SkyDekker 1,150 #26 April 26, 2012 QuoteI did - she died shortly after her 18th birthday in an auto accident. Sorry to hear that. QuoteSo you're claiming UBS gave his son the job to help his dad's self-esteem? That's an even lamer attempt to distract than your norm. Nope. Saying that it is not unlikely that UBS helped the Perry family hoping that would land them a job that could generate millions in fees. Also said many times that I really don't see too much wrong with that, done many different times in many different forms in the business world. This will be the last on this subject for me. Your partisanship does not allow you to see anything outside of those lines, so most discussion with you are as useless as tits on a nun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 April 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteI did - she died shortly after her 18th birthday in an auto accident. Sorry to hear that. QuoteSo you're claiming UBS gave his son the job to help his dad's self-esteem? That's an even lamer attempt to distract than your norm. Nope. Saying that it is not unlikely that UBS helped the Perry family hoping that would land them a job that could generate millions in fees. "For a Dad having a successful son is a source of pride and accomplishment. I would say that is a benefit. Some Dad's see getting their kids of their own "payroll" as a benefit as well." QuoteThis will be the last on this subject for me. Your partisanship does not allow you to see anything outside of those lines, so most discussion with you are as useless as tits on a nun. Hilarious statement, coming from you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bertt 0 #28 April 26, 2012 No, I meant what I said. I brought this up deliberately to point out that UBS is a large financial institution that is very interested in the American market. Like a lot of corporations, they contribute to candidates and politicians from both parties. With Obama in the White House, it's natural they would support him. They support anyone they think can influence policy or open doors for them, including some Republicans who are the antithesis of Obama.You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,265 #29 April 26, 2012 QuoteSo you're claiming UBS gave his son the job to help his dad's self-esteem? That's an even lamer attempt to distract than your norm. Again, nepotism. It's a word for a reason - that reason being, it exists. You could quite reasonably be arguing that the kids job in this case was simply circumstantial and not the result of underhand dealings - but to argue that the entire concept nepotism doesn't exist is baffling. It hurts your case here and your credibility in general to make a sticking point of such an absurd claim.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 April 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo you're claiming UBS gave his son the job to help his dad's self-esteem? That's an even lamer attempt to distract than your norm. Again, nepotism. It's a word for a reason - that reason being, it exists. You could quite reasonably be arguing that the kids job in this case was simply circumstantial and not the result of underhand dealings - but to argue that the entire concept nepotism doesn't exist is baffling. It hurts your case here and your credibility in general to make a sticking point of such an absurd claim. I never made the claim nepotism doesn't exist, jake.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,265 #31 April 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo you're claiming UBS gave his son the job to help his dad's self-esteem? That's an even lamer attempt to distract than your norm. Again, nepotism. It's a word for a reason - that reason being, it exists. You could quite reasonably be arguing that the kids job in this case was simply circumstantial and not the result of underhand dealings - but to argue that the entire concept nepotism doesn't exist is baffling. It hurts your case here and your credibility in general to make a sticking point of such an absurd claim. I never made the claim nepotism doesn't exist, jake. Then all your responses to Bertt's topic so far are completely irrelevant.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 April 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo you're claiming UBS gave his son the job to help his dad's self-esteem? That's an even lamer attempt to distract than your norm. Again, nepotism. It's a word for a reason - that reason being, it exists. You could quite reasonably be arguing that the kids job in this case was simply circumstantial and not the result of underhand dealings - but to argue that the entire concept nepotism doesn't exist is baffling. It hurts your case here and your credibility in general to make a sticking point of such an absurd claim. I never made the claim nepotism doesn't exist, jake. Then all your responses to Bertt's topic so far are completely irrelevant. Wrong again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,265 #33 April 26, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote So you're claiming UBS gave his son the job to help his dad's self-esteem? That's an even lamer attempt to distract than your norm. Again, nepotism. It's a word for a reason - that reason being, it exists. You could quite reasonably be arguing that the kids job in this case was simply circumstantial and not the result of underhand dealings - but to argue that the entire concept nepotism doesn't exist is baffling. It hurts your case here and your credibility in general to make a sticking point of such an absurd claim. I never made the claim nepotism doesn't exist, jake. Then all your responses to Bertt's topic so far are completely irrelevant. Wrong again. Oh, really? So nice of you to set me straight. At least it's better than your usual pirouettes.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 April 26, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote So you're claiming UBS gave his son the job to help his dad's self-esteem? That's an even lamer attempt to distract than your norm. Again, nepotism. It's a word for a reason - that reason being, it exists. You could quite reasonably be arguing that the kids job in this case was simply circumstantial and not the result of underhand dealings - but to argue that the entire concept nepotism doesn't exist is baffling. It hurts your case here and your credibility in general to make a sticking point of such an absurd claim. I never made the claim nepotism doesn't exist, jake. Then all your responses to Bertt's topic so far are completely irrelevant. Wrong again. Oh, really? So nice of you to set me straight. At least it's better than your usual pirouettes. Well, you're such a smart guy, it should be obvious where the breakdown in your argument is. Feel free to post back when you figure it out.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,265 #35 April 27, 2012 Why post if that's the only kind of 'debate' you want to have? You're a grown man, act accordingly.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 April 27, 2012 Still haven't found that fatal flaw yet, jake? Nepotism is self-dealing for your kin. Had Perry given his son some sort of position in State gov't, that would be nepotism. UBS giving the son a job, while possibly favor-seeking, isn't nepotism. Now, the timeline. Discussions about selling the state lottery started at least as far back as 2006 - some states were apparently earlier than that. Perry's son wasn't hired until 2007.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,265 #37 April 27, 2012 QuoteStill haven't found that fatal flaw yet, jake? No. QuoteUBS giving the son a job, while possibly favor-seeking That right there is the point I'm making. Glad you finally acknowledge it. QuoteDiscussions about selling the state lottery started at least as far back as 2006 - some states were apparently earlier than that. Perry's son wasn't hired until 2007. See, there you go! An actual reason to discount Bertt's assertion instead of the ridiculous line of argument that Perry couldn't possibly give two shits about his son's success.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteStill haven't found that fatal flaw yet, jake? No. QuoteUBS giving the son a job, while possibly favor-seeking That right there is the point I'm making. Glad you finally acknowledge it.[/repl] Never denied it - just said that there's no evidence of the direct benefit to Perry that was claimed. QuoteQuoteDiscussions about selling the state lottery started at least as far back as 2006 - some states were apparently earlier than that. Perry's son wasn't hired until 2007. See, there you go! An actual reason to discount Bertt's assertion instead of the ridiculous line of argument that Perry couldn't possibly give two shits about his son's success. Actually, the ridiculous line of argument was the son's success being the 'benefit' to Perry.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,265 #39 April 27, 2012 Quote Never denied it - just said that there's no evidence of the direct benefit to Perry that was claimed. Helping the son helps the father. It's an indirect link. It's like you think people can't read Quote Actually, the ridiculous line of argument was the son's success being the 'benefit' to Perry. And you made it sound like you were starting to get it. Oh well.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #40 April 27, 2012 Quote Quote Never denied it - just said that there's no evidence of the direct benefit to Perry that was claimed. Helping the son helps the father. It's an indirect link. It's like you think people can't read Helping the son helps the father It's like you think people can't read. "Indirect link" or no, he still made the claim that the father was helped and then couldn't back it up. Quote Quote Actually, the ridiculous line of argument was the son's success being the 'benefit' to Perry. And you made it sound like you were starting to get it. Oh well. If your point was to support Dekker's ludicrous claim, it's obvious you NEVER 'got it'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,265 #41 April 27, 2012 QuoteIt's like you think people can't read. Don't be a juvenile dick on top of a hypocritical twat. You know perfectly well that if, in a discussion, you had simply said "there's a link" and someone later on challenged your claim of a "direct link" you would have screamed blue murder that you never said that... never mind that in this case bertt explicitly characterised it as an indirect link. It's quite amazing how you refuse to admit error of any kind. QuoteIf your point was to support Dekker's ludicrous claim, it's obvious you NEVER 'got it'. The point that it's quite feasible to give a benefit to a son as a favour to a father? You refuse to acknowledge it? Amazing.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #42 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteIt's like you think people can't read. Don't be a juvenile dick on top of a hypocritical twat. Nice debate style. QuoteYou know perfectly well that if, in a discussion, you had simply said "there's a link" and someone later on challenged your claim of a "direct link" you would have screamed blue murder that you never said that... never mind that in this case bertt explicitly characterised it as an indirect link. He also couldn't prove ANY link, or benefit. Also note that his "proof" was a HuffPo article talking about the money side of the issue. QuoteIt's quite amazing how you refuse to admit error of any kind. Like your never did with your mention of nepotism, you mean? QuoteQuoteIf your point was to support Dekker's ludicrous claim, it's obvious you NEVER 'got it'. The point that it's quite feasible to give a benefit to a son as a favour to a father? You refuse to acknowledge it? Amazing. Never said *that*, either. But feel free to provide evidence that UBS hired Perry fils as a sop to his father's ego rather than financial, as alluded to in his HuffPo link.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jakee 1,265 #39 April 27, 2012 Quote Never denied it - just said that there's no evidence of the direct benefit to Perry that was claimed. Helping the son helps the father. It's an indirect link. It's like you think people can't read Quote Actually, the ridiculous line of argument was the son's success being the 'benefit' to Perry. And you made it sound like you were starting to get it. Oh well.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 April 27, 2012 Quote Quote Never denied it - just said that there's no evidence of the direct benefit to Perry that was claimed. Helping the son helps the father. It's an indirect link. It's like you think people can't read Helping the son helps the father It's like you think people can't read. "Indirect link" or no, he still made the claim that the father was helped and then couldn't back it up. Quote Quote Actually, the ridiculous line of argument was the son's success being the 'benefit' to Perry. And you made it sound like you were starting to get it. Oh well. If your point was to support Dekker's ludicrous claim, it's obvious you NEVER 'got it'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,265 #41 April 27, 2012 QuoteIt's like you think people can't read. Don't be a juvenile dick on top of a hypocritical twat. You know perfectly well that if, in a discussion, you had simply said "there's a link" and someone later on challenged your claim of a "direct link" you would have screamed blue murder that you never said that... never mind that in this case bertt explicitly characterised it as an indirect link. It's quite amazing how you refuse to admit error of any kind. QuoteIf your point was to support Dekker's ludicrous claim, it's obvious you NEVER 'got it'. The point that it's quite feasible to give a benefit to a son as a favour to a father? You refuse to acknowledge it? Amazing.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteIt's like you think people can't read. Don't be a juvenile dick on top of a hypocritical twat. Nice debate style. QuoteYou know perfectly well that if, in a discussion, you had simply said "there's a link" and someone later on challenged your claim of a "direct link" you would have screamed blue murder that you never said that... never mind that in this case bertt explicitly characterised it as an indirect link. He also couldn't prove ANY link, or benefit. Also note that his "proof" was a HuffPo article talking about the money side of the issue. QuoteIt's quite amazing how you refuse to admit error of any kind. Like your never did with your mention of nepotism, you mean? QuoteQuoteIf your point was to support Dekker's ludicrous claim, it's obvious you NEVER 'got it'. The point that it's quite feasible to give a benefit to a son as a favour to a father? You refuse to acknowledge it? Amazing. Never said *that*, either. But feel free to provide evidence that UBS hired Perry fils as a sop to his father's ego rather than financial, as alluded to in his HuffPo link.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
