No it's not. But you've already made the point for opposition which is as follows.

Yes. Because Forbes is a magazine for legitimate business.

Nope, don't think so.

And you think the bodybuilding magazine can guarantee that everyone on the list they published has never ever taken steroids?

Can Forbes guarantee that every dollar earned by the hundreds of people they listed were made legitimately? What if one guy earned one dollar illegally? How about one thousand dollars? One million dollars? At what point should he be excluded from the list?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to verify this information, and as such, you can and SHOULD NOT exclude certain people because of it.

You don't even KNOW where the billion dollars listed for this drug guy was made from. For all you know, maybe most of it was made legitimately, despite the fact he's a drug dealer.

:rolleyes:


Does not matter in my opinion.

Just the fact that he is on that list goes to show just how absolutely laughable our views on drugs are.

Drugs must be legalized, regulated, and taxes from it used to treat addicts like any other disease.

Drug addicts don't all use drugs for fun, they use it to escape from shitty lives that they can't fix on their own.

Nope. But they wouldn't knowingly endorse a guy who abuses it.

What's idiotic is that you claim they're "publicizing" a drug pusher just by including his name on a list.

And why is the term "facts" in quotations? A fact is a fact. He is a billionaire. Therefore he should be included in a list of billionaires.

Is this an opinion or fact? I think it's the former.

I think if they're going to publish a list such as this, it is MUCH more important to be complete and unbiased... and CORRECT.

They can NOT say it is a complete list of the world's billionaires if they do not include him.

I see how you conveniently glossed over and omitted my example of the bridge.

As you were, logically challenged. :thumbsup:

:haha::haha::haha:

Yes they would, and yes they do

Let's take this one step further.

You guys are arguing that because this is a business magazine, it should only include those that made their fortune through legitimate business.

I think this is no different than if this same list of billionaires were to be published in a pro-life magazine (money is pretty universal, and such a list could be included anywhere), and that there is someone there who is known to be pro-choice, they should remove him from the list.

After all, a pro-life magazine shouldn't "endorse" or "publicize" someone who is pro-choice.

Is that correct?

That is some pretty shitty biased publishing you guys would be doing, and I think the publication would lose huge credibility for being a reliable source of information.

Oh, by the way, one of your arguments is completely invalid.

This list and accompanying articles aren't even IN the business section of Forbes.

It's in the LIST section of Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/11/wor...ires_land.html

See the tab that's highlighted? LISTS, not BUSINESS.

So does any of your argument change because of this? "But, but, but..."

Are you going to say "But it's still a legitimate business magazine so only legitimate business should be covered."

But then what you said when I brought up there are sections for STYLE, FOOD, SPORTS, etc. just became invalid.

So what's it going to be?

Oh, what do you know... they actually did do a feature article on just him.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/03...aine-king.html

Oh noes... a criminal with his own article on a legitimate business magazine website. :willnill:

So as I suspected, the listed $1 billion fortune he has is the amount that has been washed or that he otherwise DOES have legal rights to.

He is also at #701. The number of people who would have noticed him would have been very minimal had the Mexican government not made a fuss about it.

Yeah, I made that point earlier too... but that was before they put the whole article up on him, or at least before I knew about it...

like you said, you see what im talking about so i wont argue it further. as to why doesnt someone do something about a drug lord...im pretty sure mexico is trying its hardest. so did columbia, and they've been at it for how long? its not exactly easy to take down an org with that much money.

legally. until proven otherwise. that is the difference. and if some company does ruin some peoples lives but doesnt break any laws then who cares? whats the issue?

I agree with him being on the list... it's just a list of rich people regardless of how they came across their fortunes. If someone inherited a massive fortune and never worked a day in their life, they'll be on the list too.

3 freakin pages ..... arguing about whether a druglord should be on a list when it doesnt even matter because the article has already been published.

god.

Time Person of the Year doesn't have to be a person that has done good for society.

Likewise Forbes list of billionaires is about anyone who has a billion $, no matter how they get it.

rothschilds and the other world bank/oil/arms folks are illuminati, thus their wealth is to remain hidden :p

actually, they're not on the list because officially they'd squandered away the family fortune many, many years ago and, supposedly, are completely broke. a very likely story indeed

Actually, my case to you is that to suspect or to know does not equate to convict.

and that was what i was saying too...?

Finally some others with some common sense around here...

So you're saying the drug dealer has been convicted?