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”.)

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: 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”??

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fuck off.

Cheers.

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.

I’m not getting paid to write here, Sean. Jay isn’t worth the time and he has proven that over and over again.

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, 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.

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.

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?

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.

So taking 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.

“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.

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.

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.