TakeYouToTasker Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Is that a standard response when you can't answer a question? It's the standard response when you're being intentionally obtuse to the point of belligerence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 It's the standard response when you're being intentionally obtuse to the point of belligerence. The last time I heard someone use the word "obtuse," the warden put him in the hole for 30 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) It's the standard response when you're being intentionally obtuse to the point of belligerence. I know you're passionate about what you post, but you haven't really expanded the depth of your discussions beyond sloganisms and austrian catch phrases like mercantilism, fiat currency and freed markets. If you want to be treated seriously, then add some meat to the answers beyond jingoism. Edited July 2, 2013 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I know you're passionate about what ugly post, but you haven't really expanded the depth of your discussions beyond sloganisms and austrian catch phrases like mercantilism, fiat currency and freed markets. If you want to be treated seriously, then add some meat to the answers beyond jingoism. How dare you talk to your superiors like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Again, I'll simplify. The intangible is not private property. In fact, it's not property at all, as I cannot physically remove it from your possession by possessing it myself. The intangible, in it's natural free-market state, is absolutely unquanifiable, and limitlessly abundant. Only by removing freedom from markets can scarcity of the intangible be generated. Just admit that you don't respect the concept of free markets and we can be done here. Tell this to Nike or Apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I know you're passionate about what you post, but you haven't really expanded the depth of your discussions beyond sloganisms and austrian catch phrases like mercantilism, fiat currency and freed markets. If you want to be treated seriously, then add some meat to the answers beyond jingoism. His bearded professor told him he doesn't need to talk to anyone; just at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) Lolololololololololololol Here's a trick. Type "Freed markets" into Google. Click the list for videos. Why did I do that? Because I knew exactly what would pop up. A douche commie with a beard telling you to oppose capitalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6PO4i-3xmw&list=PLo9tClC_YhUKRZGYaHTGLpgjXMc4zph5I&index=1 Edited July 2, 2013 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Well, no ****. Remember way back, several whole posts ago when I said this: Your ignorance is astounding. The etymology of the term "freed markets" can be traced to libertarian philosophy and classical economic capitalism. The term, at its core, means to set markets free from intrustion and manipulation by governments and central banks. The term was popularized to make the distinction between the steered market's of today's neo-mercantilist corporatism and an actual state of market place freedom, which we do not have. Hence, market's that have yet to be "freed" from central control. The term was later co-opted by nitwit intellegensia intellectuals who insisted that markets, once freed, should reject capitalism and immediately reliquish their freedom in favor of even more onerous direction. This, of course, is nothing more than red revolutionary talk, and is both regressive and impractical; as it relies on the abolishment of tangible private property. A concept which an ageing Max Eastman addressed most eloquently: "It seems obvious to me now- though I have been slow, I must say, in coming to the conclusion - that the institution of private property is one of the main things that have given man that limited amount of free and equalness that Marx hoped to render infinite by abolishing this institution. Strangely enough, Marx was the first to see this. He is the one who informed us, looking backwards, that the evolution of private capitalism with its free market had been a precondition for the evolution of all our democratic freedoms. It never occurred to him, looking forward, that if this was so, these other freedoms might disappear with the abolition of the free market." In other words, go back to eating crayonz. You're out of your depth here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Three words: J. Edgar Hoover. What's going on today (legally, whether we like it or not) pales in comparison. It's not so much having/obtaining the info. It's how it's used. In my job I can look at all kinds of records, and I can see information that people would prefer I not see. I'm a trustworthy person and it wouldn't occur to me to do anything dastardly with it. Snowden on the other hand used his position to access info he had no right to see in the first place. I'm sure he signed a confidentiality agreement as well. If he'd wanted to be a patriot there are ways to tip off the media, who could then have done a little digging AND would have gone to jail to protect Snowden. Snowden is in this for Snowden. I hope he likes Russian airports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 The last time I heard someone use the word "obtuse," the warden put him in the hole for 30 days. Yes but the warden eventually shot himself because of his obtuse action or inaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 The answer to all of this is again: too much Fox News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Great job all around on this by the administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 fair is fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Well, no ****. Remember way back, several whole posts ago when I said this: Since you ran back here after the Red Sox pwnage in the other thread do you want to admit you were wrong yet or should I continue to administer a beating to your bearded mentor's irrational mindset? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Another great thread derailed by crayonz... I know mods don't spend much time here but seriously just go away. Your schtick isn't funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Since you ran back here after the Red Sox pwnage in the other thread do you want to admit you were wrong yet or should I continue to administer a beating to your bearded mentor's irrational mindset? If you consider yourself being laughably wrong "pwnage"... A roster spot, by definition, is a place on a physical list. The physical list isn't representitive, it is the actual thing. Furthermore, the actual players who fill the roster spots on the list, and comprise the team are naturally scarce; which is why they have value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) If you consider yourself being laughably wrong "pwnage"... A roster spot, by definition, is a place on a physical list. The physical list isn't representitive, it is the actual thing. Furthermore, the actual players who fill the roster spots on the list, and comprise the team are naturally scarce; which is why they have value. And sheet music is also a physical thing you doofus. And the players are not naturally scarce. There are 23 spots because the number 23 has been artificially required in order to create scarcity. There are literally thousands of people available to play, including yourself by your own admission. Edited July 5, 2013 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 And sheet music is also a physical thing you doofus. OK. Go listen to your sheet of music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) OK. Go listen to your sheet of music. Right after you watch a baseball game by staring at the Red Sox and Yankee's rosters sitting at your kitchen table. Edited July 5, 2013 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Right after you watch a baseball game by staring at the Red Sox and Yankee's rosters sitting at your kitchen table. Two different things. The roster is defined simply as a list, and it is not a representation. The Red Sox are the physical entity.\ Sheet music is a representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts