birdog1960
-
Posts
7,653 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by birdog1960
-
-
most liked comment on nyt report on the murders:
America is becoming Afghanistan.
People are armed to the teeth with high power military style weapons.
Anyone can buy guns just about anywhere.
No restrictions on ammunition purchases.
Armor piercing ammo is readily available.
Many states now have both open carry and conceal carry and many of those do not require a permit or any training.
Law enforcement is terrified of the pubic.
The public is terrified of law enforcement.
The government through police brutality openly oppresses certain minorities.
Politicians have lost respect for law enforcement when they don't get a politically desired conviction.
We have state sanctioned dungeons called prisons that are busting at the seams from overcrowding.
We do nothing to counter massive inequality and hopelessness which breeds contempt and lack of respect for government.
We are on the verge of electing a demagogue for president who knows nothing but talks tough and rails against everything.
His opponent ignores legal requirements of office for convenience.
Congress is completely dysfunctional, accomplishes nothing and thinks its job is to gum up the works so no problems can be addressed. This is done in opposition to the duly elected leader whom whey have no respect for.
Mass shootings have become commonplace.
About the only hurdle left are roadside IEDs and suicide car bombs.
All because of politics, fanatic ideology, corruption in the form of campaign financing and lobbyists, and a misinterpreted 2nd amendment. -
I could've sworn our last President was Hope personified.
stymied at nearly every turn on social issue with one big exception.
-
Attorney General Loretta Lynch to make a statement on the shootings in Dallas at 11:30a, DOJ announces.
I think I've got this.....
"We may never know the REAL motivation of the shooters".....
Here is the type of thoughtful column.....................That I think Bird dog is getting at
The Uncomfortable Reason Why it Came to This in Dallas Yesterday
by Leon Wolf
Let me say this right off the bat: I don't at all condone any shooting police officers or attacking them in any way. I hope that the people responsible are caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law - which, given that the attacks appear to have been premeditated and directed at law enforcement, means the death penalty. I assume, given that these idiots chose to perpetrate their crime in Texas, that this is exactly what will happen.
Fine. Good, even.
Now let's take a step back and look at the forces that would drive someone to do something like this yesterday. Here's the reality that we don't often talk about - that societies are held together less by laws and force and threats of force than we are by ethereal and fragile concepts like mutual respect and belief in the justness of the system itself.
In America, there are 376 police officers per 100,000 citizens - or one police officer per every 266 citizens. Stop and think about that. Could every police officer in America maintain order over 266 unruly people who had no respect for him him or the badge he wields? Absolutely not. The only thing that makes the situation even a little bit tenable is that the vast majority of people never think about confronting or challenging a police officer, and instead get up each day with the commitment to live their lives peacefully and lawfully, because they believe a) that they live in a society that is basically just and b) they believe that the few policemen who do exist will be there to protect them if something goes wrong and c) they have faith, by and large, that if someone commits a crime against them, they will be caught and punished.
{snip}
Reasonable people can disagree about the prevalence of police brutality in America, and the extent to which race plays a factor in it. I don't think reasonable people can disagree that excessive police force is punished way less often than it actually happens. And that's the kind of problem that leads to people taking up guns and committing acts of violence - tragically (and with evil intent) against cops who as far as we know have done nothing wrong.
But people's willingness to act rationally and within the confines of the law and the political system is generally speaking directly proportional to their belief that the law and political system will ever punish wrongdoing. And right now, that belief is largely broken, especially in many minority communities.
And it's the blind, uncritical belief that the police never (or only in freak circumstances) do anything wrong that is a major contributing factor to that.
It's at least as much of a factor, if not more so, than the blind, uncritical belief that the police always do things wrong - which many conservatives today are blaming in entirety for what happened in Dallas.
The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle, but acknowledging that requires looking in the mirror in a way that makes us all a little uncomfortable.
.
I think this is way off topic. it's more about the pervasiveness of racism, classism and informal caste structures throughout society. the underclass has become much too large. too many people see no hope. but I agree that order is dependent on mutual respect, belief in fundamental fairness and hope. those things are in short supply in much of America right now.
I don't believe it's about the police per se. they are just the misidentified symbols of unfairness in the country and the most accessible authority figures. As I've said before the unrest will hit the gated communities last even though those that hold significant blame often reside in them.
-
Oh there is a fundamental problem for sure, but I'm sure my idea of what's wrong and yours are fundamentally different.
you're probably correct. and therefore our solutions would be aimed at different problems. therefore, no point in discussing it. kinda like what's happening in Washington....
-
Oh please wise and mighty Solomon, enlighten us with the long-term answers.
Please.
it's a start. presumably you are agreeing that there are fundamental problems with the fabric of American culture, through and through. agreed? without that premise established, there's no point discussing solutions.
-
the reactions in the shoutbox and this forum well illustrate the problems in American society. we've got posters denying any big problems after the equivalent of a war on a large us city street. we've got posters merrily describing going to whitest show in town tonight and bragging about it. then we've got people with conscience actually mourning the losses and the shape of American culture.
we should all be mourning and searching for root causes, short term and long term answers. instead, some make jokes (some racist), others throw partisan bombs. it's disheartening.
-
your family must be so proud. especially if they value disingenuity.
-
I can just picture a scene in rural Virginia:
A doctor finishes a splenectomy on a patient who's complaining of shoulder pain. Throws the latex gloves in a biohazard bin, walks by the receptionist who's barely earning $10/hr in his practice (after all, she's lucky to get that much, he's got bigger priorities), sits down on the couch, rubs the chin thinking of an Internet win.
But maybe not so fast
1. you labelled branham a simpleton.
- Uhm, Who's branham? Do you mean, Burnham? No, I didn't label him a simpleton. I labeled you and the PBS producer simpletons for finally recognizing the financial trap that your administration has set up for the next occupant and the country.
2.pikkety. you insisted that i'm an idiot for proposing the same solution to address income inequality as picket: taxation.
The search function is your friend. I pointed out numerous occasions where Picketty walked back the misapplication of his theories. Try the search one day. It's on the upper right of this page.
You know what happens when people do their own homework?
They learn something
3.you insisted that gov't was responsible for qe and then insisted that central banks were equivalent to govt.
No, I said that the central banks don't print money. You must have me confused with your twin, gatorman.
4.Insisted that branham did not use the term "print money" in his article, blaming it on his editor.
Prove it.
5. belittled branham's accomplishments by stating he was an adjunct professor.
If the guy insists on having a public blog, he should list his accomplishment. All he has is a LinkedIn invitation. Congratulations, he has many degrees. Some of the most clueless people I know own multiple degrees from top schools. And I wouldn't recruit any of them for a job that requires any kid of decision making. But boy, what an impressive resume.
"It only took some simpleton at PBS to recognize the problem 7 years later and publish a piece," oh, now i see. you believe branham wrote the article seven years ago and the editor sat on it til brexit! sure. not bloody likely. he wrote this in the last week. brexit dates it. you're shameless but it's hardly surprising given the track record of so many of your non academic colleagues.
"Who here has ever argued that central banks don't manipulate the markets? Oh that's right you and the gator idiot."
"If anything that's been a huge issue for many people here who understand what they're talking about. And now you finally recognize that government intervention has negative effects, and you !@#$ing have the nerve to call me out on it."
perhaps you should work on your writing communication skills cuz anyone but the sycophants here would likely conclude from this quote that you were conflating govt and central banks.
"Elizabeth Warren also went to Harvard and she's a moron when it comes to finance.
Central banks don't print money, idiot. That's why using proper terms is important". ibid. see above.
"And for the last time, stop misapplying Picketty's analysis of 19th century Europe to modern economies."
so in your weasel style you haven't actually stated that pikkety withdrew his recommendations on wealth inequality. and then you demand that i prove a negative. weasel.
prove that an editor wrote those words? once again, it's impossible to prove a negative. you made the far fetched assertion, you prove it. insufferable...
and finally, does an adjunct professor equal an associate professor? google it ,you might learn something, he has more than impressive degrees. he has the esteem of colleagues at some of the most prestigious centers of learning in the world since they hired him as a peer.
-
You say that, but....
...then you say this. Is your implication that better equipped equals deserving of greater respect? If so, that's an extraordinarily elitist statement.
not elitist at all. publicly calling a respected colleague a simpleton is stupid no matter your position at that particular moment in life. it's especially stupid if you can't articulate your reason for doing so.
-
Reading the classics helps, or so I hear.
what helps is justifying outrageous statements with reason. lacking that the classics won't help but are always worth reading.
-
I can rotate the tires on all my truck, change their oil, order a pizza, lecture people about the difference between a bull and a heifer, build a really cool pillow fort, and spin a top really really fast. Oh and hold my breath and dive really deep.
I am respected. Are you?
are you respected enough to call a fellow farmer a simpleton? one with better stock, better equipment and better and more land? would you then still be respected?
-
Argue what points?
That overextending QE is a dangerous tool that loses its effect when the real economy doesn't grow, and you're left with an equity asset bubble and a huge inflationary risk?
Gee, where have I heard this said over the last seven years?
Oh yes, everywhere, but in the sources that are favorable to the current administration. But wait, now QE is only bad as it relates to BOE's actions in UK, but are totally fine when the Fed has been stoking the equity market since 2009. Did I get that right? Oh that's right you can't answer this because you're not an adjunct professor at Harvard who spent a few minutes at Goldman Sachs.
since you insist on being disingenuous, let's review some of your documented points from the last few pages.:
1. you labelled branham a simpleton. based on what and with what authority? it would take someone with great authority in the field of economics to make that claim of a colleague with impressive credentials. where's the evidence. what is your authority? of course, this is what prompted an exploration of the boards definition of an expert. from what i can gather, it's anyone with an opinion. Is that your opinion?
2.pikkety. you insisted that i'm an idiot for proposing the same solution to address income inequality as picket: taxation. you then stated that he's rescinded this recommendation. i can't find him making any public comment to that effect. link one. otherwise, you are calling picket an idiot. and by extension believe you have the authority and evidence to state that. what is your authority and evidence?
3.you insisted that gov't was responsible for qe and then insisted that central banks were equivalent to govt. you later said they weren't. which is it and if the latter ,why did you deliberately misstate this and argue it?
4.Insisted that branham did not use the term "print money" in his article, blaming it on his editor. what evidence do you have for this contention?
5. belittled branham's accomplishments by stating he was an adjunct professor. linkedin list his jobs at harvard and michigan as visiting assistant professor. do you contend that these are equivalent positions?
so there you have it. argue these points. any and all. because these leaps of logic aren't the stuff of an accomplished expert in a field. you'd be chewed up a spit out at a panel discussion with these two authors while making these statements and having to defend them publicly with other peers of these distinguished men. i'd pay to see it.
-
Lol birddog has officially lost it.
What's your title. Show me what gang you're part of. Why you wearing a red bandana in this part of town?
nope. the opposite is the case. why are you calling the guy with a red bandana a dunce when the rest of the world recognizes the red bandana as a validated sign of intelligence until proven otherwise.? why assume the opposite? people with the red bandana have been shown to be generally more intelligent by multiple objective measures.
aw hell, just trade the 1st 2 draft picks and pick that shiny ornament! i like it. it's shiny!
and no. i'm not against police profiling as long as innocent til proven guilt.ty is universally applied.
but nice try. i like it. my dogs are currently sporting red bandanas.
-
And you have independent confirmation?
yup. medicine is under the looking glass more than most professions. there are all kinds of metrics. some validated, some not. but enough that if you're lacking, it's gonna be a problem for you. pita but probably a good thing for everyone. and you?
-
What, are you 12? Are you about to justify your authoritative voice based on the car you drive?
nope. claiming to be an expert requires independent confirmation. your opinion doesn't count. otherwise every dumb fu@% could claim to be an expert. oh, wait...
are there unrecognized experts? sure. but rarely. true experts will be identified. they're too valuable to miss. conversely, those claiming to be experts (especially in impactful positions) but not producing the goods (whaley, are you reading?) will be exposed rather quickly. results matter.
-
With the following, I rest my case. You're a mindless fool.
your case is lost. what media or professional group would consider you an expert? who would publish your opinion? besides tbd?
what is an expert? lacking the above, how would you define the term?
-
There's no need to argue my point. It was a hypothetical presented to the posters at large. You're welcome to argue my point, but seeing as the only argument you are able to consistently present on any topic is "Everyone is stupid but me," I'm not sure you have much of a leg to stand on.
Also, leave the passive insults to others. You're barely smart enough to have a discussion. Don't complicate things by attempting to be clever. Every time you try to be clever, all anyone hears is Hillary saying "You mean, like, with a cloth?"
argue the points coward.
I'm not arguing with him you nitwit. It's with the editors who can't tell the difference between QE and printing money. Kind of like you who can't tell the difference between a Harvard adjunct professor and a PBS production assistant.
And Britain throwing more money into the banking system isn't some new phenomenon that we need to be worried about because central banks have been easing their way into an unsustainable asset bubble for the last seven years, you dolt. BOE has no choice now because they are worried about the banks, but it's just the latest bandaid on a festering boil that progressive governments have set upon the world. Glad that PBS is finally waking up to the problem so that lemming mouth breathers like you finally can see that there's a problem with your !@#$ing emperor without any clothes.
argue the points loser, the editors didn't write the words,. the teacher from cambridge did. who the f%&k are you? lets see your credits. what's your title? who publicly respects you?
-
Well isn't that ironic.
pathetic is the word i'd choose.
-
Am I the only one who ever notices that EVERY time birdog whines about something with which he disagrees, it always involves nitwits, idiots or anti-intellectuals?
It's like having Elaine May explaining why today's movies suck.
argue the points nit wit.
and if you want to whine about someone calling people idiots, you might aim your contempt at someone that claims to have rights over the word.
am i the only one that sees continual double standards from the chorus? almost like they sing with one voice.
-
You keep telling yourself that, Scooter. Your ideology is blowing up in your face across the globe. No surprise you can't see it.
No, no, no! It has nothing to do with this and everything to do with the funny-looking people.
yes, because a large group of people that have been screwed by the concentration of wealth have mistakenly decided that a group of nitwits without any answers actually have them. it's happened before. it will happen again (if we survive this one) there are many stupid, impressionable people that tend towards magical, wishful thinking.. that doesn't make my ideology wrong. i'm all for redistribution of wealth.
-
Why would I need to argue with him?
We've been warning about the dangers of excessive QE for 7 years. It's been all over WSJ & The Economist for years. But that's right you don't read those publications.
It only took some simpleton at PBS to recognize the problem 7 years later and publish a piece, and only then you take it seriously?
Are !@#$ing kidding me?
I truly feel sorry for your patients.
you are arguing with him. over the figurative reading of his use of "printing money".
who says he or i or anyone else wasn't concerned with qe before brexit? he's just describing it in the context of brexit, which by the way, happened only 1 week ago.
i'm also describing it in the context of brexit since this is a thread funnily enough on brexit. to assume that either he or i took any position on qe before brexit is unwarranted although based on his writing it would seem pretty likely he felt this way before brexit as did i.
i feel sorry for your customers
and on what basis are you calling him a simpleton? the fact that he taught in one of the most prestigious economic departments in the world and that you dislike academics?
-
Elizabeth Warren also went to Harvard and she's a moron when it comes to finance.
Central banks don't print money, idiot. That's why using proper terms is important. You know, like conflating shoulders & spleens.
take it up with terry. you might want to send him your cv.
ya see, this guy was a professor at Harvard and employed at goldman as well as authoring several books. one could reasonably conclude that his knowledge base was impressive in order to obtain those positions.
Terry Burnham is a former Goldman Sachs employee, money manager, biotech entrepreneur and economics professor at the Harvard Business School. He’s the author of “Mean Genes” and “Mean Markets and Lizard Brains” and now teaches finance at Chapman University. You can follow him at www.terryburnham.com.so why should we value your opinion and totally ignore his? cuz you say so. right, the usual reason to support an argument here. -
Central banks do not equal governments. But central banks also don't print money. Please enlighten me where does this article say that BoE is going to start printing money as you stated?
Stick with other things you don't know about.
you quoted a Harvard economist. those are his words and links from the pbs article that he wrote. but what does he know? he's an academic that worked for goldman. I don't think he meant "print money" literally. i'm sure had answer an inquiry from an esteemed colleague.
-
Who here has ever argued that central banks don't manipulate the markets? Oh that's right you and the gator idiot.
If anything that's been a huge issue for many people here who understand what they're talking about. And now you finally recognize that government intervention has negative effects, and you !@#$ing have the nerve to call me out on it.
What a !@#$ing idiot.
yes, because post 315-317 never happened. and itf they did, you and the rest of the learned posse would have challenged them...
gov't does not equal central banks. I've told you a billion times now.
Liberal Protests
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
and your comments were so cogent! might be a good idea to study some statistics.
but i'd never pegged you for a nyt reader.