taste.

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 6:31:04 AM)
You are not thinking clearly. For example, "The cake mix was intended to take financial advantage of a surplus of mollasses ..." the intension would not have gone anywhere if there was no demand. There was incentive plus incentive. A synergy existed. The precise dates are not relevant. You are in my opinion desperate to prove me wrong because you are using a desperate argument. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BenevolentM I recall a study many years ago, like in the 1950s, You do not recall anythng...you are simply making things up.[8\|] where Betty Crocker created a cake mix. Betty crocker damn near went broke in the 50's when cake mix sales flattened out and many manufacturers of that product went out of business.The cake mix was invented and patented in 1933 http://www.bonappetit.com/entertaining-style/pop-culture/article/cake-mix-history. As if betty crocker was a human being and not a korporation. The cake mix was intended to make the lives of house wives easier. The cake mix was intended to take financial advantage of a surplus of mollasses as the cited article points out. It made baking a cake very easy to do. They hired a firm to carry out a psychological study to discover why women weren't interested in buying the product. What they found was that the cake mix made it so easy that it made the women feel guilty. It made them feel they were not working hard enough for their husbands. When Betty Crocker added an additional step where you needed to add an egg, sales went up. Since eggs had been required since 1933 your opinion is simply the ignorant rambling of a misinformed mysoginist. The article cited clearly points out that what boosted the saging sales of cake sales was frosting.

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 6:51:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx As if betty crocker was a human being and not a korporation. Again, another desperate attempt to formulate an argument. Demand does not equal supply if the product or service is cost prohibitive. A surplus in raw materials is helpful and can make or break a business enterprise. Your bias is showing. You should feel embarrassed.

FieryOpal -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 7:00:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx As if betty crocker was a human being and not a korporation. Again, another desperate attempt to formulate an argument. Demand does not equal supply if the product or service is cost prohibitive. A surplus in raw materials is helpful and can make or break a business enterprise. Your bias is showing. You should feel embarrassed. Lemme see here, next you'll be telling us Aunt Jemima was a real cook and that ready-mix pancake batter was invented to replace housewives? Because all I see in terms of whatever argument you so feebly attempted to formulate regarding cake mix caves in like a shabbily constructed soufflé.[sm=help.gif]

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 7:10:14 AM)
Before you call corporations monsters and excuse the monstrous conduct of people you must take into account how the burdens we must endure in life and how monstrous those burdens are. Corporations carry a yoke just like people. They must live in the real world, perhaps more so. Your servitude to the system gives you a luxury that corporations, that is businesses, cannot afford. Businesses must pay you a wage whereas you are not obligated to do so privately to the extent that a business is. Businesses must be profitable in order to earn enough to pay you a wage. A business must be wealthy even if its owner is poor. Few people earn enough to pay other people a wage. When the money comes from private assets the services of professionals and other servants are often rented. In other words, professionals are often time-shared. Businesses on the other hand will often hire professionals on a full time basis. In this case the professional is not rented nor time-shared. This also has the effect of minimizing conflict of interest. When you rent an attorney, that attorney may have a conflict of interest.

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 7:20:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM A business must be wealthy even if its owner is poor. In other words, a business by necessity must in a sense suck the life out of you.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 7:27:34 AM)
And you are WAAY off topic!!!! ...as usual. This whole thread should be locked and deleted. Your trolling has gotten worse - you can't even stay on topic within your own diatribe. [:'(][:'(][:'(][:'(][:'(]

tweakabelle -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 7:32:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee We are measuring marriages now on who does the washing? And "putting out"? Please do not ever refer to my own or anyone else sexual intimacies as "putting out." Talk about hating women. If nothing is achieved by BM's inane ramblings, (and most likely they achieve nothing else, except perhaps exasperating a lot of otherwise well adjusted posters) I am delighted to report that he has finally created a point of agreement between Aylee and yours truly, who tend to disagree on almost everything else. Yep. There's a great deal of misogyny happening in his posts. Right on sister!

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 7:37:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 When are you going to stop writing this sort of drivel??? One must not lose sight of the fact that God is Truth. To pursue the Truth is to pursue God. The difference between Satanism and Christianity is that Christianity embraces Platonism, the world is not what it seems whereas the Satanists proclaim the world and the truth are one; hence, there God is the God of this world. Interestingly, there is common ground. Perhaps I will stop when you profess that Jesus is Lord. Then again, perhaps not. Jesus Christ is surely my Lord for He is Good and Worthy. Corporations are cemented to this world in a way that people are not.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 7:51:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 When are you going to stop writing this sort of drivel??? One must not lose sight of the fact that God is Truth. To pursue the Truth is to pursue God. The difference between Satanism and Christianity is that Christianity embraces Platonism, the world is not what it seems whereas the Satanists proclaim the world and the truth are one; hence, there God is the God of this world. Interestingly, there is common ground. Perhaps I will stop when you profess that Jesus is Lord. Then again, perhaps not. Jesus Christ is surely my Lord for He is Good and Worthy. Corporations are cemented to this world in a way that people are not. Crap BM - complete and utter bullshit!! ETA: Jesus was a man and was never ever a 'lord'. And in my world, I am lord. Not this fucking bejebus creeper you keep wittering about.

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 7:54:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle There's a great deal of misogyny happening in his posts. I feel a need to correct you here. It is not a great deal of misogyny, it is great misogyny. Call it a sexual orientation where the value of woman is thought of as mysterious, perhaps the greatest mystery.

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 7:59:48 AM)
The value of woman is affirmed when you are in the presence of the Divine Feminine.

crazyml -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 8:03:28 AM)
Ah yes, but the stone shrew knows the real truth of your words

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 8:04:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Crap BM - complete and utter bullshit!! ETA: Jesus was a man and was never ever a 'lord'. And in my world, I am lord. Not this fucking bejebus creeper you keep wittering about. quod erat demonstrandum

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 8:13:08 AM)
Stop making inane and irrelevant posts just to push your post count up.

HeartAndSoul31 -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 8:18:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The value of woman is affirmed when you are in the presence of the Divine Feminine. What is your definition of divine feminine and how do you know when your in the presence?

FieryOpal -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 8:24:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeartAndSoul31 quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The value of woman is affirmed when you are in the presence of the Divine Feminine. What is your definition of divine feminine and how do you know when your in the presence? His definition of the Divine Feminine is otherworldly--not of this world. Therefore no mortal woman can ever measure up to or reach the pedestal of his worship. [:(] (Not. As in not our loss. Thank you Oh Merciful Lord, for your Grace in sparing us the indignity. [sm=2cents.gif] ) ETA: Pardon the improvisational paraphrasing OP, but I felt I could express this in more comprehensible terms than you ever could. [:)]

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 8:31:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The value of woman is affirmed when you are in the presence of the Divine Feminine. When a woman proclaims that she is willing to suffer for the Sins of the World much as Christ did, she is Divine. Woman often fulfills this role as a mother the same sort of role Our Holy Mother assumed when she became the Mother of God.

BenevolentM -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 8:35:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeartAndSoul31 quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The value of woman is affirmed when you are in the presence of the Divine Feminine. What is your definition of divine feminine and how do you know when your in the presence? It is just one of those things. I have been in the presence of Our Holy Mother.

IronicTautology -> RE: Do you agree? (9/1/2014 8:38:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM The value of woman is affirmed when you are in the presence of the Divine Feminine. When a woman proclaims that she is willing to suffer for the Sins of the World much as Christ did, she is Divine. Woman often fulfills this role as a mother the same sort of role Our Holy Mother assumed when she became the Mother of God. WTF???? Yeah, sure, lots of Moms have to suffer by putting up with the crap from unruly kids but what the heck does that have to do with the sins of mankind??

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.0625