OCinBuffalo Posted September 27, 2012 Posted September 27, 2012 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? This conversation belongs at the 50k foot level, because you aren't capable of discussing this at a lower, more detailed level, as you said yourself with your "I don't want your theory comment". Yes, you don't want to hear things, that are both widely accepted, and seriously detract from your belief system. I have news: this is not "my theory". No amount of accusing me of "making things up and attributing them to others"....is going to save you from the fact that these "new" concepts, for you, are actually concepts that have been generally accepted for at least the last 500 years. While I will admit that my command of these concepts is exceptional( ), don't let that confuse you into thinking I am their author. It's hysterical that you are trying to avoid both the truth they provide, and the real world examples of that truth I've given you...by trying to make this about me...instead of the obvious effects of these concepts that is happening right in front of you. The relationship here is the key...we have more people on government assistance...because we have a government who has spent its way into that. The link I posted proves that, and proves what I am saying it true: massive amounts of new government spending, over the long term(3 years of Obama) is more likely to create poverty, rather than fix it. But what the hell do you know about that? You say you don't believe in the effect inflation has on the poor/middle class....yet, you do believe in the COLAs, whose reason for existence....is to help the poor/middle class avoid the effects of inflation. Again...the above says it all: you simply don't comprehend macroeconomics. Nothing has changed since the above cause/effect post. Economics is rarely about ALL or NOTHING, nor is it about point in time. So, this discussion is actually about what happens when government spending is increased over a set of rates, or massively increased such as what Obama has done, and, what will happen as it is decreased over a set of rates, or if it is massively decreased all at once....with, of course, the expectation that tax rates stay relatively constant. Now, we can generate models for cases and see if we can poke holes in these models .....but you don't get to do any of that...because you don't understand the basics yet. We cannot, and you will not, disagree with the fact that government debt creates inflation, and inflation creates higher prices...how much this occurs is dependent on how quickly that government spending increases and by how much... ...not if you want people to take you seriously on this board. Serious includes: a basic handle on macroeconomics. However, if you choose to head towards the land of conner/DaveInNorfolk...that is on you. Don't say I didn't warn you.
VABills Posted September 27, 2012 Author Posted September 27, 2012 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? As Tom said, kickbacks. Both groups get them from the party they vote for. Republicans can't get rid of welfare or medicaid, you moron, and part of the issue is that they are partially funded federal mandates. Read my first sentence, it is part of the kickback system to the poor and disenfranchised.
VABills Posted September 27, 2012 Author Posted September 27, 2012 Is there a cliffnotes version of this thread? Read the OP.
Juror#8 Posted September 27, 2012 Posted September 27, 2012 This conversation belongs at the 50k foot level, because you aren't capable of discussing this at a lower, more detailed level, as you said yourself with your "I don't want your theory comment". Yes, you don't want to hear things, that are both widely accepted, and seriously detract from your belief system. I have news: this is not "my theory". No amount of accusing me of "making things up and attributing them to others"....is going to save you from the fact that these "new" concepts, for you, are actually concepts that have been generally accepted for at least the last 500 years. While I will admit that my command of these concepts is exceptional( ), don't let that confuse you into thinking I am their author. It's hysterical that you are trying to avoid both the truth they provide, and the real world examples of that truth I've given you...by trying to make this about me...instead of the obvious effects of these concepts that is happening right in front of you. The relationship here is the key...we have more people on government assistance...because we have a government who has spent its way into that. The link I posted proves that, and proves what I am saying it true: massive amounts of new government spending, over the long term(3 years of Obama) is more likely to create poverty, rather than fix it. But what the hell do you know about that? You say you don't believe in the effect inflation has on the poor/middle class....yet, you do believe in the COLAs, whose reason for existence....is to help the poor/middle class avoid the effects of inflation. Again...the above says it all: you simply don't comprehend macroeconomics. Nothing has changed since the above cause/effect post. Economics is rarely about ALL or NOTHING, nor is it about point in time. So, this discussion is actually about what happens when government spending is increased over a set of rates, or massively increased such as what Obama has done, and, what will happen as it is decreased over a set of rates, or if it is massively decreased all at once....with, of course, the expectation that tax rates stay relatively constant. Now, we can generate models for cases and see if we can poke holes in these models .....but you don't get to do any of that...because you don't understand the basics yet. We cannot, and you will not, disagree with the fact that government debt creates inflation, and inflation creates higher prices...how much this occurs is dependent on how quickly that government spending increases and by how much... ...not if you want people to take you seriously on this board. Serious includes: a basic handle on macroeconomics. However, if you choose to head towards the land of conner/DaveInNorfolk...that is on you. Don't say I didn't warn you. In post#54 I asked you very simply to address a number of inconsistencies from your previous posts. I asked you to prove your contentions. I asked you to provide some data. I asked you to bring something to the table to substantiate your points. You did none of those things. You continue making declarative statements and following them up with academic flubbage designed, ostensibly, to give the appearance that you know what the !@#$ you are talking about. It doesn't work. You come off as an amateur - notwithstanding your self-serving statements about your mastery of economics. It's apparent that you don't know what you're talking about. You try to hide that by mentioning that others don't know macroeconomics. I know economics to some degree (whatever two semesters in college is worth) including some of the principles of macro and micro economic theory. I'm not an expert, and I'm not an economist; but I know enough to get by. Interestingly enough, the extent to which someone understands macroeconomic theory doesn't implicate this debate as much as you want it to. You're using that as a surrogate to mask your innability to entertain this conversation on a cogent level. I started this post mentioning that you didn't prove, substantiate or otherwise defend claims that you yourself made in previous posts on this subject. Try as you might, you won't get away from that. In my last post to you I asked the following of you: 1. You said that the word "dispositive" was picked up recently and used as my "word of the day." Explain in consideration of the facts that I presented in post #54. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. I said: "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." Explain how this is incorrect and provide examples. 5. 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. 6. PROVE that when people use welfare, it ends up creating a generational dependency. 7. PROVE that people don't move beyond welfare to eventually find jobs and become self-sufficient. 8. PROVE that welfare become a matter of posterity. If you want people to take you seriously, you should first demonstrate that you can talk about something other than glittered schiiiit. You made some points and just hoped that they'd fly. I deconstructed your bs to it's foundation. Now you're stuck being unable to defend them. You're probably used to that because people accept your BS prima facie. You gift wrap schiiit it in poly-syllables. I would think that others here, even if they agree with you ideologically, would have said "hmmmm....that doesn't make a lot of sense." They won't, I will. I deal with fluff biatches like you all day - slick talking corporate lawyers who go all fetal when the wolves show their teeth. You're all talk, no substance. The closest thing you know to "love" is a sonnet. You know "war" through Shakespeare. Defend your position. Prove your points. They are enumerated above for clarity and ease of understanding. Answer my questions or stop wasting my time. Cause right now you're flirting, but I want the puuusssssiiieee.
3rdnlng Posted September 27, 2012 Posted September 27, 2012 In post#54 I asked you very simply to address a number of inconsistencies from your previous posts. I asked you to prove your contentions. I asked you to provide some data. I asked you to bring something to the table to substantiate your points. You did none of those things. You continue making declarative statements and following them up with academic flubbage designed, ostensibly, to give the appearance that you know what the !@#$ you are talking about. It doesn't work. You come off as an amateur - notwithstanding your self-serving statements about your mastery of economics. It's apparent that you don't know what you're talking about. You try to hide that by mentioning that others don't know macroeconomics. I know economics to some degree (whatever two semesters in college is worth) including some of the principles of macro and micro economic theory. I'm not an expert, and I'm not an economist; but I know enough to get by. Interestingly enough, the extent to which someone understands macroeconomic theory doesn't implicate this debate as much as you want it to. You're using that as a surrogate to mask your innability to entertain this conversation on a cogent level. I started this post mentioning that you didn't prove, substantiate or otherwise defend claims that you yourself made in previous posts on this subject. Try as you might, you won't get away from that. In my last post to you I asked the following of you: 1. You said that the word "dispositive" was picked up recently and used as my "word of the day." Explain in consideration of the facts that I presented in post #54. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. I said: "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." Explain how this is incorrect and provide examples. 5. 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. 6. PROVE that when people use welfare, it ends up creating a generational dependency. 7. PROVE that people don't move beyond welfare to eventually find jobs and become self-sufficient. 8. PROVE that welfare become a matter of posterity. If you want people to take you seriously, you should first demonstrate that you can talk about something other than glittered schiiiit. You made some points and just hoped that they'd fly. I deconstructed your bs to it's foundation. Now you're stuck being unable to defend them. You're probably used to that because people accept your BS prima facie. You gift wrap schiiit it in poly-syllables. I would think that others here, even if they agree with you ideologically, would have said "hmmmm....that doesn't make a lot of sense." They won't, I will. I deal with fluff biatches like you all day - slick talking corporate lawyers who go all fetal when the wolves show their teeth. You're all talk, no substance. The closest thing you know to "love" is a sonnet. You know "war" through Shakespeare. Defend your position. Prove your points. They are enumerated above for clarity and ease of understanding. Answer my questions or stop wasting my time. Cause right now you're flirting, but I want the puuusssssiiieee. "You're all talk, no substance. The closest thing you know to "love" is a sonnet. You know "war" through Shakespeare." Is that you Sean Maguire?
Juror#8 Posted September 27, 2012 Posted September 27, 2012 "You're all talk, no substance. The closest thing you know to "love" is a sonnet. You know "war" through Shakespeare." Is that you Sean Maguire? "You're the shepherd." Good catch by the way.
OCinBuffalo Posted September 28, 2012 Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) Is there a cliffnotes version of this thread? Yes. Remember your ECON 110 class? Pretty much all you need to "win" in this thread. Just lay out 1 simple concept that you learned....and see Juror #8 spend 5k words circling it, never addressing it properly, and then give up by telling you he just doesn't agree with it. Edit: Here's an easy one: Juror agrees with Cost of Living Adjustments....but doesn't agree that inflation hurts poor/working class people. Pretty much all you need to know at this point. Edited September 28, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
OCinBuffalo Posted September 28, 2012 Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) In post#54 I asked you very simply to address a number of inconsistencies from your previous posts. I asked you to prove your contentions. I asked you to provide some data. I asked you to bring something to the table to substantiate your points. You did none of those things. You continue making declarative statements and following them up with academic flubbage designed, ostensibly, to give the appearance that you know what the !@#$ you are talking about. It doesn't work. You come off as an amateur - notwithstanding your self-serving statements about your mastery of economics. It's apparent that you don't know what you're talking about. You try to hide that by mentioning that others don't know macroeconomics. I know economics to some degree (whatever two semesters in college is worth) including some of the principles of macro and micro economic theory. I'm not an expert, and I'm not an economist; but I know enough to get by. Interestingly enough, the extent to which someone understands macroeconomic theory doesn't implicate this debate as much as you want it to. You're using that as a surrogate to mask your innability to entertain this conversation on a cogent level. I started this post mentioning that you didn't prove, substantiate or otherwise defend claims that you yourself made in previous posts on this subject. Try as you might, you won't get away from that. In my last post to you I asked the following of you: 1. You said that the word "dispositive" was picked up recently and used as my "word of the day." Explain in consideration of the facts that I presented in post #54. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. I said: "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." Explain how this is incorrect and provide examples. 5. 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. 6. PROVE that when people use welfare, it ends up creating a generational dependency. 7. PROVE that people don't move beyond welfare to eventually find jobs and become self-sufficient. 8. PROVE that welfare become a matter of posterity. If you want people to take you seriously, you should first demonstrate that you can talk about something other than glittered schiiiit. You made some points and just hoped that they'd fly. I deconstructed your bs to it's foundation. Now you're stuck being unable to defend them. You're probably used to that because people accept your BS prima facie. You gift wrap schiiit it in poly-syllables. I would think that others here, even if they agree with you ideologically, would have said "hmmmm....that doesn't make a lot of sense." They won't, I will. I deal with fluff biatches like you all day - slick talking corporate lawyers who go all fetal when the wolves show their teeth. You're all talk, no substance. The closest thing you know to "love" is a sonnet. You know "war" through Shakespeare. Defend your position. Prove your points. They are enumerated above for clarity and ease of understanding. Answer my questions or stop wasting my time. Cause right now you're flirting, but I want the puuusssssiiieee. Yes, I use macroeconomic concepts, as a surrogate, in a discussion of economics....the same way Fred Jackson uses elusiveness, as a surrogate, as a running back. Perhaps you need to go look up what "using a surrogate" actually means? Speaking in terms of macroeconomics...in a discussion that is 100% based on macroeconomics...is not "using it as a surrogate". If you took 2 semesters...then you wouldn't be referring to "including some of the principles of macro and micro economic theory", as you did above. You would understand, like ALL of us who have actually taken these classes: Macro IS the first semester. Micro IS the second. ECON 110 is what it says on your schedule. But, Principles of Macroeconomics is what it says on your textbook. You'd know that, had you ever had your hands on one! Your words above show that you may have known people who took these classes, or, you read a syllabus or two...but you'd never make this mistake had you taken them. At best: you don't recall , and that's me being gracious. But that also = what else about it don't you recall? At worst: you never knew, and have now tried to lie about it. That = you are an unmitigated moron = did you really think you could lie, to me, about this, or anything? The answers, to 4 of your questions are contained within that textbook. 2...sorta...are contained in the Micro book. For the rest: Why do I have to re-litigate the reasons why Clinton and Gingrich passed Welfare Reform? There's plenty of research that backed up that decision. There's tons of studies that not only justified that change, but demanded it. Again, you are free to go look up these things on your own, and for the econ questions: buy the textbooks, read them, and do the homework on your own. You are asking me to do a hell of a lot of work that frankly, you should be doing for yourself. I mean: why should I? Why I am responsible for ensuring that your opinion...is educated? Isn't that your problem? The fundamental problem here Juror is this: there are valid criticisms of what I am saying. You haven't even come close to 1 of them. Why is that, do you think? Edited September 28, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
Juror#8 Posted September 28, 2012 Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) Yes, I use macroeconomic concepts, as a surrogate, in a discussion of economics....the same way Fred Jackson uses elusiveness, as a surrogate, as a running back. Perhaps you need to go look up what "using a surrogate" actually means? Speaking in terms of macroeconomics...in a discussion that is 100% based on macroeconomics...is not "using it as a surrogate". If you took 2 semesters...then you wouldn't be referring to "including some of the principles of macro and micro economic theory", as you did above. You would understand, like ALL of us who have actually taken these classes: Macro IS the first semester. Micro IS the second. ECON 110 is what it says on your schedule. But, Principles of Macroeconomics is what it says on your textbook. You'd know that, had you ever had your hands on one! Your words above show that you may have known people who took these classes, or, you read a syllabus or two...but you'd never make this mistake had you taken them. At best: you don't recall , and that's me being gracious. But that also = what else about it don't you recall? At worst: you never knew, and have now tried to lie about it. That = you are an unmitigated moron = did you really think you could lie, to me, about this, or anything? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! It's the same thing with you. You just won't answer the questions. Instead you defer to this "and let me show you something mister" persona so that you can obfuscate, and devote 5 paragraphs to say one meaningless thing: You don't feel that I took an economics class. Super! Feel how you want to feel. I did take two semester of econ classes at UVA. I'm sure of it, cause I was there! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! I could give two schiiiits in a can less if you believe me or not. As I stated in my previous thread to you, it doesn't implicate this discussion as much you want for it to anyway. The answers, to 4 of your questions are contained within that textbook. 2...sorta...are contained in the Micro book. For the rest: Why do I have to re-litigate the reasons why Clinton and Gingrich passed Welfare Reform? There's plenty of research that backed up that decision. There's tons of studies that not only justified that change, but demanded it. Again, you are free to go look up these things on your own, and for the econ questions: buy the textbooks, read them, and do the homework on your own. You are asking me to do a hell of a lot of work that frankly, you should be doing for yourself. I mean: why should I? Why I am responsible for ensuring that your opinion...is educated? Isn't that your problem? The fundamental problem here Juror is this: there are valid criticisms of what I am saying. You haven't even come close to 1 of them. Why is that, do you think? Wow. Just, wow. You articulated what, in your mind, qualifies as an argument. I challenge the basis of your argument and ask you to prove it beyond just articulating a principle. You respond by telling me that I'll have to prove your argument for you. You could have just said "you win" and saved yourself the ignominy. Let me teach you something junior, in the real world, if you postulate, please have the backbone to back it up. And that qualification is not satisfied by saying "you contextualize this stuff for me." Because that would be incongruent and inconsistent with the basic tenants of argumentative discourse. I can see it now: Counselor A: (to witness) "...and on the evening in question, what did Clarise say to you about Mr. Adams' fetish?" Counselor B: "Objection, 'heresay'." Counselor A: "Statement against Interest your honor." Counselor B: "ummm...well..." Judge: "Counselor B, anything? It sounds like a good exception..." Counselor B: "You can access the law. 'Hearsay' is a real principle under the law. You contextualize it and figure out why 'hearsay' is the appropriate objection in this circumstance." Judge: "Really, you dolt. You're the one who objected." It's not my job to apply your articulated principles to the circumstances that we're discussing. If you make an argument, prove it. There are two things going on here: a discussion of economic principles and the sociological circumstances that they influence. You say macroeconomics after everything as if that somehow carries some degree omnisicence. Newsflash: It doesn't. Principles, within that discpline, need to be applied to facts and circumstances. There is a principle, and an application. You are deficient in one, and completely lacking in the other. Apropos, I asked you to: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. I said: "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." Explain how this is incorrect and provide examples. 4. 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. 5. PROVE that when people use welfare, it ends up creating a generational dependency. 6. PROVE that people don't move beyond welfare to eventually find jobs and become self-sufficient. 7. PROVE that welfare become a matter of posterity YOU MADE THESE CLAIMS, jackass. You did. No one else but YOU. So you need to substantiate them. None of these answers are in an economics textbook. Principles that they may implicate could be. But then there is an application in consideration of myriad other factors and circumstances. You can't answer these questions because you're not sophisticated enough to. Not only are you profoundly unskilled in the discipline of argumentative discourse, but you're woefully unprepared to apply principles to circumstances. And that is what my kind does day in and day out, son. We apply complex principles to complex facts. If someone tells me they're hurt from a falling air conditioning unit in a Walmart isle way I can't just say "res ipsa loquitur, that'll be $500.00." And I certainly can't tell the client to figure it out themselves. And that is why you're being pimped so hard in this discussion and why you find yourself running back to your comfort zone though it is so evidently at odds with any reasonably cogent argumentative direction. And why you're three posts behind me at any given time. And why you're last three responses can be summed up thusly: a. "You don't know economics." b. "Read an economic text book and help me prove my own point to you." No, you dolt, I won't. You made the contentions. Prove them. It is a simple request. But I already know what your answer is going to be: OC: "Hearsay." Really, you dolt. Edited September 28, 2012 by Juror#8
OCinBuffalo Posted September 29, 2012 Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! It's the same thing with you. You just won't answer the questions. Instead you defer to this "and let me show you something mister" persona so that you can obfuscate, and devote 5 paragraphs to say one meaningless thing: You don't feel that I took an economics class. Super! Feel how you want to feel. I did take two semester of econ classes at UVA. I'm sure of it, cause I was there! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! I could give two schiiiits in a can less if you believe me or not. As I stated in my previous thread to you, it doesn't implicate this discussion as much you want for it to anyway. Wow. Just, wow. You articulated what, in your mind, qualifies as an argument. I challenge the basis of your argument and ask you to prove it beyond just articulating a principle. You respond by telling me that I'll have to prove your argument for you. You could have just said "you win" and saved yourself the ignominy. Let me teach you something junior, in the real world, if you postulate, please have the backbone to back it up. And that qualification is not satisfied by saying "you contextualize this stuff for me." Because that would be incongruent and inconsistent with the basic tenants of argumentative discourse. I can see it now: Counselor A: (to witness) "...and on the evening in question, what did Clarise say to you about Mr. Adams' fetish?" Counselor B: "Objection, 'heresay'." Counselor A: "Statement against Interest your honor." Counselor B: "ummm...well..." Judge: "Counselor B, anything? It sounds like a good exception..." Counselor B: "You can access the law. 'Hearsay' is a real principle under the law. You contextualize it and figure out why 'hearsay' is the appropriate objection in this circumstance." Judge: "Really, you dolt. You're the one who objected." It's not my job to apply your articulated principles to the circumstances that we're discussing. If you make an argument, prove it. There are two things going on here: a discussion of economic principles and the sociological circumstances that they influence. You say macroeconomics after everything as if that somehow carries some degree omnisicence. Newsflash: It doesn't. Principles, within that discpline, need to be applied to facts and circumstances. There is a principle, and an application. You are deficient in one, and completely lacking in the other. Apropos, I asked you to: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. I said: "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." Explain how this is incorrect and provide examples. 4. 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. 5. PROVE that when people use welfare, it ends up creating a generational dependency. 6. PROVE that people don't move beyond welfare to eventually find jobs and become self-sufficient. 7. PROVE that welfare become a matter of posterity YOU MADE THESE CLAIMS, jackass. You did. No one else but YOU. So you need to substantiate them. None of these answers are in an economics textbook. Principles that they may implicate could be. But then there is an application in consideration of myriad other factors and circumstances. You can't answer these questions because you're not sophisticated enough to. Not only are you profoundly unskilled in the discipline of argumentative discourse, but you're woefully unprepared to apply principles to circumstances. And that is what my kind does day in and day out, son. We apply complex principles to complex facts. If someone tells me they're hurt from a falling air conditioning unit in a Walmart isle way I can't just say "res ipsa loquitur, that'll be $500.00." And I certainly can't tell the client to figure it out themselves. And that is why you're being pimped so hard in this discussion and why you find yourself running back to your comfort zone though it is so evidently at odds with any reasonably cogent argumentative direction. And why you're three posts behind me at any given time. And why you're last three responses can be summed up thusly: a. "You don't know economics." b. "Read an economic text book and help me prove my own point to you." No, you dolt, I won't. You made the contentions. Prove them. It is a simple request. But I already know what your answer is going to be: OC: "Hearsay." Really, you dolt. I asked you why I have to re-litigate...and you respond with litigation... Party girl says she hates lawyers. I showed her how long your post was...and she laughed. To be fair, I asked her...what the longest thing she has read in last 2 years, besides a paternity suit...(oh yeah....there will be a reckoning later...EDIT: at this point...and this goes back before you...my best hope is that she doesn't try to turn me into a real teabagger) and now I'm being threatened with all sorts of name calling and..."why the F are you doing that, come over here and..."....crap. She..and neither of us...is right. I am now fully committed to an agenda for the next 36 hours....I will have to start this again on Monday...at best. Edited September 29, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
Recommended Posts