IDBillzFan Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) yes, because a large group of people that have been screwed by the concentration of wealth have mistakenly decided that a group of nitwits without any answers actually have them. Am I the only one who ever notices that EVERY time birdog whines about something with which he disagrees, it always involves nitwits, idiots or anti-intellectuals? It's like having Elaine May explaining why today's movies suck. Edited July 1, 2016 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) Am I the only one who ever notices that EVERY time birdog whines about something with which he disagrees, it always involves nitwits, idiots or anti-intellectuals? It's like having Elaine May explaining why today's movies suck. argue the points nit wit. and if you want to whine about someone calling people idiots, you might aim your contempt at someone that claims to have rights over the word. am i the only one that sees continual double standards from the chorus? almost like they sing with one voice. Edited July 1, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 yes, because a large group of people that have been screwed by the concentration of wealth have mistakenly decided that a group of nitwits without any answers actually have them. Well isn't that ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Well isn't that ironic. pathetic is the word i'd choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 argue the points nit wit. and if you want to whine about someone calling people idiots, you might aim your contempt at someone that claims to have rights over the word. am i the only one that sees continual double standards from the chorus? almost like they sing with one voice. There's no need to argue my point. It was a hypothetical presented to the posters at large. You're welcome to argue my point, but seeing as the only argument you are able to consistently present on any topic is "Everyone is stupid but me," I'm not sure you have much of a leg to stand on. Also, leave the passive insults to others. You're barely smart enough to have a discussion. Don't complicate things by attempting to be clever. Every time you try to be clever, all anyone hears is Hillary saying "You mean, like, with a cloth?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 you are arguing with him. over the figurative reading of his use of "printing money". who says he or i or anyone else wasn't concerned with qe before brexit? he's just describing it in the context of brexit, which by the way, happened only 1 week ago. i'm also describing it in the context of brexit since this is a thread funnily enough on brexit. to assume that either he or i took any position on qe before brexit is unwarranted although based on his writing it would seem pretty likely he felt this way before brexit as did i. i feel sorry for your customers and on what basis are you calling him a simpleton? the fact that he taught in one of the most prestigious economic departments in the world and that you dislike academics? I'm not arguing with him you nitwit. It's with the editors who can't tell the difference between QE and printing money. Kind of like you who can't tell the difference between a Harvard adjunct professor and a PBS production assistant. And Britain throwing more money into the banking system isn't some new phenomenon that we need to be worried about because central banks have been easing their way into an unsustainable asset bubble for the last seven years, you dolt. BOE has no choice now because they are worried about the banks, but it's just the latest bandaid on a festering boil that progressive governments have set upon the world. Glad that PBS is finally waking up to the problem so that lemming mouth breathers like you finally can see that there's a problem with your !@#$ing emperor without any clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 Because Chinese cinnamon contains a chemical that's a blood thinner. Because...Chinese cinnamon contains a chemical that's a blood thinner. Lead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) There's no need to argue my point. It was a hypothetical presented to the posters at large. You're welcome to argue my point, but seeing as the only argument you are able to consistently present on any topic is "Everyone is stupid but me," I'm not sure you have much of a leg to stand on. Also, leave the passive insults to others. You're barely smart enough to have a discussion. Don't complicate things by attempting to be clever. Every time you try to be clever, all anyone hears is Hillary saying "You mean, like, with a cloth?" argue the points coward. I'm not arguing with him you nitwit. It's with the editors who can't tell the difference between QE and printing money. Kind of like you who can't tell the difference between a Harvard adjunct professor and a PBS production assistant. And Britain throwing more money into the banking system isn't some new phenomenon that we need to be worried about because central banks have been easing their way into an unsustainable asset bubble for the last seven years, you dolt. BOE has no choice now because they are worried about the banks, but it's just the latest bandaid on a festering boil that progressive governments have set upon the world. Glad that PBS is finally waking up to the problem so that lemming mouth breathers like you finally can see that there's a problem with your !@#$ing emperor without any clothes. argue the points loser, the editors didn't write the words,. the teacher from cambridge did. who the f%&k are you? lets see your credits. what's your title? who publicly respects you? Edited July 2, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) argue the points coward.With the following, I rest my case. You're a mindless fool. who the f%&k are you? lets see your credits. who publicly respects you? Edited July 2, 2016 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) With the following, I rest my case. You're a mindless fool. your case is lost. what media or professional group would consider you an expert? who would publish your opinion? besides tbd? what is an expert? lacking the above, how would you define the term? Edited July 2, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 your case is lost. what media or professional group would consider you an expert? who would publish your opinion? besides tbd? what is an expert? lacking the above, how would you define the term? What, are you 12? Are you about to justify your authoritative voice based on the car you drive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) What, are you 12? Are you about to justify your authoritative voice based on the car you drive? nope. claiming to be an expert requires independent confirmation. your opinion doesn't count. otherwise every dumb fu@% could claim to be an expert. oh, wait... are there unrecognized experts? sure. but rarely. true experts will be identified. they're too valuable to miss. conversely, those claiming to be experts (especially in impactful positions) but not producing the goods (whaley, are you reading?) will be exposed rather quickly. results matter. Edited July 2, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 nope. claiming to be an expert requires independent confirmation. your opinion doesn't count. otherwise every dumb fu@% could claim to be an expert. oh, wait... are there unrecognized experts? sure. but rarely. true experts will be identified. they're too valuable to miss. And you have independent confirmation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 And you have independent confirmation? yup. medicine is under the looking glass more than most professions. there are all kinds of metrics. some validated, some not. but enough that if you're lacking, it's gonna be a problem for you. pita but probably a good thing for everyone. and you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) Lol birddog has officially lost it. What's your title. Show me what gang you're part of. Why you wearing a red bandana in this part of town? Edited July 2, 2016 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) Lol birddog has officially lost it. What's your title. Show me what gang you're part of. Why you wearing a red bandana in this part of town? nope. the opposite is the case. why are you calling the guy with a red bandana a dunce when the rest of the world recognizes the red bandana as a validated sign of intelligence until proven otherwise.? why assume the opposite? people with the red bandana have been shown to be generally more intelligent by multiple objective measures. aw hell, just trade the 1st 2 draft picks and pick that shiny ornament! i like it. it's shiny! and no. i'm not against police profiling as long as innocent til proven guilt.ty is universally applied. but nice try. i like it. my dogs are currently sporting red bandanas. Edited July 2, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 This thread is a lost cause. I just back read.....ugghhggeessssa I still say good for Great Britain, they will regain some lost sovereignty, lose some of the insane and overly burdenous EU regulations and are now more likely to control their own destiny for better or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 argue the points coward. argue the points loser, the editors didn't write the words,. the teacher from cambridge did. who the f%&k are you? lets see your credits. what's your title? who publicly respects you? That's your entire basis for belief in something. If someone with a fancy degree or title says it, it has to be correct. You're a !@#$ing moron that accepts anything someone says if they have the right credentials to accompany it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 nope. the opposite is the case. why are you calling the guy with a red bandana a dunce when the rest of the world recognizes the red bandana as a validated sign of intelligence until proven otherwise.? why assume the opposite? people with the red bandana have been shown to be generally more intelligent by multiple objective measures. aw hell, just trade the 1st 2 draft picks and pick that shiny ornament! i like it. it's shiny! and no. i'm not against police profiling as long as innocent til proven guilt.ty is universally applied. but nice try. i like it. my dogs are currently sporting red bandanas. And yet you think the people who disagree with you don't have nice degrees and strong backgrounds? You really don't have the slightest clue who you're arguing with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 argue the points loser, the editors didn't write the words,. the teacher from cambridge did. who the f%&k are you? lets see your credits. what's your title? who publicly respects you? Argue what points? That overextending QE is a dangerous tool that loses its effect when the real economy doesn't grow, and you're left with an equity asset bubble and a huge inflationary risk? Gee, where have I heard this said over the last seven years? Oh yes, everywhere, but in the sources that are favorable to the current administration. But wait, now QE is only bad as it relates to BOE's actions in UK, but are totally fine when the Fed has been stoking the equity market since 2009. Did I get that right? Oh that's right you can't answer this because you're not an adjunct professor at Harvard who spent a few minutes at Goldman Sachs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts