17-07-2012, 03:48 AM
11
Re: John Terry --- not guilty
I have to say I object to the phrase"Tree Hugger" as I am one.Those trees stand there in the winter in all the rain and snow and insummer in the heat, I apreciate the beauty of them and give them a hug now and again.Perhaps if the moaners gave some time to caring they would get something back from nature.
17-07-2012, 09:19 AM
13
Re: John Terry --- not guilty
Of course we all realise footballers have no skills whatsoever, just big boys kicking a ball about, ---- yeah Right.Does that apply to chefs as well, after all aren't they doing a job everyone else doea, just cooking a few things.
What about tennis players ---rugby players ---golfers ---Architects --- doctors --- surgeons, the list goes on and on, they are all dong jobs they enjoy --- they are passionate about, they might get obscene amounts of money doing it but they are, after all, doing something they are naturally gifted at.
Mind you the "tree hugger" would get milage out of the fact of these highly paid jobs, after all, shouldn't they, the wealthy ones share their wealth with the less fortunate, you know the ones, those that have spent YEARS suffering on the dole, those that think the country owes them a living, those that for whatever reasons failed to follow THEIR dreams , still they can always form a group, call themselves ---Tree Huggers United --- ooop better not though ---sounds too much like a footie team.
17-07-2012, 09:56 AM
14
Re: John Terry --- not guilty
Originally Posted by Jonsey
->
Of course we all realise footballers have no skills whatsoever, just big boys kicking a ball about, ---- yeah Right.Does that apply to chefs as well, after all aren't they doing a job everyone else doea, just cooking a few things.
What about tennis players ---rugby players ---golfers ---Architects --- doctors --- surgeons, the list goes on and on, they are all dong jobs they enjoy --- they are passionate about, they might get obscene amounts of money doing it but they are, after all, doing something they are naturally gifted at.
Mind you the "tree hugger" would get milage out of the fact of these highly paid jobs, after all, shouldn't they, the wealthy ones share their wealth with the less fortunate, you know the ones, those that have spent YEARS suffering on the dole, those that think the country owes them a living, those that for whatever reasons failed to follow THEIR dreams , still they can always form a group, call themselves ---Tree Huggers United --- ooop better not though ---sounds too much like a footie team.
What would make anyone think that the ones called "treehuggers" are all on the dole and have failed to follow their dreams. Utter rubbish - Many so called "treehuggers" will be highly successful people with more than enough resources to take care of themselves and others. Some might even be footballers, chefs, etc. Again a sweeping statement made with little thought. Quite a ridiculous post, an annoying windup perhaps - is the best that can be said about it?
17-07-2012, 10:32 AM
15
Re: John Terry --- not guilty
Or perhaps my "sweeping statements" aren't as sweeping as yours, does one have to have a 'plum" in ones mouth in order to conduct oneself correctly, I think there are too may 'expose's' in the upper echelons of society to disprove that factor.And are the lies and deciet of those 'upper class" bankers, politicians, news media barons a very good example to our young???.
In my humble opinion, for not you hold one jot for, I put them in the same sweeping statement as your >>>> and I quote >>>>
but without any manners or judgement, who don't know how to conduct themselves properly >>>>>>>>> end of quote.
Tree Huggers are in the same catagory, they are life's losers, who, because they were unable, or incapable, of "following their dream", decided to attack those that have, and scream ---human --and civil rights all over the place, life is like that though, if you can't live with it then kick those that did.
With all due respect to you, I suggest you re-read my post and tell me where I said those on the dole were tree huggers ??, whereas I DID say they were the ones, ( the tree huggers, now do you get it ???)) that scream and shout about wealth sharing, simply because they don't have the ability to earn the kind of money any of the stated 'groups" earn.
You are of course entitled to express yourself in a manner you deem fit, but might I suggest to you that if you were to answer logically instead of with a "tunnel vision" you, not only could express a wider aspect of the topic, but you wuld then be able to dispense with those stereotypical sweeping statements of yours.
17-07-2012, 06:00 PM
16
Re: John Terry --- not guilty
Extract from your post Jonesy:---they are passionate about, they might get obscene amounts of money doing it but they are, after all, doing something they are naturally gifted at.
Absolutely bang on mate, they are passionate at swearing, and yes they are overpaid for doing it, and they are certainly overpaid for swearing too.
17-07-2012, 06:31 PM
18
Re: John Terry --- not guilty
Originally Posted by Jonsey
->
Or perhaps my "sweeping statements" aren't as sweeping as yours, does one have to have a 'plum" in ones mouth in order to conduct oneself correctly, I think there are too may 'expose's' in the upper echelons of society to disprove that factor.And are the lies and deciet of those 'upper class" bankers, politicians, news media barons a very good example to our young???.
In my humble opinion, for not you hold one jot for, I put them in the same sweeping statement as your >>>> and I quote >>>>
but without any manners or judgement, who don't know how to conduct themselves properly >>>>>>>>> end of quote.
Tree Huggers are in the same catagory, they are life's losers, who, because they were unable, or incapable, of "following their dream", decided to attack those that have, and scream ---human --and civil rights all over the place, life is like that though, if you can't live with it then kick those that did.
With all due respect to you, I suggest you re-read my post and tell me where I said those on the dole were tree huggers ??, whereas I DID say they were the ones, ( the tree huggers, now do you get it ???)) that scream and shout about wealth sharing, simply because they don't have the ability to earn the kind of money any of the stated 'groups" earn.
You are of course entitled to express yourself in a manner you deem fit, but might I suggest to you that if you were to answer logically instead of with a "tunnel vision" you, not only could express a wider aspect of the topic, but you wuld then be able to dispense with those stereotypical sweeping statements of yours.
Will you please define the term "treehugger" because if that isn't a stereotypical description I don't know what is.
I also quote from your post:-
"Tree huggers are in the same category - they are life's losers" and "Mind you the "tree hugger" would get milage out of the fact of these highly paid jobs, after all, shouldn't they, the wealthy ones share their wealth with the less fortunate, you know the ones, those that have spent YEARS suffering on the dole, those that think the country owes them a living, those that for whatever reasons failed to follow THEIR dreams , still they can always form a group, call themselves ---Tree Huggers United"
To me those words clearly put tree huggers in the same cagtegory as those who have not followed their dreams or are on the dole.
Your posts seem to try to "muddy the waters" when challenged - and I fail to see what "plums" in mouths have to do with this thread. I don't mind admitting Jonsey - the logic baffles me.
|
|
