3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yeah, that went right over your head. I would vote for JFK over Obama also. Unfortunately he isn't running this year. Reagan took over a weak economy and spent if deficit to kick start it. Obama did the same thing. If Romney or Santorum end up in the White House after this they'll do the same thing. As for Reagan's tax policy, the tax cuts were paid for with deficit spending. Bankrupting the Soviets? That's one of the funniest things I've ever heard. Looks like that went over your head too. I have three daughters by the way. Sorry to ruin your day. And since it looks like we're getting back on the grammar bandwagon, you might want to put spaces between sentences. Especially when you're trying to tell someone how stupid they are because they have poor spelling or grammar. Fascism has a pretty strong archetype behind it to turn around and say you only mean it in the general sense. When someone uses the word fascist the first thing that runs through your mind is Hitler isn't it? It would be kind of like calling someone a rooster sucking monkey f'r. Then turning around and saying you only meant it in the general sense. Please explain just what went over my head, as if you could ever state something that would go over my head. There is the possibility that I couldn't understand the incoherent ramblings of a imbecile though. Reagan spent in deficit? What does that mean? And btw, the only reason I said i'd vote for JFK today is that he would be the most conservative of all the candidates running (from either party). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Corporate balance sheets are at an all time high because they're not investing in any capital improvements...things like infrastructure, or labor (why do you think the unemployment rate is 2% higher than it was during Bush's "jobless recovery"? Because no one wants to risk capital on expansion.( In other words...cash-rich corporate balance sheets are not necessarily a good thing, dumbass. Yes, good is bad and bad is good. Couldn't corporations with large amounts of cash on hand be seen as a good thing? Everyone loves more money! For example, if a Republican was President, then it would be a good thing, right? also been seen Dow @ 13,000---Obama bad! Please explain just what went over my head, You wouldn't understand, you are too dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yes, good is bad and bad is good. Couldn't corporations with large amounts of cash on hand be seen as a good thing? Everyone loves more money! For example, if a Republican was President, then it would be a good thing, right? also been seen Dow @ 13,000---Obama bad! You wouldn't understand, you are too dumb So, you can't explain what someone else stated went over my head but you felt compelled to stick your feeble mind into the discussion? You are a !@#$ing fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yes, good is bad and bad is good. Couldn't corporations with large amounts of cash on hand be seen as a good thing? Everyone loves more money! For example, if a Republican was President, then it would be a good thing, right? also been seen Dow @ 13,000---Obama bad! You wouldn't understand, you are too dumb What sort of return are the corporations getting on their cash? Compare that with their typical ROI? How is earning a fraction of what they would under normal circumstances a good thing? Due to the risk involved they aren't spending on expansion. Due to the risk involved they aren't releasing that money back to the shareholders as dividends. They're stuffing the mattress full of cash because they expect a high probability of needing that cash. How is that a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 What sort of return are the corporations getting on their cash? Compare that with their typical ROI? How is earning a fraction of what they would under normal circumstances a good thing? Due to the risk involved they aren't spending on expansion. Due to the risk involved they aren't releasing that money back to the shareholders as dividends. They're stuffing the mattress full of cash because they expect a high probability of needing that cash. How is that a good thing? How many assumptions can you make to twist and turn a single argument? So corporations are not earning that much? A fraction of what they should? Prove that please. And what are "normal circumstances"? European and Republican congressional debt shocks? Blaming Obama for corporations having too much money is just stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Don't feed the troll. No one is this stupid on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 So, you can't explain what someone else stated went over my head but you felt compelled to stick your feeble mind into the discussion? You are a !@#$ing fool. What else can he say? I said it pretty clear. How else could I say it in a way that you would understand? Sorry, DIN is right here. You just don't get it. You're too dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 What else can he say? I said it pretty clear. How else could I say it in a way that you would understand? Sorry, DIN is right here. You just don't get it. You're too dumb. One more time. What do you mean by "Reagan spent in deficit"? How can you pay for tax cuts with deficit spending? What don't you get about Reagan bankrupting the Soviets? You compound your ignorance with obtuseness and then double down with your mutual admiration with Davey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yes, good is bad and bad is good. Couldn't corporations with large amounts of cash on hand be seen as a good thing? Everyone loves more money! For example, if a Republican was President, then it would be a good thing, right? also been seen Dow @ 13,000---Obama bad! You wouldn't understand, you are too dumb Cash being sat on isn't being used for capital investment. Fascism has a pretty strong archetype behind it to turn around and say you only mean it in the general sense. When someone uses the word fascist the first thing that runs through your mind is Hitler isn't it? No, the first thing that runs through my mind is Mussolini. The second thing that runs through my mind is the principles of nationalism and the Fuhrerprinzip. Hitler's a distant third. But that's probably because I'm actually edumacated. It would be kind of like calling someone a rooster sucking monkey f'r. Then turning around and saying you only meant it in the general sense. Yeah, except it's nothing like that, you rooster sucking monkey !@#$er. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Cash being sat on isn't being used for capital investment. No, the first thing that runs through my mind is Mussolini. The second thing that runs through my mind is the principles of nationalism and the Fuhrerprinzip. Hitler's a distant third. But that's probably because I'm actually edumacated. Yeah, except it's nothing like that, you rooster sucking monkey !@#$er. Dave's a monkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Dave's a monkey? Absolutely not. He's a monkey !@#$er. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Absolutely not. He's a monkey !@#$er. So, he's a pitcher and not a catcher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 So, he's a pitcher and not a catcher? Depends on how well hung the monkey is I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Depends on how well hung the monkey is I suppose. I think I have forgotten what the discussion was about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think I have forgotten what the discussion was about. Got you all flustered and excited there Adam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think I have forgotten what the discussion was about. It's PPP. All the discussions here might as well be about screwing or getting screwed by monkeys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Got you all flustered and excited there Adam? Yawn. Only if a roulette wheel and a hammer is involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 How many assumptions can you make to twist and turn a single argument? So corporations are not earning that much? A fraction of what they should? Prove that please. And what are "normal circumstances"? European and Republican congressional debt shocks? Blaming Obama for corporations having too much money is just stupid Holy cow, by choosing this as your response you are proving that you truly are a !@#$ing idiot (sorry Tom), an aspiring to be paid partisan hack, or more likely both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yeah, except it's nothing like that, you rooster sucking monkey !@#$er. I'm sure you mean that in the most general sense. Dave's a monkey? I just made a hand puppet out of 3rdnling! Look I'm DC Tom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'm sure you mean that in the most general sense. I just made a hand puppet out of 3rdnling! Look I'm DC Tom! Have you made one post of any substance since you joined this board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'm sure you mean that in the most general sense. Of course. I didn't presume you don't give hand jobs as well, and doubt you discriminate against orangutans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Have you made one post of any substance since you joined this board? About as much substance as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 About as much substance as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 If I told him he was argumentative he would tell me he was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 About as much substance as you. At least he's able to employ the tried-and-true "I know you are but what am I?" defense without making a complete fool of himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 One more time. What do you mean by "Reagan spent in deficit"? How can you pay for tax cuts with deficit spending? What don't you get about Reagan bankrupting the Soviets? You compound your ignorance with obtuseness and then double down with your mutual admiration with Davey. It pains me to know that I may one day have to sit and tell my grandchildren that yes, stupidity like this really is what bankrupted America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 It pains me to know that I may one day have to sit and tell my grandchildren that yes, stupidity like this really is what bankrupted America. Again, you didn't answer the question. You are pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Again, you didn't answer the question. You are pathetic. Why should I have to explain it to you if you are that frikin stupid. You have know idea how economics works. I would much rather see you continue to make a fool of yourself with questions like "How do we spend if deficit to pay with tax cuts?" It's so much more entertaining to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Why should I have to explain it to you if you are that frikin stupid. You have know idea how economics works. I would much rather see you continue to make a fool of yourself with questions like "How do we spend if deficit to pay with tax cuts?" It's so much more entertaining to me. Wow, just wow. Were you ever deprived of oxygen for an extended period of time? Let me give you a little hint 6, don't go calling people stupid when you don't know the difference between "know" and "no". Don't call someone stupid for a non sensical statement when all they were doing is quoting you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Wow, just wow. Were you ever deprived of oxygen for an extended period of time? Let me give you a little hint 6, don't go calling people stupid when you don't know the difference between "know" and "no". Don't call someone stupid for a non sensical statement when all they were doing is quoting you. You no, the funny thing about this is how you just don't seem to get it. Nonsensical is also one word dipshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Again, you didn't answer the question. You are pathetic. Any books out there that cover President Reagan bankruptcy the soviets, as you said? I was fairly young when he was in office and never heard anything like that before. From what i remember of him, I think he would be embarrassed by the references made about him today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Any books out there that cover President Reagan bankruptcy the soviets, as you said? I was fairly young when he was in office and never heard anything like that before. From what i remember of him, I think he would be embarrassed by the references made about him today. That's because it didn't happen. What bankrupted the Soviets was a sudden drop in the price of oil as well as the fact that the government had been rotting from the inside for about 70 years. He also sold arms to Iran and used the money to fund the contras in Central America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 That's because it didn't happen. What bankrupted the Soviets was a sudden drop in the price of oil as well as the fact that the government had been rotting from the inside for about 70 years. He also sold arms to Iran and used the money to fund the contras in Central America. again- any books you could recommend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Inside Job Great film that succinctly explains how we got mother!@#$ed That's because it didn't happen. What bankrupted the Soviets was a sudden drop in the price of oil as well as the fact that the government had been rotting from the inside for about 70 years. He also sold arms to Iran and used the money to fund the contras in Central America. Reaganomics was myopic and reckless. Well today we are near our debt ceiling and Russia is part of the BRICS leading emerging economies. How you like that Reaganomics now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 You no, the funny thing about this is how you just don't seem to get it. Nonsensical is also one word dipshit. HAHA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Inside Job Great film that succinctly explains how we got mother!@#$ed Reaganomics was myopic and reckless. Well today we are near our debt ceiling and Russia is part of the BRICS leading emerging economies. How you like that Reaganomics now? You claim Reagan is responsible for the US being near it's debt ceiling 24 years after he left office? And admire the economy of the builder of the Berlin wall? Unbelievable. Edited February 21, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Any books out there that cover President Reagan bankruptcy the soviets, as you said? I was fairly young when he was in office and never heard anything like that before. From what i remember of him, I think he would be embarrassed by the references made about him today. He challenged them to an arms race that they couldn't win and eventually they had to back down. That precipitated the breakup of the Soviet Union but was not the only reason. Inside Job Great film that succinctly explains how we got mother!@#$ed Reaganomics was myopic and reckless. Well today we are near our debt ceiling and Russia is part of the BRICS leading emerging economies. How you like that Reaganomics now? The film and your praise for it shows how nuts you are. You weren't the subject of "A Beautiful Mind" were you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 The film and your praise for it shows how nuts you are. You weren't the subject of "A Beautiful Mind" were you? Pete might have gone to college, but I severely doubt he ever took any high-level mathematics courses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Why should I have to explain it to you if you are that frikin stupid. You have know idea how economics works. I would much rather see you continue to make a fool of yourself with questions like "How do we spend if deficit to pay with tax cuts?" It's so much more entertaining to me. This seems to be your usual way of acknowledging that you're in over your head before you bail out of the thread. I'm still waiting for you to get back to me in the Foxconn thread and explain the relationship between free trade, competitive advantage and how it plays into the economic growth model. I'd love to hear about your economic and financial qualifications too, since you've been on record stating that your background is in sociology/psych. Edited February 21, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 You claim Reagan is responsible for the US being near it's debt ceiling 24 years after he left office? And admire the economy of the builder of the Berlin wall? Unbelievable. He claims "Inside Job" is a great film. That's even more retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts