Moderator: Jesus H Christ
And some fairly obvious logical inferences. I happen to be a student of the game of golf. Something you are obviously not.MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Also, who the fuck are YOU to speak FOR these women? You have no idea how important this issue is or isn't to the average business woman. You're basing all of your arguments solely upon your own personal assumptions.
You asked a bullshit question. If you can't even get through the fucking DOOR, you are not even in a position to TRY to put the deal together.MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:show a SPECIFIC business proposal that failed, as a result of the Augusta policies. Please name names, company names, etc.
That's quite obvious, douche, evidenced by the fact we're 3 pages in now, and you still have yet to provide one single example that can back up your claims. Not a single one.BSmack wrote:Ask the question again, you'll get the same fucking answer.
Are you high?Felix wrote:by your logic B the female CEO of XYZ chip manufacturing company should have the right to attend a private lunch between the president of intel and the president of texas instruments because they might conduct business and she's being excluded.....
Felix wrote:by your logic B the female CEO of XYZ chip manufacturing company should have the right to attend a private lunch between the president of intel and the president of texas instruments because they might conduct business and she's being excluded
It's altruists like you, standing in the way of your country's plunge into the new Dark Ages, that really piss me off.BSmack wrote: Are you high?
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
My claims?MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:That's quite obvious, douche, evidenced by the fact we're 3 pages in now, and you still have yet to provide one single example that can back up your claims. Not a single one.
If I'm replying to your retarded drivel, you can BET it is a slow day at work.I don't even think you're dumb enough to think you have taken a stance in which you can legitimately defend. Bored day at work or something?
no.....BSmack wrote:Are you high?Felix wrote:by your logic B the female CEO of XYZ chip manufacturing company should have the right to attend a private lunch between the president of intel and the president of texas instruments because they might conduct business and she's being excluded.....
By all means point out where I said that what Augusta is doing is illegal.Felix wrote:no.....BSmack wrote:Are you high?Felix wrote:by your logic B the female CEO of XYZ chip manufacturing company should have the right to attend a private lunch between the president of intel and the president of texas instruments because they might conduct business and she's being excluded.....
are you?
by all means go ahead and point out how this is different.......
mvscal wrote:So when are you planning on substantiating your "one claim"?
where did I say anything in that post about legalities......BSmack wrote:By all means point out where I said that what Augusta is doing is illegal.Felix wrote:no.....BSmack wrote: Are you high?
are you?
by all means go ahead and point out how this is different.......
You were the one who said, "by your logic B the female CEO of XYZ chip manufacturing company should have the right to attend a private lunch between the president of intel and the president of texas instruments because they might conduct business and she's being excluded".Felix wrote:where did I say anything in that post about legalities......
are you sure you're not high?
now your going Doctor Detroit on me.....BSmack wrote: When you start saying things like "should have the right" you are speaking about legalities. Now if you would like to back away from that statement, feel free. I won't think any less of you.
Well, there's this ...BSmack wrote: By all means point out where I said that what Augusta is doing is illegal.
When you start saying things like "restraint of trade" you are speaking about legalities. Now if you would like to back away from that statement, feel free. I won't think any less of you. :wink:The problem stems from the fact that they are not just playing golf. They are also doing business that affects every man, woman and child on this planet. Not allowing 50% of the population to participate in that business is effectively restraint of trade.
Again, since it seems to have been glossed over, but ... the CEO of Citigroup can ask the CEO of Xerox (a chick) to play a round at Augusta and talk about buying a new copier or selling her on the newest credit card with cash back options. Fortune 500 Company's conduct business with each other based on mutually beneficial business needs not the gender of the CEO or membership in Augusta or other restricitve clubs.You see, this argument is not about whether there is a legal basis to restrict membership at Augusta. Obviously, there is no legal reason why they cannot restrict their membership. No, this is about whether or not their policies are of any particular importance in the grand scheme of things. And I would submit to you that access to the men who control companies like Coca-Cola, Citigroup. Motorola , JP Morgan Chase, Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, Coors, IBM and GE (just to name a few) is a big fucking deal for somebody who is looking to make business deals involving those companies.
Ingse Bodil wrote:rich jews aren't the same as real jews, though, right?
You tell me how "should have the right to something" means anything other than "should be illegal to deny me that thing" and maybe we can talk.Felix wrote:now your going Doctor Detroit on me.....BSmack wrote: When you start saying things like "should have the right" you are speaking about legalities. Now if you would like to back away from that statement, feel free. I won't think any less of you.
you know what I meant.....
what the fuck were we talking about......you've moved the target so many times I forgot what the point was......BSmack wrote:
You tell me how "should have the right to something" means anything other than "should be illegal to deny me that thing" and maybe we can talk.
Read my posts and get back to me. Right about now I am forced to conclude that the penguins underneath your posts are talking to you in ways that are driving you insane.Felix wrote:what the fuck were we talking about......you've moved the target so many times I forgot what the point was......BSmack wrote:
You tell me how "should have the right to something" means anything other than "should be illegal to deny me that thing" and maybe we can talk.
oh yeah, you believe that a woman should be granted access to a private golf club based on the fact that she's a woman......
martha burke much.......
Restraint of trade is not necessarily illegal. It happens all the time. Apples and fucking bowling balls dude.The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:When you start saying things like "restraint of trade" you are speaking about legalities. Now if you would like to back away from that statement, feel free. I won't think any less of you. :wink:
My argument is that this access you speak of is a big deal to those who need it to advance their careers. Way back on page one, someone said that those trying to gain admission to these clubs somehow lacked "perspective". My take is that you change the things in this world that apply to you and someday maybe you can change the world at large. In this case, these women have no power to change what is happening in Iran. But they can change sexist practices here in the US. So that's what they do.BTW 99% (just throwing a big number out there, but it's probably close) of the population is restricted from participating in "C-level business", but that's the free enterprise system.
Again, since it seems to have been glossed over, but ... the CEO of Citigroup can ask the CEO of Xerox (a chick) to play a round at Augusta and talk about buying a new copier or selling her on the newest credit card with cash back options. Fortune 500 Company's conduct business with each other based on mutually beneficial business needs not the gender of the CEO or membership in Augusta or other restricitve clubs.
Your whole arguement semas fucked up to me dude. It's about access to powerful people. Most people don't have access to those types of people and it has nothing to do with gender. I'd love to do business with Citibank & Xerox, but if I placed a call to either of those CEO's, I'd get shot down equally fast.
so you're now denying that's what the gist of your posts are?BSmack wrote: Read my posts and get back to me.
you want to prevent members of a private club from doing business, because there aren't women members.......The problem stems from the fact that they are not just playing golf. They are also doing business that affects every man, woman and child on this planet. Not allowing 50% of the population to participate in that business is effectively restraint of trade. (hmm, that sounds kind of legal like)
Now, if the members of Augusta were to adhere to a strict, enforceable and verifiable policy of absolutely no business of any kind (like bringing clients to the club) being conducted on club premises...
No, this is about whether or not their policies are of any particular importance in the grand scheme of things. And I would submit to you that access to the men who control companies like Coca-Cola, Citigroup. Motorola , JP Morgan Chase, Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, Coors, IBM and GE (just to name a few) is a big fucking deal for somebody who is looking to make business deals involving those companies.
yeah, I can see now how your posts aren't anything about what you perceive to be the inequities of Augusta National and your campaigning for a woman to be admitted as a member.....They are impeding the ability of women who would, were it not for this arbitrary restriction, otherwise be able to enjoy the perks of membership at one of the most exclusive clubs on the planet. And one of those perks is the ability to network with the richest and most powerful people on the planet earth. Sorry to inform you of this, but this is not something you can do at your local muni.
Well, I never said that I wanted to prevent Augusta members from doing business at their club. In fact, I said very clearly that they have every legal right to exclude whomever they choose.Felix wrote:then by all means asseyes....point out how I'm misrepresenting your opinion with selective "snipping"
So now you're speaking for "we all"? All of whom? Disgruntled potato lovers?we all get it Bri.....you'll defend your point to the death....no matter how wrong it is......
