Dems vs. Repubs

[OCinBuffalo]

I agree with you and your point. I also feel that we need some sort of reformation or the system will become the menace that it was designed to defeat.

 

Something about OC's hyperbole though...

 

Hyperbole? How about basic cause/effect loop?

 

Ok, in our idiocy, let's go along with your emotional argument...and let's have the government feed those kids tonight.

 

Then, when the price goes up for food, due to spending = debt = inflation....let's have the government do it again.

 

Now, other mothers, and other children can't afford food either, because you've seen to it that the prices are inflated(oh, and how's that green energy thing doing on the price of food?). So, the government buys food for them too.

 

spending = debt = inflation

 

Now even more mothers can't afford groceries....to the point that 1/6th of this country is now on food stamps. Great work Morons.

 

and you say...what? Good? Look how moral we are?

 

Don't you see that you are spreading a disease? You are infecting whole extended families with poverty.

 

But that's not good enough for you. No, you want to spread this disease over generations. You want to spread it to certain "victim" groups, so that all of them become dependent on your "treatment" while you do nothing about curing the disease. You are just as bad as the pharma companies you cry about, because you do the same thing. After all your "solution" is responsible for creating more poverty than ever would have existed had you done nothing....

 

.....completely unaware, in your folly, that YOU are the one doing the victimization now. And for what? Votes? Power? I say you are unaware, and folly...because I don't want to believe that you are capable of actually doing this on purpose.

 

Where's the morality, in any of this?

 

As I said before, you severely underestimate people's demand for public order. Or...do you still think that OWS is relevant, to anyone, in any way?

[Juror#8]

Be proud of the students you've spawned.

 

Dammit 3rd. You always quote me before I can edit.

 

Hmmphfff!

[OCinBuffalo]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

Why don't you post that link kind sir and we can see who was obfuscating, ignoring, and generally evading facts while making their own facts up as a surrogate.

 

I consistently point-by-point-by-point addressed your questions and you, consistently, ignored those and re-manufactured arguments and positions as you went along to fit your schizophrenic concept of domestic poverty culture.

 

You couldn't answer a few basic points that, while theoretical, comported with a reality and a basic truism of human nature. Instead you cracked open a philosophical text and plagarized ideas and notions that were misapplied and that you couldn't possibly understand even if you would have made it beyond the 10th grade.

 

Oh OC, you're so silly. And in truth, I enjoy arguing with you because I'm always victorious in our little flare ups. Then you recede back to your dungeon of pessismism and misery, only to re-surface later to take another beating.

 

I like you because you're an admitted and unabashed masochist. And while the lifestyle is disturbing, I think that it's laudable that you advertise it and you don't hide from your enjoyment of having pain inflicted upon you.

 

Oh yea...I never said that we should rely on their instincts. In some context, I brought up their POV and you (in your classic fashion of bastardizing arguments that you then argue against) felt that I should answer for the veracity of it. You decide if the info is impactful to you. If it's not, than move on. Otherwise, argue the merits of the point and don't ask me why should it matter to you. That's for you to decide.

 

BTW, why should I trust that it's raining outside when a weatherman, some how, some way, some where, has been wrong before? Can you answer that for me so I can know which way is up?

 

Idiot.

 

Now...I've laid out a clear, logical, case for just how immoral your nonsense is.

 

Let's see who stays on point...and who says "strawman" or some other logical construct 80 times...and doesn't address a single point that is made.

 

The fact that you have to claim victory, in these posts...rather than making it merely evident, as I do...says all there is to say.

Edited September 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[3rdnlng]

 

Hyperbole? How about basic cause/effect loop?

 

Ok, in our idiocy, let's go along with your emotional argument...and let's have the government feed those kids tonight.

 

Then, when the price goes up for food, due to spending = debt = inflation....let's have the government do it again.

 

Now, other mothers, and other children can't afford food either, because you've seen to it that the prices are inflated(oh, and how's that green energy thing doing on the price of food?). So, the government buys food for them too.

 

spending = debt = inflation

 

Now even more mothers can't afford groceries....to the point that 1/6th of this country is now on food stamps. Great work Morons.

 

and you say...what? Good? Look how moral we are?

 

Don't you see that you are spreading a disease? You are infecting whole extended families with poverty.

 

But that's not good enough for you. No, you want to spread this disease over generations. You want to spread it to certain "victim" groups, so that all of them become dependent on your "treatment" while you do nothing about curing the disease. You are just as bad as the pharma companies you cry about, because you do the same thing. After all your "solution" is responsible for creating more poverty than ever would have existed had you done nothing....

 

.....completely unaware, in your folly, that YOU are the one doing the victimization now. And for what? Votes? Power? I say you are unaware, and folly...because I don't want to believe that you are capable of actually doing this on purpose.

 

Where's the morality, in any of this?

 

As I said before, you severely underestimate people's demand for public order. Or...do you still think that OWS is relevant, to anyone, in any way?

 

You are making a very good argument, whose central theme should include the words "unintended consequences". Eliminate DDT and greatly increase deaths by malaria. Mandate ethanol and increase food costs and reduce mpg. Increase troop levels on Guam and tip the island over (just kidding BF4E, wouldn't want you to accuse me of wanting roll-up windows in airplanes).

[Juror#8]

Hyperbole? How about basic cause/effect loop?

 

Ok, in our idiocy, let's go along with your emotional argument...and let's have the government feed those kids tonight.

 

Then, when the price goes up for food, due to spending = debt = inflation....let's have the government do it again.

 

Now, other mothers, and other children can't afford food either, because you've seen to it that the prices are inflated(oh, and how's that green energy thing doing on the price of food?). So, the government buys food for them too.

 

spending = debt = inflation

 

Now even more mothers can't afford groceries....to the point that 1/6th of this country is now on food stamps. Great work Morons.

 

and you say...what? Good? Look how moral we are?

 

Don't you see that you are spreading a disease? You are infecting whole extended families with poverty.

 

But that's not good enough for you. No, you want to spread this disease over generations. You want to spread it to certain "victim" groups, so that all of them become dependent on your "treatment" while you do nothing about curing the disease. You are just as bad as the pharma companies you cry about, because you do the same thing. After all your "solution" is responsible for creating more poverty than ever would have existed had you done nothing....

 

.....completely unaware, in your folly, that YOU are the one doing the victimization now. And for what? Votes? Power? I say you are unaware, and folly...because I don't want to believe that you are capable of actually doing this on purpose.

 

Where's the morality, in any of this?

 

As I said before, you severely underestimate people's demand for public order. Or...do you still think that OWS is relevant, to anyone, in any way?

 

Your entire post SEEMS to rely on three principles, that, in order for me to take seriously, I'd have to agree with. Let me know if you see it differently:

 

1. That people utilizing public services will cause the price of food to rise so precipitously and appreciably enough that it will affect the food buying habits and financial solvency of other mothers who, otherwise, would have been completely fine.

 

2. " " that it will expand the poverty net.

 

3. That as a result, there will be generational dependency on subsidized public services.

 

I just don't agree with your premises.

 

I feel that reformation is in order. I feel that reformation is necessary actually. I just think that what you suggest is VERY strong medicine.

 

My argument is grounded in domestic security. Whether we like it or not, there are instances throughout history of the world where unrest and anarchy was precipitated by a failure of the government to provide adequate goods and services to the abjectly impoverished.

 

And in most of those instances, the govs were at least trying. I believe that you're suggesting an abandonment of the system of government subsidies. Yikes!

 

It's both a domestic security AND an aesthetic challenge.

 

Now...I've laid out a clear, logical, case for just how immoral your nonsense is.

 

Let's see who stays on point...and who says "strawman" or some other logical construct 80 times...and doesn't address a single point that is made.

 

The fact that you have to claim victory, in these posts...rather than making it merely evident, as I do...says all there is to say.

 

And i just responded to it.

 

There you go again...by the way.

 

Looking forward to a clean discussion sans the mudslinging. We'll see who breaks first.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Juror#8

[OCinBuffalo]

You are making a very good argument, whose central theme should include the words "unintended consequences". Eliminate DDT and greatly increase deaths by malaria. Mandate ethanol and increase food costs and reduce mpg. Increase troop levels on Guam and tip the island over (just kidding BF4E, wouldn't want you to accuse me of wanting roll-up windows in airplanes).

It could, and probably should include those words.

 

But since liberals like root causes so much....like the video tape = dead ambassador....

 

....let's just start at the very beginning:

 

either they are unaware of basic macroeconomics, or, they are willing to ignore their 1st year of college, which probably also included Western Civ...if it means they get to claim to be morally superior...or worse...if it means they get to gain political power a la Huey F'ing Long.

 

Now, I ask: what is the root cause of this need to be morally superior, yet in the phoniest way possible?

[OCinBuffalo]

Your entire post SEEMS to rely on three principles, that, in order for me to take seriously, I'd have to agree with. Let me know if you see it differently:

 

1. That people utilizing public services will cause the price of food to rise so precipitously and appreciably enough that it will affect the food buying habits and financial solvency of other mothers who, otherwise, would have been completely fine.

 

2. " " that it will expand the poverty net.

 

3. That as a result, there will be generational dependency on subsidized public services.

 

I just don't agree with your premises.

 

I feel that reformation is in order. I feel that reformation is necessary actually. I just think that what you suggest is VERY strong medicine.

Wrong. Once again you are either woefully misunderstanding my premises, doing it intentionally...or, you simply never possessed the required didactic preparation to understand them.

 

1. Buying habits? This is not marketing class. Marketing is 2 years from now...but not for you, if you don't pass this. Financial solvency? This is also not finance class. This is macroeconomics, a basic tenet of which informs us that inflation of currency due to government debt = increase in price. That has nothing to do with these mothers, their buying habits, or their financial decisions that would effect their solvency. A mother, poor or rich, has no control over the price of milk going up by $1.00 over a year due to inflation. She can't adjust her buying habits, nor can she plan her finances for that.

 

2. Most people live on a relatively fixed income, and have no real way of adjusting it. Sure there are bonuses, raises, etc. But not for most of the people who will be most likely to be hit the hardest by the inflation your policy creates. Your inflation drags people into poverty. Like it or not. When everything costs more, and income stays the same, you run out of money. Period. When you can't afford what you need...you are in poverty. Either, we raise your income, or we control inflation. There is no 3rd way....unless you are nut. Forcing a raise of your income does one thing: creates more inflation. Why? Because what we are paying you is not market value. It is now...inflated. So, your company has to charge more for what it makes...for the simple reason that it has to pay you, and everybody like you, what you aren't worth. That price goes up, and everybody else has to adjust their prices accordingly.

 

Are you beginning to get a glimmer of the stupidity of your policy yet?

 

3. Whenever you put people in a desperate situation, and raise them to believe that this is who they are, and the only way to improve that situation....will 100% come from the government...you create a culture of dependency. This is historically proven. Did the slave's economic future not depend 100% on his owner?

 

Now...should we ask JayZ...if the government is the reason he has his money? What would he say? Was the government responsible for putting him where he is, or is he? Did he in fact, build that? Can we say...that without the government-induced poverty he comes from....would he be as "real" as he is? I don't know...but where would JayZ be without "the projects"? Isn't that where he derives his badassery? Perhaps the government can take the credit in this instance?

 

Premises?

 

You don't even understand the basic material they are based on, therefore, how the hell are you supposed to agree with them, one way or the other?

 

Show me you understand the basics of inflation first, and how market price is determined in general, and then we can move on to more difficult concepts.

[Juror#8]

Wrong. Once again you are either woefully misunderstanding my premises, doing it intentionally...or, you simply never possessed the required didactic preparation to understand them.

 

1. Buying habits? This is not marketing class. Marketing is 2 years from now...but not for you, if you don't pass this. Financial solvency? This is also not finance class. This is macroeconomics, a basic tenet of which informs us that inflation of currency due to government debt = increase in price. That has nothing to do with these mothers, their buying habits, or their financial decisions that would effect their solvency. A mother, poor or rich, has no control over the price of milk going up by $1.00 over a year due to inflation. She can't adjust her buying habits, nor can she plan her finances for that.

 

2. Most people live on a relatively fixed income, and have no real way of adjusting it. Sure there are bonuses, raises, etc. But not for most of the people who will be most likely to be hit the hardest by the inflation your policy creates. Your inflation drags people into poverty. Like it or not. When everything costs more, and income stays the same, you run out of money. Period. When you can't afford what you need...you are in poverty. Either, we raise your income, or we control inflation. There is no 3rd way....unless you are nut. Forcing a raise of your income does one thing: creates more inflation. Why? Because what we are paying you is not market value. It is now...inflated. So, your company has to charge more for what it makes...for the simple reason that it has to pay you, and everybody like you, what you aren't worth. That price goes up, and everybody else has to adjust their prices accordingly.

 

Are you beginning to get a glimmer of the stupidity of your policy yet?

 

3. Whenever you put people in a desperate situation, and raise them to believe that this is who they are, and the only way to improve that situation....will 100% come from the government...you create a culture of dependency. This is historically proven. Did the slave's economic future not depend 100% on his owner?

 

Now...should we ask JayZ...if the government is the reason he has his money? What would he say? Was the government responsible for putting him where he is, or is he? Did he in fact, build that? Can we say...that without the government-induced poverty he comes from....would he be as "real" as he is? I don't know...but where would JayZ be without "the projects"? Isn't that where he derives his badassery? Perhaps the government can take the credit in this instance?

 

Premises?

 

You don't even understand the basic material they are based on, therefore, how the hell are you supposed to agree with them, one way or the other?

 

Show me you understand the basics of inflation first, and how market price is determined in general, and then we can move on to more difficult concepts.

 

In post #46 I asked for a clean debate. It was actually in response to your post #44 when you mention staying on point.

 

Your last post deviated away from that effort. It mudslinged and insulted. That's ok, but I'm going to hit back in this post. And just know that I'm hitting back because you couldn't resist the temptation of being insulting in your above-referenced post.

 

So I'll respond to your post and, in anticipation of the "namecalling, fallacy, fluff, namecalling" order that comprises your posts, I'll make this my last cogent response to you on this topic. Since you won't accept the challenge to debate above-board, I'd rather just insult back and forth after I address your above referenced post.

 

So....

 

As I've said before when I've deconstructed your musings and pseudo-intellectualized diarrhea, you're a waste of time and you should be ashamed.

 

Apropos, what the !@#$ are you talking about? Do you read the **** that you type or do you just type by number?

 

1. Food buying habits are impacted when, because of a rise in the cost of some food item, one's finances can no longer sustain the cost of that item and they're forced to adjust their purchases accordingly.

 

No ****, a mother doesn't have control over the price of milk going up $1.00. Who said that they did? (Let me guess, you just bastardized an argument and argued against it).

 

My point was that the price of milk going up is not going to be dispositive of who is or is not in the poorhouse. Nor is the price of milk, cabbage, hotsauce, meat, etc. - even all at once. And in your theoretical example, are you suggesting that milk goes up $1.00 a gallon? If so, when is the last time that happened in one sitting?

 

Since you're about as worldly and experienced as east-Prussian prostitute, let me school you on some things:

 

a. Those who are so strapped, that the $2.00 - $4.00 increase in groceries in a single grocery buying experience is determinative and impactful (like really, really meaningful), were poor and humping the gov't machine for subsidies anyway. You may find it inconvenient that the cranberry juice that you buy for your yeast infections, or the chocolate that you buy for your post-period relief is .60 cents more, but it's not going to contribute to you not being able to afford groceries or needing to turn to the government for assistance when you were otherwise fine.

 

If you lose your job, or a catastrophic event befalls you - like your husband taking off with your illegitimate daughter which means your golden goose is cooked and you have to go back to turning tricks - then yea, you may have to apply for food stamps.

 

The price of tomatos going up .40 a pound? Not so much. Sorry, toots, but it's not going to inspire any mass exodus to the government food lines. My family has been poor. My mom never used a food stamp or accepted government assistance. Assuming that you haven't been poor (which, based on your unrealistic pov, I'm not sure you've ever stepped outside of your own bedroom let alone your cultural comfort zone) I have a bit more basis of knowledge than do you about the impact that economic and sociological ebs and flows have on the average financially disadvantaged consumer.

 

So shut the !@#$ up and take notes.

 

2. For one thing, you presuppose that "my policy" creates inflation. It doesn't. And your little Fisher Price example above ("spending = debt = inflation") that you regurgitated out of some GMAT study hypo doesn't do anything to suggest otherwise. Spending, by itself, just doesn't equate to debt, idiot. Spending beyond a certain level does. But of course that can be offset and cured in a variety of different ways. But you're probably just now finding that out as you feverishly peruse Wikipedia.

 

a. Secondly, there are c.o.l. adjustments, raises, etc. that can offset the annual increase of goods and services. Those for whom the extra $200 that they may pay in a year for groceries is truly impactful, were so far on the margins that they were likely already on the government doles.

 

3. You point #3 relies on SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS: "raise people to believe that this is who they are....and there help can only come 100% from the Government..." WTF?

 

Really? Someone on this forum told a story of needing public assistance while he was out of job and his wife was pregnant. Is he in the grips of some institutionalized generational defeatism as well?

 

Oh I get it, when the matriarch in the family of 7 sustains a back injury, but she wasn't at her job long enough to qualify for short term disability, and she doesn't qualify for SSD because she hasn't worked long enough and doesn't qualify for the ethereal "special circumstances," she and her kids should just expire from starvation in order to emphasize the unyielding importance of self-respect, dignity, and self-reliance. It doesn't matter that they won't be able to employ these life lessons; It just matters that they personified them in martyrdom.

 

It's incongruent, assymetrical, and paradoxical.

 

You're displaying a cultural bias and a fallacy of numbers. Not everyone takes advantage of the system and COMPARATIVELY FEW who utilize some form of public assistance, remain for a sustained period of time (I'd say anything over 3-5 years).

 

But since you made the comment, prove it. I want to see the metrics for this historical proof.

 

Jay Z - really? Jay was a street pharamaceutical salesperson until he built enough capital to invest in Roc-a-Fella. He and Dame Dash hustled ill gotten gains until he blew the (proverbial) !@#$ up. Now you want to use him as your personification of independence and doing things "the right way"?

 

Why don't you throw a Bernie Madoff example in when we discuss exemplary demonstrations of fiduciary duty.

 

(In the interest of Full Disclosure: I'm a HUGE fan of Jay Z's music - especially the "Black Album," "Blueprint," and some of his more recent collaborations with Lil Wayne and Kanye).

 

You don't understand what you don't understand. You don't understand that you don't understand that you don't understand. You don't understand that I understand that you don't understand that you don't understand.

 

You have no clue what you're talking about. Bastardize some more arguments. Make some assumptions that tangentially relate to something that I mentioned and argue it so that you can feel that you made a salient point. Keep arguing manufactured points that you made.

 

Cause that's your schtik. But I argued your points, and non-points, one-by-one.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Juror#8

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

From a guy who got BILLIONs of $ from 1 person

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-teacher-unions-shouldn-t-contribute-political-campaigns-175305139.html

 

NEW YORK—Mitt Romney repeated his call to curb the influence of teachers unions in public schools, arguing that the groups should no longer be allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams at a network-sponsored forum on education, Romney accused teachers unions of putting their own interests above students. He said their contributions to politicians in charge of education issues are unfairly influencing the system, especially when it comes to contract negotiations.

 

"We have to get the money from teachers unions out of the campaigns. ... We've got to separate that," Romney said. "It's an extraordinary conflict of interest

 

OMG -

 

As reported on the Washington Post‎ , CNN, CBS, etc

[Gary M]

From a guy who got BILLIONs of $ from 1 person

 

http://news.yahoo.co...-175305139.html

 

NEW YORK—Mitt Romney repeated his call to curb the influence of teachers unions in public schools, arguing that the groups should no longer be allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams at a network-sponsored forum on education, Romney accused teachers unions of putting their own interests above students. He said their contributions to politicians in charge of education issues are unfairly influencing the system, especially when it comes to contract negotiations.

 

"We have to get the money from teachers unions out of the campaigns. ... We've got to separate that," Romney said. "It's an extraordinary conflict of interest

 

OMG -

 

As reported on the Washington Post‎ , CNN, CBS, etc

 

getting money from one guy is different than getting money from people, when you decide how much they make and how much they pay for benefits.

[OCinBuffalo]

In post #46 I asked for a clean debate. It was actually in response to your post #44 when you mention staying on point.

 

Your last post deviated away from that effort. It mudslinged and insulted. That's ok, but I'm going to hit back in this post. And just know that I'm hitting back because you couldn't resist the temptation of being insulting in your above-referenced post.

 

So I'll respond to your post and, in anticipation of the "namecalling, fallacy, fluff, namecalling" order that comprises your posts, I'll make this my last cogent response to you on this topic. Since you won't accept the challenge to debate above-board, I'd rather just insult back and forth after I address your above referenced post.

 

So....

 

As I've said before when I've deconstructed your musings and pseudo-intellectualized diarrhea, you're a waste of time and you should be ashamed.

 

Apropos, what the !@#$ are you talking about? Do you read the **** that you type or do you just type by number?

 

1. Food buying habits are impacted when, because of a rise in the cost of some food item, one's finances can no longer sustain the cost of that item and they're forced to adjust their purchases accordingly.

 

No ****, a mother doesn't have control over the price of milk going up $1.00. Who said that they did? (Let me guess, you just bastardized an argument and argued against it).

 

My point was that the price of milk going up is not going to be dispositive of who is or is not in the poorhouse. Nor is the price of milk, cabbage, hotsauce, meat, etc. - even all at once. And in your theoretical example, are you suggesting that milk goes up $1.00 a gallon? If so, when is the last time that happened in one sitting?

 

Since you're about as worldly and experienced as east-Prussian prostitute, let me school you on some things:

 

a. Those who are so strapped, that the $2.00 - $4.00 increase in groceries in a single grocery buying experience is determinative and impactful (like really, really meaningful), were poor and humping the gov't machine for subsidies anyway. You may find it inconvenient that the cranberry juice that you buy for your yeast infections, or the chocolate that you buy for your post-period relief is .60 cents more, but it's not going to contribute to you not being able to afford groceries or needing to turn to the government for assistance when you were otherwise fine.

 

If you lose your job, or a catastrophic event befalls you - like your husband taking off with your illegitimate daughter which means your golden goose is cooked and you have to go back to turning tricks - then yea, you may have to apply for food stamps.

 

The price of tomatos going up .40 a pound? Not so much. Sorry, toots, but it's not going to inspire any mass exodus to the government food lines. My family has been poor. My mom never used a food stamp or accepted government assistance. Assuming that you haven't been poor (which, based on your unrealistic pov, I'm not sure you've ever stepped outside of your own bedroom let alone your cultural comfort zone) I have a bit more basis of knowledge than do you about the impact that economic and sociological ebs and flows have on the average financially disadvantaged consumer.

 

So shut the !@#$ up and take notes.

 

2. For one thing, you presuppose that "my policy" creates inflation. It doesn't. And your little Fisher Price example above ("spending = debt = inflation") that you regurgitated out of some GMAT study hypo doesn't do anything to suggest otherwise. Spending, by itself, just doesn't equate to debt, idiot. Spending beyond a certain level does. But of course that can be offset and cured in a variety of different ways. But you're probably just now finding that out as you feverishly peruse Wikipedia.

 

a. Secondly, there are c.o.l. adjustments, raises, etc. that can offset the annual increase of goods and services. Those for whom the extra $200 that they may pay in a year for groceries is truly impactful, were so far on the margins that they were likely already on the government doles.

 

3. You point #3 relies on SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS: "raise people to believe that this is who they are....and there help can only come 100% from the Government..." WTF?

 

Really? Someone on this forum told a story of needing public assistance while he was out of job and his wife was pregnant. Is he in the grips of some institutionalized generational defeatism as well?

 

Oh I get it, when the matriarch in the family of 7 sustains a back injury, but she wasn't at her job long enough to qualify for short term disability, and she doesn't qualify for SSD because she hasn't worked long enough and doesn't qualify for the ethereal "special circumstances," she and her kids should just expire from starvation in order to emphasize the unyielding importance of self-respect, dignity, and self-reliance. It doesn't matter that they won't be able to employ these life lessons; It just matters that they personified them in martyrdom.

 

It's incongruent, assymetrical, and paradoxical.

 

You're displaying a cultural bias and a fallacy of numbers. Not everyone takes advantage of the system and COMPARATIVELY FEW who utilize some form of public assistance, remain for a sustained period of time (I'd say anything over 3-5 years).

 

But since you made the comment, prove it. I want to see the metrics for this historical proof.

 

Jay Z - really? Jay was a street pharamaceutical salesperson until he built enough capital to invest in Roc-a-Fella. He and Dame Dash hustled ill gotten gains until he blew the (proverbial) !@#$ up. Now you want to use him as your personification of independence and doing things "the right way"?

 

Why don't you throw a Bernie Madoff example in when we discuss exemplary demonstrations of fiduciary duty.

 

(In the interest of Full Disclosure: I'm a HUGE fan of Jay Z's music - especially the "Black Album," "Blueprint," and some of his more recent collaborations with Lil Wayne and Kanye).

 

You don't understand what you don't understand. You don't understand that you don't understand that you don't understand. You don't understand that I understand that you don't understand that you don't understand.

 

You have no clue what you're talking about. Bastardize some more arguments. Make some assumptions that tangentially relate to something that I mentioned and argue it so that you can feel that you made a salient point. Keep arguing manufactured points that you made.

 

Cause that's your schtik. But I argued your points, and non-points, one-by-one.

If I'm such a waste of time....why do you blow whole page after whole page on me? Could it be because you don't like getting publicly whipped, and thus are compelled to come back and drop a book on us...in your defense?

 

Is dispositive your word of the day? How many more times is that word going to show up in this thread? And, you got it from B-mans post in the other thread, didn't you?

 

1 .Once again we see how poor your command of macroeconomics really is. Inflation affects ALL prices. That's why we call this class....MACRO economics. Thinking in terms of MACRO, and ALL prices, yes a 5% uptick in them can in fact put people into poverty. Or, haven't you paid attention to every single union vs management debate that has ever happened in your lifetime? You worked in DC...and you don't know the concept of "COL adjustment"?

 

One story about one person....isn't MACRO, in any sense. I should fail you right now for that. The topic at hand: what happens to the ENTIRE COUNTRY, and the prices we ALL have to pay, when government debt is massively increased, and the value of the $ is decreased? The answer is, yes in the MACRO...a large % of these household will be in poverty...because the "poverty line"...will have been inflated...just like everything else.

 

Apparently you are also unaware that such inflation often prices whole companies out of markets, or out of business completely. They respond by laying people off. Again, in MACRO terms, government spending induced currency inflation can and will cause 5x the unemployment...that your "benefits" are supposed to assuage.

 

You know nothing about me, or how I grew up. We were just as poor as you at one point, if not, worse. I also know: amazing things can happen when you don't blame others for your situation...work your ass off, put in 16 hour days for 2 years, and stay positive, because I saw my parents do that, right in front of me.

 

2. Oh...so you do know what a COLA is? Then ....whatever happened to your 1 guy story? COLAs are aggregate. You just got done saying that your policies don't create inflation...but then, right after that, you say that a $200 increase does have an effect for these people? Yes, the extra $200 COLA...has precisely the same effect....as the inflation that ALL COLAs are designed to counteract. That's whey they are are called COLAs. ROFL. ROFL. Inflation is the reason COLA exist in the first place. ROFL Now....you like COLAs....why don't you hate/acknowledge the inflation problem they attempt to solve?

 

Unmitigated moron

 

And, apparently...according to you...once government $ is being spent on someone...spending more on them...whether it is $5 extra....or double...is as irrelevant as it is the same...because...they are already on the dole?

 

Are you trying to make me laugh? Are you trying to make this easy for me?

 

3. Again, we are talking MACRO effects...not one guy, or one story. And, http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/07/news/economy/government_assistance/index.htm there. There is your proof about how many people are now on public assistance. Your "challenges" are like stepping on ants...for me.

 

The JayZ stuff was just there to piss you off. And, I see that worked as expected. JayZ has claimed he sold crack, and shot his brother.

 

Rappers = Pro Wrestling. It's entertainment, and any taking them seriously, ends with the TV show/song. It's a dream world, you go in, have your fun, and then leave. No different than a video game.

 

But, I notice you didn't answer: did JayZ "build that"?

[3rdnlng]

From a guy who got BILLIONs of $ from 1 person

 

http://news.yahoo.co...-175305139.html

 

NEW YORK—Mitt Romney repeated his call to curb the influence of teachers unions in public schools, arguing that the groups should no longer be allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams at a network-sponsored forum on education, Romney accused teachers unions of putting their own interests above students. He said their contributions to politicians in charge of education issues are unfairly influencing the system, especially when it comes to contract negotiations.

 

"We have to get the money from teachers unions out of the campaigns. ... We've got to separate that," Romney said. "It's an extraordinary conflict of interest

 

OMG -

 

As reported on the Washington Post‎ , CNN, CBS, etc

 

 

Who got BILLIONS of dollars from one person? Please explain and provide a link.

[Juror#8]

If I'm such a waste of time....why do you blow whole page after whole page on me? Could it be because you don't like getting publicly whipped, and thus are compelled to come back and drop a book on us...in your defense?

 

Is dispositive your word of the day? How many more times is that word going to show up in this thread? And, you got it from B-mans post in the other thread, didn't you?

 

1 .Once again we see how poor your command of macroeconomics really is. Inflation affects ALL prices. That's why we call this class....MACRO economics. Thinking in terms of MACRO, and ALL prices, yes a 5% uptick in them can in fact put people into poverty. Or, haven't you paid attention to every single union vs management debate that has ever happened in your lifetime? You worked in DC...and you don't know the concept of "COL adjustment"?

 

One story about one person....isn't MACRO, in any sense. I should fail you right now for that. The topic at hand: what happens to the ENTIRE COUNTRY, and the prices we ALL have to pay, when government debt is massively increased, and the value of the $ is decreased? The answer is, yes in the MACRO...a large % of these household will be in poverty...because the "poverty line"...will have been inflated...just like everything else.

 

Apparently you are also unaware that such inflation often prices whole companies out of markets, or out of business completely. They respond by laying people off. Again, in MACRO terms, government spending induced currency inflation can and will cause 5x the unemployment...that your "benefits" are supposed to assuage.

 

You know nothing about me, or how I grew up. We were just as poor as you at one point, if not, worse. I also know: amazing things can happen when you don't blame others for your situation...work your ass off, put in 16 hour days for 2 years, and stay positive, because I saw my parents do that, right in front of me.

 

2. Oh...so you do know what a COLA is? Then ....whatever happened to your 1 guy story? COLAs are aggregate. You just got done saying that your policies don't create inflation...but then, right after that, you say that a $200 increase does have an effect for these people? Yes, the extra $200 COLA...has precisely the same effect....as the inflation that ALL COLAs are designed to counteract. That's whey they are are called COLAs. ROFL. ROFL. Inflation is the reason COLA exist in the first place. ROFL Now....you like COLAs....why don't you hate/acknowledge the inflation problem they attempt to solve?

 

Unmitigated moron

 

And, apparently...according to you...once government $ is being spent on someone...spending more on them...whether it is $5 extra....or double...is as irrelevant as it is the same...because...they are already on the dole?

 

Are you trying to make me laugh? Are you trying to make this easy for me?

 

3. Again, we are talking MACRO effects...not one guy, or one story. And, http://money.cnn.com...tance/index.htm there. There is your proof about how many people are now on public assistance. Your "challenges" are like stepping on ants...for me.

 

The JayZ stuff was just there to piss you off. And, I see that worked as expected. JayZ has claimed he sold crack, and shot his brother.

 

Rappers = Pro Wrestling. It's entertainment, and any taking them seriously, ends with the TV show/song. It's a dream world, you go in, have your fun, and then leave. No different than a video game.

 

But, I notice you didn't answer: did JayZ "build that"?

 

You glossed over 50% of my post points. You, per usual, responded very generically, and avoided the nuances of my points. Let's see how much of this post you respond to. Beginning with:

 

1/2.

 

The word "Dispostive." You said that I: "got it from B-mans post in the other thread, didn't you?". Is that so? How about you check out post #83, in a response TO YOU, almost a year ago:

 

http://forums.twobil...ve#entry2343945

 

If you search for the word on this forum, almost every instance in the last 5 years was by ME. I think I've used the word 9 times in the last year. So quiet as it's kept, B-Man is either an attorney, has a fantastic command of the English language, or HE got it from ME.

 

This is nothing that a simple search wouldn't have illuminated for you though, you !@#$ing dolt.

 

Are you going to respond to MY EXACT point? Probably not, so moving on...

 

1. You can't comprehend basic English. That is why we call this ESOL. That is why I'm the brilliant teacher, and you are my 44th student.

 

Where do you get "5%" from you !@#$ing dolt? Do you just come up with schit on a whim and request that someone refute it? You just typed that "a 5% uptick in them can in fact put people into poverty." That's fu(king great! And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

 

Macro, micro....stay on topic. Stop arguing against yourself. In post #42 you mentioned that public assistance will cause food prices to inflate.

 

So prove the proximate relationship between government assistance and food prices going up. Not an attenuated "if a bird farts in Oregon, someone in Kenya will receive a $15 dollar Apple iTunes card." Just provide the proximate relationship between the two as it HAS occurred and in consideration of every other extant economic condition - including actual examples replete with some metrics, historical data, et cetera.

 

(Edit: Are you thinking about responding with your go to: "you don't understand Macroeconomics BS" again? I don't want your theory. You said that food prices will increase appreciably as a result of government welfare programs. We currently have government welfare programs and have for some time. So give the audience some examples of when those programs have led to inflation, a 5% uptick in food prices, and expanded the povery base).

 

Pardon me for saying, I just don't trust your word. You have a proclivity for making things up and arguing with arguments that you yourself constructed but attributed to someone else.

 

Ok, how about let's just cut to the chase - public assistance, welfare, et cetera is not going to raise the annual price of food 5%. Your little farce of a thesis is corrupted at it's foundation. A confluence of events (hurricanes, international strife, food shortages, increased gas prices, increase in transportation costs, et cetera) has caused food prices to rise to those levels.

 

http://www.forbes.co...ices-so-high/2/

 

1a. I don't give a !@#$ about markets and businesses being priced out. I'm talking about people and bread.

 

1b. I don't know how you grew up but I know how you turned out - which is pitifully and which doesn't evidence any cultivation, acculturation, or anything else that would suggest that you've experienced anything beyond your mother's incestual bosom.

 

Are you going to address each of my points? No? Ok, moving on then...

 

2. Since you're fond of manipulating points, let me help you out here. What I said, very clearly, was that:

 

"Spending, by itself, just doesn't equate to debt, idiot. Spending beyond a certain level does. But of course that can be offset and cured in a variety of different ways."

 

Nothing that you mentioned in the intervening time has refuted that. You've obfuscated, and tangentially referenced my points to make it appear that you're engaged in the conversation, and masturbated with acronyms, and soiled yourself, and exhibited every other kind of preternaturalness....but you haven't refuted the simple point that:

 

"Spending, by itself, just doesn't equate to debt, idiot. Spending beyond a certain level does. But of course that can be offset and cured in a variety of different ways."

 

Do you want to try again?

 

2a. Who is saying that it's "irrelevant"? I said that it won't push them into the government food lines because they're likely already there. That is an example of you changing the context of my statement just enough that it provides you with a point to argue. It's you bastardizing arguments.

 

2b. If you're laughing, it's because you're intellectually challenged and even the most basic processes are a struggle for you; therefore you laugh to hide your pain.

 

I'm here if you want to talk.

 

Now are you going to respond to EACH of my points, AS I ARTICULATED them? Probably not? Ok, moving on...

 

3. Here is the kicker that demonstrates your classic style - YOU ARGUED A POINT THAT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE THAT YOU'RE CONTRIBUTING SALIENT POINTS.

 

 

Here is what you said originally:

 

"Whenever you put people in a desperate situation, and raise them to believe that this is who they are, and the only way to improve that situation....will 100% come from the government...you create a culture of dependency. This is historically proven. Did the slave's economic future not depend 100% on his owner?"

 

Then I said:

 

"Not everyone takes advantage of the system and COMPARATIVELY FEW who utilize some form of public assistance, remain for a sustained period of time (I'd say anything over 3-5 years).

 

But since you made the comment, prove it. I want to see the metrics for this historical proof."

 

You responded thusly:

 

"And, http://money.cnn.com...tance/index.htm there. There is your proof about how many people are now on public assistance. Your "challenges" are like stepping on ants...for me."

 

When did I ask for fu(king proof about how many people were on public assistance, you fu(king dolt? You are a arguing and providing support for something that was never a point of contention.

 

I very specifically asked you to prove your contention that folks who are on welfare, or are being provided government assistance, will rely 100% on the government which results in a culture of sustained dependency on government support. I didn't ask you to itemize how many people were on welfare. Yet that is what you provided.

 

Simply put, and if you allow me some creative liberty here, PROVE that when people use welfare, it ends up creating a generational dependency. PROVE that people don't move beyond welfare to eventually find jobs and become self-sufficient. PROVE that welfare become a matter of posterity.

 

Just prove it.

 

Don't link to some article from some guy quoting some lady talking about hypertension in hibiscus plants just so that you can provide a link and appear engaged.

 

You made a claim. I asked you to prove it. You linked to something only tangentially related to what your claim was. And then you had the audacity to mention: "there's your proof."

 

What!!?!?! You !@#$ing dolt. You didn't prove schiiit besides your familiarity with the off-season mating habits of Himalayan seals.

 

Just a bunch of cold, dry, pooooosssssssyyyy.

 

So are you going to address this point? No? Ok, moving on....

 

Whatever, I can't be mad, cause that's your schtik. You make up arguments to argue against. You subtlely change the inflection of someone's point so that you can argue against it on your own terms.

 

You're a charlatan. You talk a lot of pointless schit, use words that you pulled from some SAT "words you should know" flashcards, peruse Econ 101 texts and plagiarize the first paragraph of the more rudimentary chapters, and try to pass them off as if they're original thoughts.

 

You're a snake charmer, bro....a new-age phrenologist.

 

Yet you're trying to run with the wolves?

 

Really, son?

Edited September 26, 2012 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

You glossed over 50% of my post points. You, per usual, responded very generically, and avoided the nuances of my points. Let's see how much of this post you respond to. Beginning with:

 

1/2.

 

The word "Dispostive." You said that I: "got it from B-mans post in the other thread, didn't you?". Is that so? How about you check out post #83, in a response TO YOU, almost a year ago:

 

http://forums.twobil...ve#entry2343945

 

If you search for the word on this forum, almost every instance in the last 5 years was by ME. I think I've used the word 9 times in the last year. So quiet as it's kept, B-Man is either an attorney, has a fantastic command of the English language, or HE got it from ME.

 

This is nothing that a simple search wouldn't have illuminated for you though, you !@#$ing dolt.

 

Are you going to respond to MY EXACT point? Probably not, so moving on...

 

1. You can't comprehend basic English. That is why we call this ESOL. That is why I'm the brilliant teacher, and you are my 44th student.

 

Where do you get 5% from you !@#$ing dolt? Do you just come up with schit on a whim and request that someone refute it. You just typed that "a 5% uptick in them can in fact put people into poverty." That's fu(king great! And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

 

Macro, micro....stay on topic. Stop arguing against yourself. In post #42 you mentioned that public assistance will cause food prices to inflate.

 

Prove the proximate relationship between government assistance and food prices going up. Not and attenuated "if a bird farts in Oregon, someone in Kenya will receive a $15 dollar Apple iTunes card." Proximate relationship between the two. If you could provide actual examples replete with some metrics, historical data, et cetera, that would be even better.

 

Pardon me fo saying, I just don't trust your word. You have a proclivity for making things up and arguing with arguments that you constructed.

 

Ok, how about let's just cut to the chase - public assistance, welfare, et cetera is not going to raise the annual price of food 5%. Your little farce of a thesis is corrupted at it's foundation. A confluence of events (hurricanes, international strife, food shortages, increased gas prices, increase in transportation costs, et cetera) has caused food prices to rise to those levels.

 

http://www.forbes.co...ices-so-high/2/

 

1a. I don't give a !@#$ about markets and businesses being priced out. I'm talking about people and bread.

 

1b. I don't know how you grew up but I know how you turned out - which is pitifully and which doesn't evidence any cultivation, acculturation, or anything else that would suggest that you've experienced anything beyond your mother's incestual bosom.

 

Are you going to address each of my points? No? Ok, moving on then...

 

2. Since you're fond of manipulating points, let me help you out here. What I said, very clearly, was that:

 

"Spending, by itself, just doesn't equate to debt, idiot. Spending beyond a certain level does. But of course that can be offset and cured in a variety of different ways."

 

Nothing that you mentioned in the intervening time has refuted that. You've obfuscated, and tangentially referenced my points to make it appear that you're engaged in the conversation, and masturbated with acronyms, and soiled yourself, and exhibited every other kind of preternaturalness....but you haven't refuted the simple point.

 

"Spending, by itself, just doesn't equate to debt, idiot. Spending beyond a certain level does. But of course that can be offset and cured in a variety of different ways."

 

Do you want to try again?

 

2a. Who is saying that it's "irrelevant"? I said that it won't push them into the government food lines because they're likely already there. That is an example of you changing the context of my statement just enough that it provides you with point to argue. It's you bastardizing arguments.

 

2b. If you're laughing, it's because you're intellectually challenged and even the most basic processes are a struggle for you; therefore you laugh to hide your pain.

 

I'm here if you want to talk.

 

Now are you going to respond to EACH of my points, AS I ARTICULATED them? Probably not? Ok, moving on...

 

3. Here is the kicker that demonstrates your classic style - YOU ARGUED A POINT THAT WAS NEVER AN ISSUE TO GIVE THE APPEARANCE THAT YOU'RE CONTRIBUTING SALIENT POINTS.

 

 

Here is what you said originally:

 

"Whenever you put people in a desperate situation, and raise them to believe that this is who they are, and the only way to improve that situation....will 100% come from the government...you create a culture of dependency. This is historically proven. Did the slave's economic future not depend 100% on his owner?"

 

Then I said:

 

"Not everyone takes advantage of the system and COMPARATIVELY FEW who utilize some form of public assistance, remain for a sustained period of time (I'd say anything over 3-5 years).

 

But since you made the comment, prove it. I want to see the metrics for this historical proof."

 

You responded thusly:

 

"And, http://money.cnn.com...tance/index.htm there. There is your proof about how many people are now on public assistance. Your "challenges" are like stepping on ants...for me."

 

When did I ask for fu(king proof about how many people were on public assistance, you fu(king dolt? You are a arguing and providing support for something that was never a point of contention.

 

I very specifically asked you to prove your contention that folks who are on welfare, or are being provided government assistance, will rely 100% on the government which results in a culture of sustained dependency on government support. I didn't ask you to itemize how many people were on welfare. Yet that is what you provided.

 

Simply put, and if you allow me some creative liberty here, PROVE that when people use welfare, it ends up creating a generational dependency. PROVE that people don't move beyond welfare to eventually find jobs and become self-sufficient. PROVE that welfare become a matter of posterity.

 

Just prove it.

 

Don't link to some article from some guy quoting some lady talking about hypertension in hibiscus plants just so that you can provide a link.

 

You made a claim. I asked you to prove it. You linked to something only tangentially related to what your claim was. And then you had the audacity to say "there's your proof." What!!?!?!

 

You !@#$ing dolt.

 

So are you going to address this point? No? Ok, moving on....

 

Whatever, I can't be mad, cause that's your schtik. You make up arguments to argue against. You subtlely change the inflection of someone's point so that you can argue against it on your own terms.

 

You're a charlatan. You talk a lot of pointless schit, use words that you pulled from some SAT "words you should know" flashcards, peruse Econ 101 texts and plagiarize the first paragraph of the more rudimentary chapters, and try to pass them off as if they're original thoughts.

 

You're a snake charmer, bro....a new-age phrenologist.

 

Yet you're trying to run with the wolves?

 

Really, son?

 

 

Two things:

 

Just wondered how you've been around here for 5 years?

 

I had to quote you again, just to get you on record as "spawning" OC as your pupil.

[Juror#8]

Two things:

 

Just wondered how you've been around here for 5 years?

 

I had to quote you again, just to get you on record as "spawning" OC as your pupil.

 

If you search, it brings up the dates and threads for your search topics. I could tell based on the dates how many times the word was used in ____ about of time.

 

Also, OC tries to be like me. I've taken him on as a student to direct and guide him. Unfortunately, he is woefully inadequate as an intellectual and is better fit for other things.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

If you search, it brings up the dates and threads for your search topics. I could tell based on the dates how many times the word was used in ____ about of time.

 

Also, OC tries to be like me. I've taken him on as a student to direct and guide him. Unfortunately, he is woefully inadequate as an intellectual and is better fit for other things.

 

You must have lurked here for about 4 years then before joining.

[Juror#8]

You must have lurked here for about 4 years then before joining.

 

No, the last 5 years I've just used it on this forum more frequently than any one else. Actually, in the forum's history (or at least as far back as the search function takes me), I've used the word more frequently than anyone else.

 

Type "dispositive" into the search box and see for yourself. Up until 2008, it appears as if Mickey utilized the word with some frequency.

 

After that, there was a single mention of the word until I joined the forum in 2011. Then there was a considerable bump in the usage of the word - 9 times by me in the last year.

 

I could have also said that in the last 8 years (which is apparently the first time the word was uttered on this forum), I've used it more frequently than anyone else - at least 9 times.

 

Mickey is a close second with 8 usages of the word.

 

And there are a few scattered instances of individuals using the word here once or twice.

 

I was just contesting every aspect of OC's post. He makes claims that are untrue. That was just another one (though he was probably being tongue and cheek)...

[3rdnlng]

 

 

No, the last 5 years I've just used it on this forum more frequently than any one else. Actually, in the forum's history (or at least as far back as the search function takes me), I've used the word more frequently than anyone else.

 

Type "dispositive" into the search box and see for yourself. Up until 2008, it appears as if Mickey utilized the word with some frequency.

 

After that, there was a single mention of the word until I joined the forum in 2011. Then there was a considerable bump in the usage of the word - 9 times by me in the last year.

 

I could have also said that in the last 8 years (which is apparently the first time the word was uttered on this forum), I've used it more frequently than anyone else - at least 9 times.

 

Mickey is a close second with 8 usages of the word.

 

And there are a few scattered instances of individuals using the word here once or twice.

 

I was just contesting every aspect of OC's post. He makes claims that are untrue. That was just another one (though he was probably being tongue and cheek)...

 

Your post made it sound as if you had joined here at least 5 years ago. As far as you using you, OC and tongue-in-cheek in the same sentence, don't do it. It brings up images that I just don't want to think about.

[Max Fischer]

Looking at a breakdown of who votes for who and doing some basic metrics, here is who votes for who:

 

Dems:

 

15% of the country is African American and they vote at a 95% clip Dem

10% of the country is LBGT, and they vote 90% Dem

15% of the country is poor/welfare/food stamps and they vote 90% Dem

 

I realize there is some carry over from one of the groups to the other but for simple metric that's basically 35-40% of the country

 

Repubs:

 

1% of the country is "rich", they vote roughy 90% repub.

 

 

So basically, 41% of the country is pretty much handpicked who they are voting for and most are a core group that the vaste majority of the country doesn't fall into. The rest are normal hardworking middle class Americans like you and me. Why would I want to at least for national elections get lost into a party of folks who's sole purpose in life is to continue to do nothing but target a group of people that I have nothing in common with and really have huge chunks of our money going to just so thay can continue to voe for a party. Why can't we all just be Americans and equal and not have a few core special interest groups dictacting our yearly federal budget? The Dem platform is more about social issues and equality issue which are pretty much negligable in todays society or more state rights issues, and should be vetted at that level.

 

So, tell me again why Blacks and LGBT vote Democrat and the Rich vote Republican? How are they not "normal?" Why won't Republican states just get rid of welfare and medicaid?

[DC Tom]

So, tell me again why Blacks and LGBT vote Democrat and the Rich vote Republican?

 

Kickbacks, basically.