Conquer Club

gimpyThewonder wrote:no need to get insulting, jeesh.

Well, to be honest, it was lunch-time at a hard day at work, but, still, let's have a look at what prompted my comments:

gimpyThewonder wrote:ever hear of the Feudal System? read your history, its always been that way

I don't know about you, but I'd call that insulting, and pretty undetailed, and unqualified. Apart from asking whether I've ever heard of the feudal system, you basically seemed to be saying that things haven't changed much since feudal times. (Your very next post seemed to give the impression that you do in fact realise that this isn't the case.) So how do you think I'm going to react?!

And after re-reading your post my comment stands. the cosolidation or distribution of wealth ebbs and flows throughout history. For many centuries the wealth was in the hands of the few, nobility, clergy and later the merchant class. As the merchant class became more entrenched we see the evolution of the middle class. wealth is now being more evenly distributed amongst the populace. Engel and Marx start writing/publishing and the basic tennants of communism/socialism are formed. we see a growing distribution of wealth into the 1950's-60's during the post-wwII economic boom in the US. That was the peak for distributed wealth, now thanks to factors such as globalization the person at the top of the pyramid gets the biggest check. I'm not saying its right, honestly i've been a cubicle slave so i know it sucks balls, but to assert that its a "relatively new phenomena", is just incorrect. it would be more true to claim the opposite, the idea of distrubuted wealth is far newer

You're right, the levels of income inequality in Britain and America as they stand today is not a "relatively new phenomenon". I'm well aware they have been far greater in the past - maybe I should have made clearer that I was referring to the particular phenomenon of the last 30 (or thereabouts) years of increasing inequality in both countries, being new.

But the main point I was making is that this is not inevitable, at least not to the extent that it has happened, however much our political leaders may say it is (and in fact, I don't think any mention of it is ever made in America, but I'll happily be corrected on that), and I like to point it out when people talk as if these things are.

Stopper wrote:

gimpyThewonder wrote:no need to get insulting, jeesh.

Well, to be honest, it was lunch-time at a hard day at work, but, still, let's have a look at what prompted my comments:

gimpyThewonder wrote:ever hear of the Feudal System? read your history, its always been that way

I don't know about you, but I'd call that insulting, and pretty undetailed, and unqualified. Apart from asking whether I've ever heard of the feudal system, you basically seemed to be saying that things haven't changed much since feudal times. (Your very next post seemed to give the impression that you do in fact realise that this isn't the case.) So how do you think I'm going to react?!

And after re-reading your post my comment stands. the cosolidation or distribution of wealth ebbs and flows throughout history. For many centuries the wealth was in the hands of the few, nobility, clergy and later the merchant class. As the merchant class became more entrenched we see the evolution of the middle class. wealth is now being more evenly distributed amongst the populace. Engel and Marx start writing/publishing and the basic tennants of communism/socialism are formed. we see a growing distribution of wealth into the 1950's-60's during the post-wwII economic boom in the US. That was the peak for distributed wealth, now thanks to factors such as globalization the person at the top of the pyramid gets the biggest check. I'm not saying its right, honestly i've been a cubicle slave so i know it sucks balls, but to assert that its a "relatively new phenomena", is just incorrect. it would be more true to claim the opposite, the idea of distrubuted wealth is far newer

You're right, the levels of income inequality in Britain and America as they stand today is not a "relatively new phenomenon". I'm well aware they have been far greater in the past - maybe I should have made clearer that I was referring to the particular phenomenon of the last 30 (or thereabouts) years of increasing inequality in both countries, being new.

But the main point I was making is that this is not inevitable, at least not to the extent that it has happened, however much our political leaders may say it is (and in fact, I don't think any mention of it is ever made in America, but I'll happily be corrected on that), and I like to point it out when people talk as if these things are.

my initial comment was not intended as insulting, though now i can see how it would be construed that way. And knowing where your emphasis was intended to be placed does change things. speaking in terms of recent history there has been some media attention given to the disappearing middle class in the US. Of course our current moron-in-chief makes no mention of it, being of the super rich variety. I've had similar discussions w/ my sister (likely a future CEO herself) about the discrepancies in pay scale between upper-management types and workers. I wish i could say that the future looks like equality for all, but i don't see it. As corporations consolidate more wealth they consolidate more power, which again gains them more wealth, rinse, repeat. Its a viscious cycle that i don't see ending, however much the average joe might wish it to.

A friend of mine told me about a Sociology final exam he took back in college. simple essay question. Create a utopia in 100 years. Every single essay began w/ either war, famine, plague or a combination thereof. basically for a better world the current system must be destroyed. of course this is all theoretical, though the Constitution did contain a clause that if the people felt that the current system of gov't was no longer working they were legally entitled to overthrow the gov't. that ammendment has since been repealed. Human greed is too powerful a motivator, i don't see a way out, but i'd love to hear some ideas on how to fundamentally change things. What can replace the drive to accumulate, the nesting instinct? Gene Roddenbery used space exploration in his writing, but then his idea of the future also began w/ ww3

dude i dno why he fuckin flipped out...he was really good

luns101 wrote:

cena-rules wrote:R.I.P

MAY WE NEVER FORGET THE MAN WHO DEDICATED HIS LIFE TO WRESTLING. CHRIS WE WILL ALWAYS LOVE YOU.

R.I.P



GLAD TO SEE RAW DEDICATED TO HIM

R.I.P CRIPPLER

You can't be serious...the guy just murdered his own son!

and wife

yay triple post!

i was wondering what they would do with the whole mcmahon fake death story line...because i figured they couldnt keep up with that when a real death occured.

ParadiceCity9 wrote:yay triple post!

i was wondering what they would do with the whole mcmahon fake death story line...because i figured they couldnt keep up with that when a real death occured.

1- mcmahon showed up on raw

2- he didnt kill his family or did he


so what really happened there...is it official? he killed his own family?

if he did he is not worth the remembering

Good god, this thread exploded... Chris Benoit, his wife and his son are dead, Vince McMahon is not!

Chris Benoit strangled his wife in her bedroom with an extension cord, then suffacated his son in their office. The next day he cancelled his match on Sunday. He was feeling guilty about his wife and son, so he hung himself with a cord on one of the weight machines in their weight room.

Investigators still aren't sure when exactly he killed himself, it could have been Sunday or Monday, but his wife was killed Friday and his son was killed Saturday.

Stopper wrote:

Cheesemore wrote:As long as people want to be entertained on a constant basis and are willing to pay the money to be entertained, Sport star salaries will continue to rise.
Doctors, lawyers, teachers, policemen, firemen, these are the true heros and should be payed accordingly, but socitity doesn't work like that.
The world isn't perfect, it's the sad truth of life, people die, but eveytime someone dies, someone is born, and the world moves on.

I object to this. The vast sums that the top sportsmen and entertainers (and others, such as business executives etc) get paid nowadays - compared to people lower down the scale - is a relatively new phenomenon. Society doesn't have to work like that, and it didn't do so to anything like the same extent, both in America and Britain, as recently as 25 years ago. And there is no fundamental reason why it has to continue the way it does.

How can you object to the truth? This is how socitety is working today, I know about 30 years ago sports stars were lucky to make 500k a year (Chris Benoit himself only made that much in his best year). I agree that socitety doesn't have to work like this, but this is how it works, you can either go cry about it, or you can deal with it and move on

Orange-Idaho-Dog wrote:Chris Benoit strangled his wife in her bedroom with an extension cord, then suffacated his son in their office. The next day he cancelled his match on Sunday. He was feeling guilty about his wife and son, so he hung himself with a cord on one of the weight machines in their weight room.

but one day earlier you wrote:

Orange-Idaho-Dog wrote:there is no way Benoit stabbed or strangled his son and wife, he's not the type of person that would/could do that.

When OJ was accused of killing his wife & Ron Goldman, I didn't want to believe it either at first. OJ was one of those guys I idolized. I'm not sure how old you are, but maybe this is a good lesson in not just assuming things right off the bat. Actually, a good lesson for all of us.

It was a Roid Rage luns, no one could have seen it coming.

Orange-Idaho-Dog wrote:It was a Roid Rage luns, no one could have seen it coming.

Has there actually been a blood analysis or anything to prove this?

Orange-Idaho-Dog wrote:It was a Roid Rage luns, no one could have seen it coming.

He's still responsible for his actions. Let's not blame it on something else.

Besides, the police have now said they don't know if steroids played a part. We have to wait for further evidence. THIS IS MY POINT: Don't jump to conclusions.

It is the modern way.

Everytime someone makes a choice that ends up harming others they must have been a victim of something else.

Accountability has been removed from society.

I ctaully just read something in the newspaper that said it was a mix of an unknown drug and Viagra...

At least the wife died happy

i really liked his intro song

Gold Knight wrote:I ctaully just read something in the newspaper that said it was a mix of an unknown drug and Viagra...

At least the wife died happy

your sick weef, get your mind out of the gutter

Cheesemore wrote:

Stopper wrote:

Cheesemore wrote:As long as people want to be entertained on a constant basis and are willing to pay the money to be entertained, Sport star salaries will continue to rise.
Doctors, lawyers, teachers, policemen, firemen, these are the true heros and should be payed accordingly, but socitity doesn't work like that.
The world isn't perfect, it's the sad truth of life, people die, but eveytime someone dies, someone is born, and the world moves on.

I object to this. The vast sums that the top sportsmen and entertainers (and others, such as business executives etc) get paid nowadays - compared to people lower down the scale - is a relatively new phenomenon. Society doesn't have to work like that, and it didn't do so to anything like the same extent, both in America and Britain, as recently as 25 years ago. And there is no fundamental reason why it has to continue the way it does.

How can you object to the truth?

I wasn't objecting to the truth. I was objecting to the way you presented it, as if it was a fixed way of the world, and something that can't be changed.

Cheesemore wrote:This is how socitety is working today, I know about 30 years ago sports stars were lucky to make 500k a year (Chris Benoit himself only made that much in his best year). I agree that socitety doesn't have to work like this, but this is how it works, you can either go cry about it, or you can deal with it and move on

You live in a relatively democratic country, so you can argue about it, agitate for change, or at least vote for those who advocate change. The very worst thing you can do is simply accept it, and say it's just the way things are.

Stopper wrote: You live in a relatively democratic country, so you can argue about it, agitate for change, or at least vote for those who advocate change. The very worst thing you can do is simply accept it, and say it's just the way things are.

I can complain all I want about this and that, but as long as the majority is against it, there's nothing you can do but the choices I offered

chessplaya wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:yay triple post!

i was wondering what they would do with the whole mcmahon fake death story line...because i figured they couldnt keep up with that when a real death occured.

1- mcmahon showed up on raw

2- he didnt kill his family or did he


so what really happened there...is it official? he killed his own family?

if he did he is not worth the remembering

It is official, both his wife and son died of asphyxiation, as did he after hanging himself from a weights machine.

Luns i'm not jumping... Police found tons of steroids in his house. Yes, WWE is saying he wasn't on steroids because he took a drug test on April 10th and it came back negative. But its been over 3 months.

I guess your right to one point, it hasn't been proved or disproved. Guess we'll find out in 2 weeks.

Gold Knight wrote:I ctaully just read something in the newspaper that said it was a mix of an unknown drug and Viagra...

At least the wife died happy

1. How do you know she wasn't already dead?
2. What makes you assume he was using the viagra for a fun time with his wife? He could have had a mistress.

chessplaya wrote:

ParadiceCity9 wrote:yay triple post!

i was wondering what they would do with the whole mcmahon fake death story line...because i figured they couldnt keep up with that when a real death occured.

1- mcmahon showed up on raw

2- he didnt kill his family or did he


so what really happened there...is it official? he killed his own family?

if he did he is not worth the remembering

ya i know i watched some of it...got boring

and yes his own family.

Orange-Idaho-Dog wrote:Luns i'm not jumping... Police found tons of steroids in his house. Yes, WWE is saying he wasn't on steroids because he took a drug test on April 10th and it came back negative. But its been over 3 months.

I guess your right to one point, it hasn't been proved or disproved. Guess we'll find out in 2 weeks.

its actually been 2 and a half...

2 and a half what?

Sorry to butt into any conversation that's going on since i haven't read this thread...but i must say: This guy is the biggest douchebag on the planet to strangle his wife, smother his kid, then kill himself.