Fox News echoes Sen. Gramm’s sentiment that the American people are whiners.
More like this, please.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Cons Finally Admit What They Believe
July 11th, 2008
85 Comments
Dammit, why do they still have any credibility left? They go to great lengths to alienate everyone around them ,but there remain those diehards that agree with them, even when they insult their base to their faces.
I really don’t get it.
Can you imagination the MSM eruption that would have occurred if an Obama surrogate had made a similar statement? Meanwhile, Mike Barnicle, who is subbing for Chris Matthews, is going on and on about whether or not Obama is displaying sufficient outrage about the economic plight of regular Americans. This is nothing more than coded language to talk about race by some other means. Barnicle is disgusting.
That’s a hallowed group Gramm’s joined – Henry Ford, Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Morrow, etc., etc.
Dammit, why do they still have any credibility left?
Passions generally supercede reasonable self-interest.
Um, PTCruiser…have you forgotten Bittergate?
Um, PTCruiser…have you forgotten Bittergate?
Exactly. Or Wes Clark for that matter.
No, I did not forget.
Why is that people always talk about wanting politicians that don’t BS or repeat the same old platitudes that all other politicians spew and then when a politician actually does say what people should hear, he’s pilloried for it?
I wrote the following before the comments from Gramm saw the light of day and for a large segment of society, Gramm is 100% right. I hear the same bitching day to day. Once again, as Americans, we often forget just how good the majority of us have it.
And contrary to what the twits at Think Progress believe, Gramm wasn’t talking about the people who really are in dire financial straits, but rather that segment of society that is having to tighten their belts a little bit and complaining that they have to do so.
http://therighttobeararms.info/?p=184
Oh and before anybody starts with the insults, I am one of those people that is struggling because of the cost of gas prices, lowered real estate values, etc. My wife is going to have to go back to work for 7-10 months in order for us to pay off some debt we’ve incurred. We don’t want to have to do that, but we are. And we’re doing what we have to do, not sitting around blubbering about it.
Q: Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?
Jay: Shut the fuck up you whiners!
“…for a large segment of society, Gramm is 100% right.”
So when did you (Jay) become a spokesman for “a large segment of society?”
“And contrary to what the twits at Think Progress believe, Gramm wasn’t talking about the people who really are in dire financial straits,…”
Gramm mentioned that we have become “a nation of whiners.” That’s a pretty broad statement to make. Those four words can only be consistent with the idea that “Gramm wasn’t talking about the people who really are in dire financial straits” if you believe that no one in America (which, of course, was the “nation” that Gramm was referring to) is “in dire financial straits”…and if you believe that, then I can’t help you.
“Oh and before anybody starts with the insults,…”
We all know how much Jay hates insults (”…the twits at Think Progress,” calling that guy who wouldn’t lower the flag in honor of Jesse Helm’s death an “idiot,” et.)
Daniel, I don’t need your help. You need help if you believe Gramm was talking about every single person in the United States.
“We’re a nation of _________” is an often used phrase to describe the country. Does it mean that every time it is used, it describes every single person in the United States?
Let’s look at Gramm’s exact words:
“We have sort of become a nation of whiners,” he said. “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline” despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.
“We’ve never been more dominant; we’ve never had more natural advantages than we have today,” he said. “We have benefited greatly” from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.
Now, can anybody put aside the snark for a moment and tell me exactly what is wrong with what Gramm said?
Why is that people always talk about wanting politicians that don’t BS or repeat the same old platitudes that all other politicians spew and then when a politician actually does say what people should hear, he’s pilloried for it?
Because what he’s saying isn’t addressing any issues. It’s just insulting the American people for no good reason.
I wrote the following before the comments from Gramm saw the light of day and for a large segment of society, Gramm is 100% right. I hear the same bitching day to day. Once again, as Americans, we often forget just how good the majority of us have it.
Yes, how wonderful it is to have a shit sandwich instead of a BLT. After all, we could be having nothing at all!
Yay! A boom of exports! Wages are down, unemployment is up, inflation is way up. Foreclosures are at record high, we have a bear market. Never been more dominant!
I bet Gramm is doing very well though, so yes, we are all whiners.
That’s two no answers.
Anyone?
Now, can anybody put aside the snark for a moment and tell me exactly what is wrong with what Gramm said?
Ummm, that it isn’t all true?
Gramm: We’ve never been more dominant; we’ve never had more natural advantages than we have today,” he said. “We have benefited greatly” from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.
More and more of our debt is owned by foreign countries. China and Japan alone account for something like 20% of it. Wages for more and more blue collar jobs are lower overseas and manufacturing jobs have been moving offshore. The high tech jobs for which all those laid off auto and textile (and soon I betcha, airline) workers should retrain are also less expensive offshore. India and Mexico just to name two are becoming bigger and more influential tech centers. China has 300 MILLION people moving into the middle class and is poised to replace America as the dominant world economic power if they haven’t already. (Historians weren’t able to draw a line and say 476 was the year Rome fell until centuries later.)
We’ve never been more dominant; we’ve never had more natural advantages than we have today,” he said. “We have benefited greatly” from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years.
Nah, nothing particularly wrong with that. If it’s true. And just because Gramm said it, don’t mean it’s so.
Support provided:
Who owns America’s debt. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17424874/
“The biggest chunk (about 25 percent of the $8.5 trillion total) is held by foreign governments. Japan tops the list (with $644 billion), followed by China ($350 billion), United Kingdom ($239 billion) and oil exporting countries ($100 billion).”
Jobs moving overseas http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E1D9123CF936A35753C1A9659C8B63
“at least 15 percent of the 2.81 million jobs lost in America since the decline began have reappeared overseas.
“Intel itself has maintained a fairly steady 60 percent of its employees in the United States. But in the past year or so, it has added 1,000 software engineers in China and India, doing work that in the past might have been done by people hired in the United States. ”To be competitive, we have to move up the skill chain overseas,” … given the very low wages, the total saving for an American company can be as much 50 percent for each job shifted”
China’s middle class http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0102/p01s02-woap.html
“And that market is set to grow even larger as 300 million more Chinese move into urban areas over the next 10 years in a continuing mass population shift that will see 100 cities grow to a population of more than 3 million. … and there will be a lot of families with that much money: Grant expects 700 million Chinese to have joined the “consumer class” by 2020 compared with less than 100 million today.”
“You need help if you believe Gramm was talking about every single person in the United States. “We’re a nation of _________” is an often used phrase to describe the country. Does it mean that every time it is used, it describes every single person in the United States?”
The phrase “We’re a nation of ______” refers to one thing, Jay, the fucking nation which is not just some people or those people. It’s every fucking person in it. It is an all encompassing totalizing phrase. Even if the person speaking doesn’t literally mean everyone, they are expressing the idea that enough people in the nation are whining that whining has become associated with and could be said to characterize the nation as a whole.
What’s truly hilarious is that a\you just spent an entire thread arguing that John Kerry had smeared the ENTIRE US MILITARY when he spoke the truth that war atrocities were being committed in Vietnam.
Now Gramm comes along and says “We’ve become a nation of whiners” you want to argue that Gramm wasn’t criticizing the nation.
Your ability to turn your “principles” on a dime is truly astounding.
Gramm is sort of echoing the sentiment that the abused wife shouldn’t complain her husband hits her because its whining. People bitch about the economy and how the government is run because they want people to do something about it. Americans largely believe that the government exists for more than guaranteed contracts for Halliburton and Blackwater.
“That’s two no answers.
Anyone?”
Wow, you are clueless.
The two answers you dismissed pointed out that what Gramm said was factually wrong. The economic problems are not all in our heads, there are problems that need to be dealt with before they grow and become insurmountable.
“..tell me exactly what is wrong with what Gramm said.”
The “we have become sort of a nation of whiners” part. However the conservatives like Jay want to spin this these words, this is America-bashing, pure and simple. If Mr. Gramm does not like the supposed “whining” that is going on in this country regarding the economy, he is free to move somewhere else.
Sean, blaming globalization and free trade for our ills has become very passe for Democrats and the left. What’s ironic is that when trashing free trade, Democrats aren’t behaving all that differently from those on the right that pillory our immigration policies. “We can’t be exporting more of our jobs to those Mexicans.”
The fact is however that Gramm is right about the effects of globalization and free trade. China has reduced their tariffs nearly 20% since 1997 on exports into their country and as a result, China has become a major market for American made products like semiconductors, aircraft, chemicals, plastic along with soybeans and cotton. In turn, the same policies have brought us a broad range of goods at lower prices, including clothing, consumer electronics and automobiles.
Democrats harp on the loss of manufacturing jobs, but fail to recognize that we’ve become a more service oriented country and we’ve added three times as many service sector jobs over the last decade than manufacturing jobs that have been lost.
refers to one thing, Jay, the fucking nation which is not just some people or those people. It’s every fucking person in it.
Right. So when somebody says, “We’re a nation of entrepreneurs”, it means “every fucking person in it.” That’s what you’re saying. Twit. Just shut up Fafaroo. You’ve proven to be nothing but an imbecile, ranking a hair above the resident mental midget, CS. Wasting time with either one of you is….well, a waste.
People bitch about the economy and how the government is run because they want people to do something about it.
What do you mean, “do something about it?” The economy runs in cycles Oliver. I don’t know why liberals have such a difficult time comprehending such a simple premise and think the government needs to “do something” any time the economy takes a downturn.
And let me ask you, for somebody that constantly complains about the government bailing out big business (which I agree with you) that makes poor decisions, you don’t seem to have a problem with the government rushing in and doing it for people that made poor decisions as well.
Shouldn’t people who used the fast rising equity in their homes, turning them into ATM machines be responsible for their irresponsibility? Home equity loans and HELOC’s should be used for consolidating debt or making home improvements, not financing vacations, new cars, high definition televisions, etc. Shouldn’t the same apply for people who chose to purchase Hummers, Suburbans, Expeditions, Navigators, etc. instead of purchasing more fuel efficient automobiles when gas prices were nice and low? What about people who obtained mortgages on properties they knew they would not be able to afford at reset time and did so anyway? As I wrote in my own post, many of these people are the ones clamoring for the government to “do something.” Why?
Home prices will go back up again (in fact, if you purchased a home more than 5 years ago, you’re still in the black on the value. The only people that got hit were those that paid at inflated values in 2005-2006). Gas prices probably will not decline all that much, but we’re already seeing consumption going down, and higher prices spurring people to do things that others have been warning them to do for some time such as car pooling, taking public transportation, telecommuting, and buying more fuel efficient vehicles.
Let me also say that Gramm is right because anybody that knows anything about behavioral finance, knows that mental perception and actual results are intertwined. The country is not in a recession but polls show that more than half of Americans think we are. Why is that?
Right. So when somebody says, “We’re a nation of entrepreneurs”, it means “every fucking person in it.”\
Uh, no. As I continued … Even if the person speaking doesn’t literally mean everyone, they are expressing the idea that enough people in the nation are whining that whining has become associated with and could be said to characterize the nation as a whole
America is a nation of entrepeneurs in that this country has a reputation of individualism and the pursuit of success, entrepreneurship is linked to the American character, hence the validity of the phrase.
Your defense of Gramm based on your “interpretation” of the phrase is utterly absurd and you know it. Hence the name calling.
Just to put a point on it, as you wrote:
“‘We’re a nation of _________’ is an often used phrase to describe the country.”
You’re exactly right here, Jay. And that’s why the remark is offensive. Gramm was describing the nature of the country. He did not have to literally mean every American is a whiner for the statement to be offensive.
What if I said, “We’re a nation of greedy assholes.” What would your response be to that? Would you think I was saying something derogatory about America? I bet you would. I bet you’d get all huffy and defensive about how you’re not a greedy asshole and most people you know aren’t greedy assholes and that while there are some greedy assholes in America, by and large, most of us aren’t greedy assholes. All valid points.
Same thing here. I don’t whine about the economic situation, most people I know don’t whine about the economic situation and I bet that while some people are whining about the economy, most people are getting down to doing what they have to do to get through it. And yet Gramm said we’re a nation of whiners. And you don’t think that’s offensive?
Of course, what’s really ridiculous, is you both defend Gramm’s phrasing then turn right around and say, “Let me also say that Gramm is right.” Great. So you think we are a nation of whiners because a majority of people think we’re in a recession but were really not? Come on.
It isn’t just average folks out there:
Higher U.S. energy prices, a deteriorating labor market and falling stock prices have raised the likelihood the world’s richest economy will enter into recession this year or has already done so, according to forecasts of a closely watched panel of economists released on Thursday.
Among the respondents, 54.5 percent said the economy will enter into a recession or has already done so, up from 46.5 percent a month earlier.
So a growing majority of economists say were headed for a recession. Of course we are not yet in a recession as technically defined by economists but do you think the technical difference really matters when growth for the second quarter is expected to be 1.2 percent, revised up from .04 percent?
Interestingly enough, the numbers were revised based on stronger than expected spending presumably because people spent their tax rebate checks. Most that stimulus has now been spent – at a rate faster than expected. Growth estimates for the fourth quarter is now at .06 percent.
So wonderful. Bush bought his way out of a technical recession for a few more months. What’s he going to do for an encore? Pick up pom poms and cheer our way out it? There’s nothing “mental” about our current economic problems, Jay. They are real and people want to know that their leaders realize it, instead of just calling us a country of whiners.
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN0743608020080710
“Democrats harp on the loss of manufacturing jobs, but fail to recognize that we’ve become a more service oriented country and we’ve added three times as many service sector jobs over the last decade than manufacturing jobs that have been lost.”
We are indeed a more service oriented country. Which may be why it was worrisome that two weeks ago the service sector started shedding jobs:
A separate survey showed service companies such as airlines and restaurants that make up the bulk of the economy are being pinched by soaring costs and weakening demand, and have responded by slashing staff.
Jobs in the professional services sector declined by 51,000 as the financial services and real estate industries continued to suffer from a slumping stock market and housing woes.
Overall service-sector employment grew by 7,000, but this was way down from the triple-digit job growth seen earlier this year, a sign that employment weakness was spreading.
A separate service sector survey on Thursday confirmed this impression. The Institute for Supply Management’s non-manufacturing index unexpectedly dropped to 48.2 for June versus 51.7 in May. A reading below 50 signals contraction.
Tell me something, Jay, when was the last time you actually read the news?
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSN3040886620080703?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
The country is not in a recession but polls show that more than half of Americans think we are. Why is that?
There are those who would disagree with you. Like this guy.
And this one.
Not to be a link farmer, but here is Forbes Magazine pointing out that the situation doesn’t yet fit the dictionary definition of ‘recession.
What do you mean, “do something about it?” The economy runs in cycles Oliver. I don’t know why liberals have such a difficult time comprehending such a simple premise and think the government needs to “do something” any time the economy takes a downturn.
This is partially true – economies do cycle somewhat irrespective of policy, but that doesn’t mean the government can’t ‘do something about it,’ or affect the course in any way. It’s just that that ability is somewhat limited. As I understand it they get more credit than they deserve when things are good and also more blame than they deserve when things are bad.
“What do you mean, “do something about it?” The economy runs in cycles Oliver.”
Yeah, and just because the Republicans seem to be in charge whenever there is a down cycle means nothing. NOTHING!
Jay, we can point to specific policies of this Republican administration that have either caused to worsened the economic problems the United States is facing. Therefore, this goes beyond normal cycles of expansion and contraction.
Additionally, and this is key, since there are natural cycles of expansion and contraction, there are economic policies that can be used to maximize the benefit of the expansionary phase and limit the harm of the contractions. However, one must first recognize AND ADMIT when we are in the latter. If you call people who recognize the signs as whiners, that is not going to happen.
What if I said, “We’re a nation of greedy assholes.” What would your response be to that? Would you think I was saying something derogatory about America? I bet you would. I bet you’d get all huffy and defensive about how you’re not a greedy asshole and most people you know aren’t greedy assholes and that while there are some greedy assholes in America, by and large, most of us aren’t greedy assholes. All valid points.
Actually, in the collective I would a agree that we’re a nation of greedy assholes. Kind of goes hand in hand with us being a nation of whiners.
Great. So you think we are a nation of whiners because a majority of people think we’re in a recession but were really not? Come on.
Well with that, I was actually talking more about Gramm and what he said with “mental recession.” His ‘whiners’ comment was in a different context. With regard to the non-existent recession, Gramm was talking about the mentality as it relates to behavioral finance. And like I said, he was right. More than half of Americans think the country is in recession (and have thought that way for almost a year now) when we’re not.
Of course we are not yet in a recession as technically defined by economists but do you think the technical difference really matters when growth for the second quarter is expected to be 1.2 percent, revised up from .04 percent?
It’s not a “technical difference.” That’s like saying there’s only a “technical difference” between 5.5% unemployment and 4% unemployment. 1.2% growth is not great by any means, but even those economists who are predicting a recession (and people predict things incorrectly all the time) would say that 1.2% is FAR better than -.5% percent.
There’s nothing “mental” about our current economic problems, Jay.
When people start throwing out Great Depression comparisons and saying things are going to hell in handbasket, when we’ve seen far worse economic downturns, then there most certainly is a mental issue.
They are real and people want to know that their leaders realize it
Great. So you want “I feel your pain” bullshit from politicians in DC. I don’t.
We are indeed a more service oriented country. Which may be why it was worrisome that two weeks ago the service sector started shedding jobs:
Yes and? Do you ever write anything of relevance? I was talking about trends over a ten year period, not short term declines.
Jay, we can point to specific policies of this Republican administration that have either caused to worsened the economic problems the United States is facing.
Do it. I want to see specifics. And in order for you to prove your case, you need to show how those specific policies correlate directly to any economic concerns we’re having now. I’m looking forward to this.
And now we have the John McCain plan: Tinkerbell Economics. It’s very similar to his Iraq Plan: Operation Tinkerbell. If we all just clap hard enough the problems will magically go away.
In other news Tony Snow has died at the age of 53. I suppose it won’t be long before Oliver posts one of his, “Just because Tony Snow died, doesn’t make him a good person” entries.
You need help if you believe Gramm was talking about every single person in the United States.
But Barack’s “bitter” statement was beyond the pale and showed how out of touch he was. Right.
I’m sad that Tony has passed away. He wasn’t a bad guy (like Jesse Helms), just badly misinformed.
Will FOX News do a 3 day love fest for him like MSNBC did for Tim?
Actually, Snow’s last gig was for CNN.
Yes, but you know what I mean.
Although I didn’t agree with Tony Snow on most issues,I hope he rests in peace.
“I was talking about trends over a ten year period, not short term declines.”
Yes, Jay, long term trends that have suddenly shown a reverse. People who once thought their jobs were safe or secure no longer do. And when you see people getting laid off in your sector of the economy, you have reason to start thinking about a plan B.
Whether this trend is short term or not or whether the recession we have is mild or not, people expect their politicians to try to do something about it. And even if they can’t, what good does it do anyone to call the country a bunch of whiners, as Gramm did? Absolutely nothing.
If this is mental thing, and I don’t think it is, there’s a way to address that and there is a way not to address that. Politicians don’t have to say “i feel your pain.” They can also say something like, “There’s nothing to fear but fear itself.” Now that’s a fucksight better than calling people who are nervous or struggling a bunch of whiners. Wouldn’t you agree?
You know politicians don’t only have to swing between condescension and pity. They can also, you know, lead and inspire. I’d suggest that’s one of the reason why Obama is going to win. People have had enough of Republican condescension.
Fafaroo (I think) – They are real and people want to know that their leaders realize it
Jay – Great. So you want “I feel your pain” bullshit from politicians in DC. I don’t.
Bit of a straw man here. I don’t think anyone’s suggesting their desire for empty rhetoric. As CSS (and I, in a comment stuck in moderation purgatory) pointed out above, the government doesn’t have the ability to wave a wand and make things peachy, but it can make policy to soften the blow of economic contractions. I would argue that the current government (and possibly the last several) hasn’t done that to the satisfaction of a hell of a lot of people.
The problem with generalizing about those affected by this is that it’s a pretty diverse group we’re talking about. Some affected are no doubt ‘whining.’ I don’t have that much sympathy for someone who can’t afford the Jet Ski, Escalade AND bad mortgage payments. But I do have some sympathy for those getting by and laboring on in the lower and lower middle classes as the economy tries to push them off a cliff.
Which group is larger? Who really knows?
And I always kinda liked Snow. But I can enjoy the work of journalists/pundits with whom I usually completely disagree.
Yes, Jay, long term trends that have suddenly shown a reverse.
How can long term trends show a sudden reverse? That doesn’t make sense. If the slowdown is short lived, then the long term trends will still hold.
Whether this trend is short term or not or whether the recession we have is mild or not, people expect their politicians to try to do something about it.
And that’s the problem. There are far too many people in this country that have a sense of entitlement and when they don’t have that comfort level, they expect the taxpayers to pony up and the politicians are happy to give out the goodies as long as it gets them re-elected. The long term consequences be damned.
I’d suggest that’s one of the reason why Obama is going to win. People have had enough of Republican condescension.
Nonsense. The condescension is coming directly from the Obama campaign in the form of promises by his administration to be the sugar daddy for millions and millions of people. The following is condescension:
“It isn’t whining to ask government to step in and give families some relief,” he said, drawing a standing ovation from the nearly 3,000 people in a high school gymnasium. “And I think it’s time we had a president who doesn’t deny our problems or blame the American people for them but takes responsibility and provides the leadership to solve them.”
That’s condescension. That’s the same kind of talk we’ve heard over the last 30-40 years from that ilk: “You cannot take care of yourselves, so we’re going to do it for you.”
And why shouldn’t people be blamed in part? Again, who told Americans to buy bigger cars that consume more and more gasoline and get crappy mileage? Who told Americans to buy homes they couldn’t afford? Who told Americans to use the increasing values of their homes as ATM machines?
If the government had tried to pass a law in 2004 that disallowed people to get huge HELOCs and use home equity loans for anything other than consolidating debt, people would screamed bloody murder saying the government should stay out of it. Now that the bills are coming in and those home values have shrunk, their tune has changed and they’re running to Uncle Sam.
If the government had gone and made sub-prime loans illegal or limited home purchases to a certain dollar amount, the thunder would have come down. But now that ARM’s are resetting and people who bought $400,000 homes instead of a $250,000 which would have been just as good are upside down, they’re running to the government.
If the government had put a luxury tax or something on vehicles that didn’t get a certain amount of MPG, we would have never heard the end of it. But now that people need to spend $100 a week in gas for their Chevy Suburban or Ford Expedition, they’re saying the government “needs to do something.”
Food prices are higher because of a variety of reasons, but if people who weren’t buying homes they didn’t need, toys they didn’t need (look how many people were lining up to buy the new iPhone. I wonder how many of them are Obama supporters who think the government “needs to do something.”) and other expenditures, higher food prices wouldn’t affect people that much.
I’ve been reading the stories. All of these stories that are supposed to elicit pity and it’s a joke. Poor dears have had to cut back on:
Eating out
Entertainment
Clothes shopping
Vacations
Cable and magazine subscriptions
Cut back on kids extracurricular activies
Is all of that so terrible?
Again, I am not denying that there are people truly struggling, but far too often our government proposes “help” that is too expensive, too expansive, and completely short-sighted.
I would argue that the current government (and possibly the last several) hasn’t done that to the satisfaction of a hell of a lot of people.
Yes, but that is not the government’s role.
Shorter Jay: It’s your own damn fault quit whining.
Yes, but that is not the government’s role.
Ideological point of contention, I guess. The government’s role has been growing in a roughly parallel curve to the national urbanization, which one could argue (along with the industrial, computer and transportation revolutions) is the major story of the last 150 years. There is of course a natural stopping point for government involvement – nobody here has any desire for overinvolvement, just different ideas of what that entails – but minimizing the effects of an economic contraction already falls within the government’s purview in a number of ways. But I don’t feel it’s gone far enough.
Well oliver’s headline couldn’t be more accurate. Conservatives are finally admitting what they believe.
Jay, for one, believes that Americans are greedy whiny assholes.
That’s great. Can we get McCain to run on that platform:
“You’re on your own you greedy whiny assholes! Vote for me if you know what’s good for ya.”
Funny, i can almost hear McCain saying that.
“Yes, but that is not the government’s role.”
In your mind, what is the role of government? I bet you a lot of people will disagree with your opinion.
And why shouldn’t people be blamed in part? Again, who told Americans to buy bigger cars that consume more and more gasoline and get crappy mileage?
Um, you lot did.
Who told Americans to buy homes they couldn’t afford? Who told Americans to use the increasing values of their homes as ATM machines?
Their financial advisors. Remember the Bush Boom?
So, Jay, are Americans “whiny” or “bitter”?
CSS: “Yes, but that is not the government’s role.”
In your mind, what is the role of government? I bet you a lot of people will disagree with your opinion.
Of course they will. A lot of people will disagree with the opinion of ANYBODY who answers that question.
Straw man.
Jay: “Yes, but that is not the government’s role.”
CSS: “In your mind, what is the role of government? I bet you a lot of people will disagree with your opinion.”
Sean: “Of course they will. A lot of people will disagree with the opinion of ANYBODY who answers that question.
Straw man.”
What the fuck? Are you a goddamned idiot?
Jay is the one claiming his opinion of the role of government should be used to the exclusion of all others. Maybe you should complain to him, and not me.
CSS: Jay is the one claiming his opinion of the role of government should be used to the exclusion of all others. Maybe you should complain to him, and not me.
You asked a question and made an observation. You would have me address a comment on your observation to Jay?
To a certain extent, I’m agreeing with you. A lot of people will disagree with any opinion on what the role of government is.
CSS: “Jay is the one claiming his opinion of the role of government should be used to the exclusion of all others. Maybe you should complain to him, and not me.”
Sean: “You asked a question and made an observation. You would have me address a comment on your observation to Jay?”
When your observation makes more sense addressed to Jay, yes. Your argument makes a lot more sense addressed to Jay than to me.
Sean: “To a certain extent, I’m agreeing with you.”
Yet you felt the need to call my argument a straw man.
Sean: “A lot of people will disagree with any opinion on what the role of government is.”
Exactly my point. So saying, ‘It’s not the role of government.’ without giving any explanation on the role of government or why government should be limited in that way is not an acceptable answer. Which is why I asked Jay to define his opinion on the role of government. And why I pointed out that it wouldn’t be the majority opinion.
What I don’t get is why you called it a straw man.
Which is why I asked Jay to define his opinion on the role of government. And why I pointed out that it wouldn’t be the majority opinion.
I don’t have to define my opinion on what the role of government should be. I was responding to a very specific comment Parthenon made which was:
he government doesn’t have the ability to wave a wand and make things peachy, but it can make policy to soften the blow of economic contractions. I would argue that the current government (and possibly the last several) hasn’t done that to the satisfaction of a hell of a lot of people.
The people don’t want (as I pointed out above) the government involved when there’s nice expansions and as such shouldn’t expect involvement during contractions, especially one as minor as we are experiencing. This has been a problem for nearly 30 years now. Whenever there’s some economic slowdown, we expect the government to get involved. What they should be doing is backing off. Eliminating tax burdens and red tape. Instead, by sticking their snouts in, they often prolong the problem or set us up for something worse down the road. Some of the mortgage ’solutions’ are going to be more problematic than anything else. I’ve seen mortgage brokers going nuts because people have had paid their mortgages on time over the last few years and have improved their credit are having a tough time getting approved for re-financing. Meanwhile, people who are already near default, have worse credit now than when they bought, are getting approved for these programs even though it is likely that many of them will default anyway because many of their original loans didn’t require escrow for insurance and taxes. So who’s going to get stuck holding the bill when these properties are foreclosed on? The taxpayer, that’s who. The lender has their money insured and whatever losses the government takes is going to come out of our pocketbooks.
And I could give a rat’s ass whether or not a majority of people agree with me. Just because somebody’s viewpoint is in the majority, doesn’t make it correct.
“I don’t have to define my opinion on what the role of government should be.”
You don’t have to, but it would be nice. I don’t want to misrepresent your opinion. Additionally, your ability to define and defend your opinion is important in this debate for reasons I shouldn’t need to get into.
However…
You opinion is just that, your opinion and you act as if your opinion should be used as the defacto law.
“What they should be doing is backing off. Eliminating tax burdens and red tape.”
Yeah, cutting regulations lead to the collapse of IndyMac, so excuse me if I ignore your opinion here. We’ve seen what happens without regulations, and it isn’t pretty. (Look up the Great Depression if you don’t believe me.)
“And I could give a rat’s ass whether or not a majority of people agree with me. Just because somebody’s viewpoint is in the majority, doesn’t make it correct.”
No, but your opinion shouldn’t be used to the exclusion of other opinions. In fact, only valid opinions should even be considered.
You opinion is just that, your opinion and you act as if your opinion should be used as the defacto law.
I ‘act’ like nothing. I state my opinions just like you do.
Yeah, cutting regulations lead to the collapse of IndyMac,
Now this is not an opinion. You’re stating an alleged fact. Please show how deregulation lead to the collapse of IndyMac. It had nothing to do with lack of regulations. It had to do with poor business practices, specifically, approving no equity, no doc mortgages. There are plenty of other mortgage banks that operate under the same regulations as IndyMac and they’re doing just fine. Claiming it failed because of ‘cutting regulations’ is just bullshit.
Look up the Great Depression if you don’t believe me.
The Great Depression had nothing to do with the lack of regulation either. Your knowledge of American history is extremely poor.
No, but your opinion shouldn’t be used to the exclusion of other opinions.
And I never said it did.
aw,
Somehow I missed The Bush Boom when it burst on the scene. I wonder what ever became of auther Jerry Bowyer, or the Larry Kudlow person who wrote the forward. I bet even wingnut welfare couldn’t sustain those two losers in the conservative punditacracy. At least the book will make a great gag gift for that 24-percenter on my Christmas list.
Just checked Jerry Bowyer’s website and found this tidbit:
Jerry will be appearing on CNBC’s Kudlow & Company today, July 3rd.
Me: “You opinion is just that, your opinion and you act as if your opinion should be used as the defacto law.”
Jay: “I ‘act’ like nothing. I state my opinions just like you do.”
Saying, ‘The government shouldn’t do something because it is not their place to act.’ is doing more than stating an opinion. it is stating that the government should act on your opinion. If you want to do that, you should be willing to justify your opinion. That’s all I’m asking for here. It is not a huge request.
“Now this is not an opinion. You’re stating an alleged fact. Please show how deregulation lead to the collapse of IndyMac. ”
A run of $1.3 billion is sweet fuck all for a bank with $19 billion in deposits and $32 billion in assets. It they followed the regulations of 10% liquid assets, they would have been fine.
“There are plenty of other mortgage banks that operate under the same regulations as IndyMac and they’re doing just fine.”
Technically this is true, IndyMac actually broke the law. A law John Reich previously weakened and then saw fit not to enforce.
However, I would put forth the thought that a regulation that is not enforced is no regulation at all. It was defacto deregulation.
Me: “Look up the Great Depression if you don’t believe me.”
Jay: “The Great Depression had nothing to do with the lack of regulation either.”
Yes it did. Investing on margins meant a small change in the stock market could wipe out entire investments. Minor, natural fluctuations could destroy the market. Regulations to prevent this were put into place after the Great Depression. These regulations are now being weakened and not enforced. And look, we have banking failures.
Me: “No, but your opinion shouldn’t be used to the exclusion of other opinions.”
Jay: “And I never said it did.”
Yes you did. You used your opinion as the basis for government policy. And you said it in such a way as to dismiss and other contrary opinion.
Legend has it that Roosevelt appointed old man Kennedy first chairman of the SEC because he was such a crook that he’d know all the tricks likely to be tried.
In any case, we might be reaching a confusion of terms here. First of all, the depression was global, so we ought not discuss only ‘American history’ when determining whether underregulation played a part. As to the stock market crash (not the depression, but the stock market crash) of 1929, underregulation almost certainly contributed to the shady activity and the building of financial houses of cards under men like Ivar Krueger. This was one situation where federalism failed miserably; the blue sky laws intended to regulate the markets at the state level were incredibly lacking and easily given the runaround.
As to the depression itself; it seems debatable whether underregulation played a role, and the type of regulation we’re discussing. The real rot in the core was that the people had maxed out their incomes and couldn’t consume the products of the manufacturing sector. I (and probably most liberals) would argue that it’s possible for governments to mitigate this extreme economic polarization (with the rich REALLY rich and the poor REALLY poor), and in fact many governments in the world do so. Jay and his ideological mates would argue (I’m guessing) that regulation would only hurt that situation further by forcing employers to play by too many rules that limit the quantity and quality of salaries they can offer.
It they followed the regulations of 10% liquid assets, they would have been fine.
There’s no ‘regulation’ that requires 10% liquid assets. Under regulatory guidelines a bank or S&L is considered well capitalized if it has a risk based capital ratio of 10%.
Technically this is true, IndyMac actually broke the law. A law John Reich previously weakened and then saw fit not to enforce.
What law did they break? Where do you get this stuff?
Yes it did. Investing on margins meant a small change in the stock market could wipe out entire investments. Minor, natural fluctuations could destroy the market.
Oh this is rich. Do you know what allowed all of that buying on margin to take place? It was none other than the Federal Reserve Board, a government entity created in 1913 to specifically prevent such problems. What did they do? Specifically, they set below market interest rates and low reserve requirements that favored big banks. As such, available money increased nearly 60% during the roaring 20’s and it’s what led to margin trading which became very lucrative in a fast rising market. In 1929, the Fed realized they could not sustain their own policies and started raising interest rates. When they did that, the house of cards collapsed, the market crashed and bank panics began.
Further intervention on the part of the government (Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, price supports, inflation of the money supply by the fed) only exacerbated the problem.
These regulations are now being weakened and not enforced. And look, we have banking failures.
And as I said, we’re not having banking failures due to weakened regulation. They’re happening because of poor lending practices.
Yes you did. You used your opinion as the basis for government policy. And you said it in such a way as to dismiss and other contrary opinion.
Oh please. Will you stop being such a drama queen? So if I say, “Sunsets are nicer than sunrises” does that mean I am dismissing other contrary views? Of course not. If I state my opinion on what the role of government should be, especially at a time like we’re experiencing now, other people can state their contrary opinion. Our opinions may not be the same, but this notion was using my opinion “as the basis for government” policy is just you looking for a reason to be a scold.
“What law did they break? Where do you get this stuff?”
From an economic expert that I trust. Which is more than I can say about your expertise in this or any other area.
“Oh this is rich. Do you know what allowed all of that buying on margin to take place? It was none other than the Federal Reserve Board… the market crashed and bank panics began.”
And then regulations were put in place regarding how much could be bought on margin. Buying on margin allows people who are not worried about risk to make more money faster. As long as there are banks willing to loan money, there will be people buying on margin. However, after the markets crashed, regulations were put into place to stop that shit from happened again.
“And as I said, we’re not having banking failures due to weakened regulation. They’re happening because of poor lending practices.”
And the regulations are supposed to stop this from happening.
“Oh please. Will you stop being such a drama queen? So if I say, “Sunsets are nicer than sunrises” does that mean I am dismissing other contrary views? Of course not.”
No, of course not, but if you say, “The government should declare sunsets are nicer than sunrise.”, then you are saying your opinion should be taken as defacto truth and other opinions should be dismissed.
There is a difference between stating an opinion and saying your opinion should be law. It is not being a drama queen to ask someone saying the latter should justify their opinion.
However, you have done a wonderful job of avoiding that task, and I think I know why. You know your political philosophy is flawed and is one that harms the majority to help the minority.
From an economic expert that I trust. Which is more than I can say about your expertise in this or any other area.
What would an economic expert know about it? The person would have to be a LEGAL expert. You don’t have to reveal your source. Just tell us what law was broken. It’s easy enough.
And then regulations were put in place regarding how much could be bought on margin. Buying on margin allows people who are not worried about risk to make more money faster. As long as there are banks willing to loan money, there will be people buying on margin. However, after the markets crashed, regulations were put into place to stop that shit from happened again.
You don’t get it. If the government wasn’t mucking around in the market to BEGIN WITH, that margin trading disaster wouldn’t have even happened. Your assertion was that a lack of regulation is what led to the Great Depression and that is clearly nonsense.
And the regulations are supposed to stop this from happening.
No they are not because there were no regulations violated. You’re paying to much attention to Chuck Schumers press releases. Regulatory guidelines only stipulate how banks and S&L’s are to be considered well capitalized.
No, of course not, but if you say, “The government should declare sunsets are nicer than sunrise.”, then you are saying your opinion should be taken as defacto truth and other opinions should be dismissed.
And I said no such thing. I said, “That is not the role of the government.” People are free to disagree, state their own view, or tell me how wrong I am. You’re attempts to imply some kind of sinister motives behind my statements are really lame.
You know your political philosophy is flawed and is one that harms the majority to help the minority.
There’s nothing like getting a big heaping pile of sophistry thrown at you while watching the All-Star Game.
Jay: You’re stating an alleged fact. Please show how deregulation lead to the collapse of IndyMac.
CSS: A run of $1.3 billion is sweet fuck all for a bank with $19 billion in deposits and $32 billion in assets. It they followed the regulations of 10% liquid assets, they would have been fine.
So, based on that answer, it wasn’t deregulation, was it? It was IM’s failure to follow the regulations.
Jay: “What law did they break? Where do you get this stuff?”
CSS: From an economic expert that I trust.
I must say, if this exchange were reversed I’m pretty sure Jay would be castigated for not providing proof of his statement but just instead referring to some anonymous “expert”.
CSS: You know your political philosophy is flawed and is one that harms the majority to help the minority.
A not un-American philosophy. I remember several lessons in school specifically explaining how the rights/interests of a minority, for example, can trump those of the majority. Certainly these situations could be descibed as “harming” the majority in favor of the minority.
“So, based on that answer, it wasn’t deregulation, was it? It was IM’s failure to follow the regulations.”
Have you read this thread?
As I previously said…
“However, I would put forth the thought that a regulation that is not enforced is no regulation at all. It was defacto deregulation.”
IndyMac didn’t sneak this past a vigilant protector, John Reich intentionally weakened enforcement.
“I must say, if this exchange were reversed I’m pretty sure Jay would be castigated for not providing proof of his statement but just instead referring to some anonymous “expert”.”
Yes, but I’m not the one who has a reputation for demanding evidence and then running away. I’ll do the research when Jay answers all the questions he’s run away from.
CSS: “You know your political philosophy is flawed and is one that harms the majority to help the minority.”
Sean: “A not un-American philosophy. I remember several lessons in school specifically explaining how the rights/interests of a minority, for example, can trump those of the majority. Certainly these situations could be descibed as “harming” the majority in favor of the minority.”
Give a specific example.
CSS: Have you read this thread?
Did you read what I wrote? “So, based on that answer,…” I was focussed and specific in my comment.
CSS: Yes, but I’m not the one who has a reputation for demanding evidence and then running away.
“Yes”. So you won’t hold yourself to the same standard you demand from others? You do frequently demand evidence from others and at times have fallen short of that standard at times when asked for evidence of your side.
SDM: I was focussed and specific in my comment.
And anticipating what I imagine might be a reply, there is nothing wrong with that. CSS specifically said “cutting regulations lead to the collapse of IndyMac” and were asked to show how deregulation led to that collapse. And the best he could come up with is a redefining of what deregulation is: “I would put forth the thought that a regulation that is not enforced is no regulation at all.”
Again, I have to believe that if these tactics were used by someone else (avoid answering the question, twist definitions so that the new meaning of things supports your point) CSS would, not unjustifiably, would be all over it and the word hypocrite would be used somewhere in there.
CSS: Give a specific example.
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1978)
University of Alabama, June 11, 1963
The Principles of Democracy as listed by the US State Department: “Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.
Three examples of what the minority wanted being respected over what the majority wanted.
Do we now need to start arguing over whether a minority was really a minority and where to draw a line as to how many people were actually involved on each side? Or over what “could be described as “harming” the majority” and what could not?
Or can you set aside your bias against me and acknowledge I may have a point.
John Reich intentionally weakened enforcement.
Weakened enforcement of what? You keep going on about “cutting regulations”, “weakened enforcement” and “broke the law” but you still haven’t been able to articulate exactly what IndyMac did that was in violation of banking regulations or the law.
Yes, but I’m not the one who has a reputation for demanding evidence and then running away. I’ll do the research when Jay answers all the questions he’s run away from.
Oh please. This ‘reputation’ is something you’ve envisioned in your own mind. This is intellectual cowardice at its worst.
“Weakened enforcement of what? You keep going on about “cutting regulations”, “weakened enforcement” and “broke the law” but you still haven’t been able to articulate exactly what IndyMac did that was in violation of banking regulations or the law.”
And I’ll provide the links to that as soon as you answer all of those question I have pending with you.
“Oh please. This ‘reputation’ is something you’ve envisioned in your own mind. This is intellectual cowardice at its worst.”
No, Jay, this is something that many people here have mentioned. I bet if you asked the regulars, you would find it is not just in my mind.
“so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.”
So taking away the rights of the minority is somehow hurting the majority. … Interesting.
Are you sure you want to make that claim?
“So you won’t hold yourself to the same standard you demand from others?”
No, everyone should be held to the same standard. The liars and the truthful alike. Those that debate in an intellectually honest way, and those that make claims they can’t back up and then run away.
Different situations should be treated differently. Duh.
I’m not the only one who has commented on Jay’s tendency to run away from a debate. Additionally, I have asked him to provide some research that he has yet to prove. Why should I do more work than he is willing to do?
CSS: Have you read this thread?
Seam: “Did you read what I wrote? “So, based on that answer,…” I was focussed and specific in my comment.”
And I answered you point previously in the thread. Which is why I asked the question in the first place.
DAMN IT!
I should proofread better.
“so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.”
So NOT BEING ABLE to take away the rights of the minority is somehow hurting the majority. … Interesting.
Are you sure you want to make that claim?
And I’ll provide the links to that as soon as you answer all of those question I have pending with you. </i
Translation: I’ve been pulling that stuff out of my ass and I can’t support my assertions.
No, Jay, this is something that many people here have mentioned. I bet if you asked the regulars, you would find it is not just in my mind.
Go for it.
I’m not the only one who has commented on Jay’s tendency to run away from a debate.
It’s not “running away” to leave a ‘debate’ where it’s become nothing but an exercise in seeing who can get the last word in. In addition, this question you want me to answer is a BULLSHIT QUESTION. I stated an OPINION. I did not state, “This is my opinion and that is the only one that is valid, so there!!” as you’re claiming and acting like a horse’s ass telling me to “prove.” Give me a break already and stop acting like a freaking child.
Those that debate in an intellectually honest way, and those that make claims they can’t back up and then run away.
Oh you mean like your claims in this thread? You can’t defend them and then you blubber like a three year old, “You first!!”
You’re done on this one CS. Done.
You can’t back up your assertions because all you did was repeat blather you’ve read elsewhere that has no basis in fact.
CSS: Why should I do more work than he is willing to do?
Because it’s a declaration that you’re falling to the level of your opponent, a level you criticize him for being at. Because one person having to provide “proof” for their side isn’t dependent whether he is supporting his. “I don’t have to provide any support until you do.” isn’t something I see pushed as a winning strategy in most real debates.
(Damn. Looks like I should proofread better, too.)
SDM: “Because one person having to provide “proof” for their side isn’t dependent whether the other guy is supporting their side.”
“Because it’s a declaration that you’re falling to the level of your opponent,”
I’m not getting paid to write here, Sean. Jay isn’t worth the time and he has proven that over and over again.
Me: “No, Jay, this is something that many people here have mentioned. I bet if you asked the regulars, you would find it is not just in my mind.”
Jay: “Go for it.”
I’ll get right on that, as soon as you answer all of those questions I have pending.
“It’s not “running away” to leave a ‘debate’ where it’s become nothing but an exercise in seeing who can get the last word in.”
And is running away when you ask someone to do some research and then run after they answer your questions. That’s what you’ve done several times in the past.
“In addition, this question you want me to answer is a BULLSHIT QUESTION. I stated an OPINION. ”
Wow, man, you are way behind. There’s probably a dozen questions you have left unanswered. You can’t just answer the last question I asked and think you are caught up.
By the way, you did more than state an opinion. You made a claim as too governmental policy. Asking you to justify that is not childish, no matter how much you don’t want to justify your assertion.
I would like to point out that Jay, who has run away from numerous debates and has refused to answer a simple question several times in this thread alone is calling me a child and is saying I’m doing the exact thing he is doing.
Amazing amount of hypocrisy there.
I’ll put in terms even Jay can understand…
I’m not going to take the time to do the research and post links till Jay proves to me he will stick around and debate. Since he refuses to show a simple opinion is valid, there’s no reason to think he will stick around and debate.
Oh, and that claim that he only leaves when real debate has ceased. That’s a lie. He hasn’t made an actual claim in this thread for a while, yet he is still arguing.
Jay, you’ve lost. Anyone who knows your history knows that.
Hell, even you know that.
CS
Fuck off.
Cheers.
CSS: I’m not getting paid to write here, Sean.
So maintaining a standard is only worthwhile if we’re paid for it?
CSS: Jay isn’t worth the time and he has proven that over and over again.
So why spend so much time on him? You must be getting something out of it.
CSS: you did more than state an opinion. You made a claim as too governmental policy. Asking you to justify that is not childish, no matter how much you don’t want to justify your assertion.
I would like to point out that Jay, who has run away from numerous debates and has refused to answer a simple question several times in this thread alone is calling me a child and is saying I’m doing the exact thing he is doing.
No, you wouldn’t do that exact thing.
CSS: Amazing amount of hypocrisy there.
CSS: :I’m not getting paid to write here, Sean.”
Sean: “So maintaining a standard is only worthwhile if we’re paid for it?”
You are a fucking clueless troll. Jay has proven he is not worth the effort, something you seem determined to prove as well. I am under no obligation
CSS: “Jay isn’t worth the time and he has proven that over and over again.”
Sean: “So why spend so much time on him? You must be getting something out of it.”
Procrastinating.
Sean: “No, you wouldn’t do that exact thing.”
… Do you know what a reputation is? It’s not possible to have a reputation from one event, not by an legitimate definition of the word.
But you don’t care. As long as you can attack me, you are happy.
Sean, what the fuck is wrong with you? Why do you spend so much time attacking me while ignoring the more serious offenses of Jay and Jay Tea? Jay Tea said he would laugh if I died of a heart attack while debating him here. Did you ever go after him? Yet I argue that the nature of the claim determines the level of evidence needed, and you are still attacking me over that.
Answer that question, or shut the fuck up.
“CS
Fuck off.
Cheers.”
So I take it you admit defeat on all point then.
By the way, this is proof you are a liar when you say you don’t run away but I merely leaving to allow someone else to get the last word. Clearly you are no longer interested in debating, but you came here to point.
You made a claim about government policy and refuse to justify it. It is simply as that.
You made a claim about government policy and refuse to justify it. It is simply as that.
No, I stated an OPINION about government policy. My statement was no different then if I had said, “There should be no designated hitter in baseball.”
You cannot comprehend the difference and instead of showing how IndyMac violated the law or violated banking regulations (or how John Reich didn’t enforce said regulations), you’d rather get into semantics and continue to say that I made some kind of claim about government policy to the exclusion of any other viewpoints.
It is my view that it is not the role of the government to be mucking around with the economy because whenever they do get involved, things often do not get better and often make things worse (there is HISTORY to prove that especially with the Great Depression — contrary to your incorrect assertion that it was non-regulation of the free markets that caused it). How much was spent on those stimulus checks this year? $150 billion. How well did it work? Not well at all. The price of oil has dropped nearly $15 a barrel the last three days without the government doing a THING. That’s the beauty of the market at work.
So there. I’ve given you the reasons for my opinion on the role of the government in the economy.
Let’s see if you can reciprocate and provide some substantiation for your claims about Indymac. Or are you going to weasel out still and give us the, “Not until you answer my other questions” crapola?
SDM: So maintaining a standard is only worthwhile if we’re paid for it?”
CSS: You are a fucking clueless troll.
I’ll take “Non Responsive Answers” for $200, Alex.
SDM: So why spend so much time on him? You must be getting something out of it.
CSS: Procrastinating
For $400, Alex.
CSS: It’s not possible to have a reputation from one event, not by an legitimate definition of the word.
For $600, Alex.
Although I’d disagree that a reputation can’t be gotten from a single event that’s as far as I’m going to go on it because I’m not going to get pulled into the distraction you’re trying to put up. When did I say anything about reputation? You were taking someone to task for not providing support for their opinion and I pointed out a case where you did the exact same thing. Which you’re trying to ignore by going off into a “that one case means nothing” reputation definition track.
CSS: Why do you spend so much time attacking me while ignoring the more serious offenses of Jay and Jay Tea? Jay Tea said he would laugh if I died of a heart attack while debating him here. Did you ever go after him? … Answer that question, or shut the fuck up.
I already answered that question.
You, OTOH, seem to have a penchant for not answering. Should one assume that your absence from those two threads after those points was evidence of, how to put it, “So I take it you admit defeat on all point then.” and “this is proof you are a liar when you say you don’t run away”??
SDM: So maintaining a standard is only worthwhile if we’re paid for it?”
CSS: You are a fucking clueless troll.
Sean: “I’ll take “Non Responsive Answers” for $200, Alex.”
Fucking liar.
I responded, you cut, and then lied about it.
We are done.
CSS: Fucking liar. I responded, you cut, and then lied about it.
Oh, OK. Well, the full reply is still there for anyone to see so it isn’t like I could really mis-represent your words (not that I tried to) but just to spare anyone having to scroll up a page to see them let’s quote your complete reply.
The question, of course, having been “So maintaining a standard is only worthwhile if we’re paid for it?”
You are a fucking clueless troll. Jay has proven he is not worth the effort, something you seem determined to prove as well. I am under no obligation
And if we’re to talk that as you complete answer you’re saying that, yes, you having standards isn’t worth your making an effort unless you’re paid. How whore-like of you.
CSS: We are done.
“So I take it you admit defeat on all point then.” and “this is proof you are a liar when you say you don’t run away”??
(Actually, I just take it you’re as tired of this exchange as I am and similarly have decided it’s pointless. The only difference being I see and admit that while you, in typical hypocritical fashion, claim the other guy always leaves because they know they’ve “lost”.)