or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Generational Blind Spot-BOOM!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Generational Blind Spot-BOOM! - Page 9

post #321 of 452
Thread Starter 
Cartoons are fun but the problem is TONE.



Remember the common liberal complaint, your an irresponsible spender and we will fix that buy GOING BIG. Those who condemn us will be complaining that the real problem is, WE NEED TO GO EVEN BIGGER!

I think people run away from trying to defend the above graph because no one is delusional enough to believe it is defensible. Screaming Bush, Palin, Iraq or even Limbaugh can't make those numbers stop stinking.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #322 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Huh?

You're actually contending that we should take the definitive word on Krugman's position from a January article from a third party, instead of his own words on his blog written four days ago?

Are you serious?

Frank the second link which you chose to ignore was from a letter in the Rolling Stone in Jan by Krugman himself. Your misinterepretation of Krugman's views not withstanding. Does he agree with Obama's plan totally no. But he has said it's a step in the right direction it needs to be more focused and bigger. You really need to read all of his stuff and not hand pick things for your argument.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #323 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Cartoons are fun but the problem is TONE.



Remember the common liberal complaint, your an irresponsible spender and we will fix that buy GOING BIG. Those who condemn us will be complaining that the real problem is, WE NEED TO GO EVEN BIGGER!

I think people run away from trying to defend the above graph because no one is delusional enough to believe it is defensible. Screaming Bush, Palin, Iraq or even Limbaugh can't make those numbers stop stinking.

Well who's more of an expert here? trumptman on a forum that he's spamed to death or the Nobelaureat? Hmm? I just don't know.

It may be that Kruman doesn't have the exact right answer either. He's said himself that this situation is different from anything we've experienced since the 30's. But I do believe he's got more of a handle on this than me or you.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #324 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

You whine constantly about 'ad homs' and drop them in your posts with the most insufferably arrogant tone, Nick.

This place is quiet because it was a room where you came to talk as loudly as you could. Even by the standards of this place, you're uncivil, arrogant, manipulative and simply unpleasant. You had the loudest voice and no-one want to be in this room with you anymore.

Please don't post politics over at Nova. It's a friendly place.

It's the way he works. It's the written equvilant of raising your voice so no one else can be heard! That way he thinks he wins. By volume not logic. I'm sure when arguing we've all encountered people like that in our lives.

About Nova. As I've pointed out he's already there. I'm sure he'll try it's just up to the powers that be over there as to if he succeeds.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #325 of 452
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Frank the second link which you chose to ignore was from a letter in the Rolling Stone in Jan by Krugman himself. Your misinterepretation of Krugman's views not withstanding. Does he agree with Obama's plan totally no. But he has said it's a step in the right direction it needs to be more focused and bigger. You really need to read all of his stuff and not hand pick things for your argument.

How about we just post his response verbatim rather than discuss your claims.

NYTimes

Now understand this is from someone who doesn't wan to say a negative word about President Obama...

Quote:
Over the weekend The Times and other newspapers reported leaked details about the Obama administrations bank rescue plan, which is to be officially released this week. If the reports are correct, Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, has persuaded President Obama to recycle Bush administration policy specifically, the cash for trash plan proposed, then abandoned, six months ago by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

This is more than disappointing. In fact, it fills me with a sense of despair.

After all, weve just been through the firestorm over the A.I.G. bonuses, during which administration officials claimed that they knew nothing, couldnt do anything, and anyway it was someone elses fault. Meanwhile, the administration has failed to quell the publics doubts about what banks are doing with taxpayer money.

And now Mr. Obama has apparently settled on a financial plan that, in essence, assumes that banks are fundamentally sound and that bankers know what theyre doing.

Its as if the president were determined to confirm the growing perception that he and his economic team are out of touch, that their economic vision is clouded by excessively close ties to Wall Street. And by the time Mr. Obama realizes that he needs to change course, his political capital may be gone.

Lets talk for a moment about the economics of the situation.

Right now, our economy is being dragged down by our dysfunctional financial system, which has been crippled by huge losses on mortgage-backed securities and other assets.

As economic historians can tell you, this is an old story, not that different from dozens of similar crises over the centuries. And theres a time-honored procedure for dealing with the aftermath of widespread financial failure. It goes like this: the government secures confidence in the system by guaranteeing many (though not necessarily all) bank debts. At the same time, it takes temporary control of truly insolvent banks, in order to clean up their books.
This is Krugman's answer
Thats what Sweden did in the early 1990s. Its also what we ourselves did after the savings and loan debacle of the Reagan years. And theres no reason we cant do the same thing now.

But the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, apparently wants an easier way out. The common element to the Paulson and Geithner plans is the insistence that the bad assets on banks books are really worth much, much more than anyone is currently willing to pay for them. In fact, their true value is so high that if they were properly priced, banks wouldnt be in trouble.

And so the plan is to use taxpayer funds to drive the prices of bad assets up to fair levels. Mr. Paulson proposed having the government buy the assets directly. Mr. Geithner instead proposes a complicated scheme in which the government lends money to private investors, who then use the money to buy the stuff. The idea, says Mr. Obamas top economic adviser, is to use the expertise of the market to set the value of toxic assets.

But the Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isnt really about letting markets work. Its just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets.

The likely cost to taxpayers aside, theres something strange going on here. By my count, this is the third time Obama administration officials have floated a scheme that is essentially a rehash of the Paulson plan, each time adding a new set of bells and whistles and claiming that theyre doing something completely different. This is starting to look obsessive.
This is the Obama plan, they are not at all the same.

But the real problem with this plan is that it wont work. Yes, troubled assets may be somewhat undervalued. But the fact is that financial executives literally bet their banks on the belief that there was no housing bubble, and the related belief that unprecedented levels of household debt were no problem. They lost that bet. And no amount of financial hocus-pocus for that is what the Geithner plan amounts to will change that fact.

You might say, why not try the plan and see what happens? One answer is that time is wasting: every month that we fail to come to grips with the economic crisis another 600,000 jobs are lost.

Even more important, however, is the way Mr. Obama is squandering his credibility. If this plan fails as it almost surely will its unlikely that hell be able to persuade Congress to come up with more funds to do what he should have done in the first place.

All is not lost: the public wants Mr. Obama to succeed, which means that he can still rescue his bank rescue plan. But time is running out.

Krugman wants nationalization of banks. Obama is doing nothing near that. The things he wanted Obama to go bigger on was stimulus. Krugman's complaint about Obama is that he is doing nothing different that Bush was doing and specifically is doing exactly as Paulson was doing. Krugman does not say Obama needs to go bigger. He notes specifically that it simply won't work, all the efforts, energies and dollars will be squandered and he doesn't know at that time if Obama will have enough political capital and credibility to fix is own banking plan. He notes the public wants him to do well and this might allow that to happen, but the reality is, he is filled with despair.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #326 of 452
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well who's more of an expert here? trumptman on a forum that he's spamed to death or the Nobelaureat? Hmm? I just don't know.

It may be that Kruman doesn't have the exact right answer either. He's said himself that this situation is different from anything we've experienced since the 30's. But I do believe he's got more of a handle on this than me or you.

Being an expert doesn't make one right. However a few points since you keep knocking this chestnut around...

First, Krugman's expertise and his prize that you keep mentioning deals with international trade. He won for a paper he wrote in 1979 which explained and changed our understanding about trade between countries at similar levels of economic development.

Second, I'm on the cusp of it but you should realize it as well, we are in the information age. Information and tools that a generation ago would have only been available to experts or some very driven people, are now available to anyone. Think about what you would have needed to do to get research and make a stock trade in 1979 versus now. Even in the amount of time I have been trading it is now very easy to get level one quotes that use to require you practically be on the floor of the exchange to get.

Expert used to mean has the information versus everyone else who does not have the information. In this day and age that simply isn't true. Finally there are websites that take a guy Krugman and simply note every time he has been wrong. To be polite Krugman's weak spot has always been inflation and it is where I am contending he and Roubini will be wrong here as well.

Sorry but my primary field is one where you either have the goods to get the gig, or you don't. If anyone every suggested that a singer needs to be hired not because they can sing but because they have a prize or Phd, you would be laughed out of the field. You either have the chops or you don't. That is the view I apply everywhere.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #327 of 452
Glad I don't bother to get involved in these arguments anymore... you fellas need to step away from the Internet.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #328 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

You whine constantly about 'ad homs' and drop them in your posts with the most insufferably arrogant tone, Nick....

...Even by the standards of this place, you're uncivil, arrogant, manipulative and simply unpleasant. You had the loudest voice and no-one want to be in this room with you anymore.

First of all, we both know this isn't why the forum has emptied. It's empty because after verbally assaulting conservatives for more than eight years, the liberals here can't take what they've been dishing out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Please don't post politics over at Nova. It's a friendly place.

I've been at 'Nova since Day One. You are no-one to be telling people not to visit or post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Frank the second link which you chose to ignore was from a letter in the Rolling Stone in Jan by Krugman himself. Your misinterepretation of Krugman's views not withstanding. Does he agree with Obama's plan totally no. But he has said it's a step in the right direction it needs to be more focused and bigger. You really need to read all of his stuff and not hand pick things for your argument.

It is unbelievable how far you will go to provoke people into getting banned.
You know fully well that second link was added later, and was not there when I quoted the post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It's the way he works. It's the written equvilant of raising your voice so no one else can be heard! That way he thinks he wins. By volume not logic. I'm sure when arguing we've all encountered people like that in our lives.

This coming from someone whose every post ends up: Bush! The last eight years! Change!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

About Nova. As I've pointed out he's already there. I'm sure he'll try it's just up to the powers that be over there as to if he succeeds.

We're fine at 'Nova. Don't waste time worrying about us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Krugman wants nationalization of banks. Obama is doing nothing near that. The things he wanted Obama to go bigger on was stimulus. Krugman's complaint about Obama is that he is doing nothing different that Bush was doing and specifically is doing exactly as Paulson was doing. Krugman does not say Obama needs to go bigger. He notes specifically that it simply won't work, all the efforts, energies and dollars will be squandered and he doesn't know at that time if Obama will have enough political capital and credibility to fix is own banking plan. He notes the public wants him to do well and this might allow that to happen, but the reality is, he is filled with despair.

Again, this is the matter at hand. Krugman isn't a conservative and I'm not backing his theories, but he clearly believes Obama's current plan is doomed to failure.

And this is the person Jimmac was previously quoting IN SUPPORT of Obama's plan.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #329 of 452
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

First of all, we both know this isn't why the forum has emptied. It's empty because after verbally assaulting conservatives for more than eight years, the liberals here can't take what they've been dishing out.

Even better the edict became simply, engage in thoughtful discourse or leave. Given that choice most left which is great because I'd rather talk with three people in a thoughtful manner than 30 and have it be a bunch of crap.

Quote:

I've been at 'Nova since Day One. You are no-one to be telling people not to visit or post.

Me too.

Quote:
Again, this is the matter at hand. Krugman isn't a conservative and I'm not backing his theories, but he clearly believes Obama's current plan is doomed to failure.

And this is the person Jimmac was previously quoting IN SUPPORT of Obama's plan.[

Well people don't like when their on logical fallacy is used against them. Something is right or wrong not because an expert endorses it or because anyone endorses it. The facts must support what they say. An expert can provide the facts but so can anyone else. In the case of Japan and even the Great Depression, there is no proof that you can push a string or spend yourself out of a bubble. Japan has spent themselves into a deficit of almost 200% of GDP and they are still falling off the cliff. Those are the facts. The facts are that WWII was far later than the beginning of the Great Depression and all the many actions in between did not end it.

Those are facts and presenting flights of fancy won't change that.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #330 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

First of all, we both know this isn't why the forum has emptied. It's empty because after verbally assaulting conservatives for more than eight years, the liberals here can't take what they've been dishing out..

Well I never knew you had a sense of humour.

I kind of think the forum emptied because pretty much everyone got bored with the trumptman show. I mean if you're going to troll and plaster winger talking points all over the forum, the last thing you should do in a moment of honesty is state that this is what you are doing and have never had any intention of having a conversation or debate with anyone.


But the great thing is, is that everything I thought would pass has come true, so I just keep my nose in to watch Nicks mental breakdown.

post #331 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

How about we just post his response verbatim rather than discuss your claims.

NYTimes

Now understand this is from someone who doesn't wan to say a negative word about President Obama...



Krugman wants nationalization of banks. Obama is doing nothing near that. The things he wanted Obama to go bigger on was stimulus. Krugman's complaint about Obama is that he is doing nothing different that Bush was doing and specifically is doing exactly as Paulson was doing. Krugman does not say Obama needs to go bigger. He notes specifically that it simply won't work, all the efforts, energies and dollars will be squandered and he doesn't know at that time if Obama will have enough political capital and credibility to fix is own banking plan. He notes the public wants him to do well and this might allow that to happen, but the reality is, he is filled with despair.


But trumpy where's the logic in your argument? Krugman wouldn't like your idea's either! All you've done is complain about how much this is costing. If Krugman had his way that's what would happen and I think it'll go that eventually anyway. He definitely doesn't like what the republicans have been proposing.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #332 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

First of all, we both know this isn't why the forum has emptied. It's empty because after verbally assaulting conservatives for more than eight years, the liberals here can't take what they've been dishing out.



I've been at 'Nova since Day One. You are no-one to be telling people not to visit or post.



It is unbelievable how far you will go to provoke people into getting banned.
You know fully well that second link was added later, and was not there when I quoted the post.



This coming from someone whose every post ends up: Bush! The last eight years! Change!



We're fine at 'Nova. Don't waste time worrying about us.



Again, this is the matter at hand. Krugman isn't a conservative and I'm not backing his theories, but he clearly believes Obama's current plan is doomed to failure.

And this is the person Jimmac was previously quoting IN SUPPORT of Obama's plan.

Quote:
First of all, we both know this isn't why the forum has emptied. It's empty because after verbally assaulting conservatives for more than eight years, the liberals here can't take what they've been dishing out.



Say that again please!

When I started posting about Bush in 2000 ( I've been a member since 1999 but that's before the forum went dark for awhile you wouldn't know about that that's why records only go back to 2001 ) it was rally around the president here! But I see you haven't been here that long so I can understand. It wasn't until the Iraq debacle that things started to turn around and people here ( even groverat ) saw things for what they were. So I guess it's only been 7 years for you!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #333 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Even better the edict became simply, engage in thoughtful discourse or leave. Given that choice most left which is great because I'd rather talk with three people in a thoughtful manner than 30 and have it be a bunch of crap.



Me too.



Well people don't like when their on logical fallacy is used against them. Something is right or wrong not because an expert endorses it or because anyone endorses it. The facts must support what they say. An expert can provide the facts but so can anyone else. In the case of Japan and even the Great Depression, there is no proof that you can push a string or spend yourself out of a bubble. Japan has spent themselves into a deficit of almost 200% of GDP and they are still falling off the cliff. Those are the facts. The facts are that WWII was far later than the beginning of the Great Depression and all the many actions in between did not end it.

Those are facts and presenting flights of fancy won't change that.

Oh trumpy! The depression hung on well after it's begining and things didn't really get back to normal until WWII. Get your history in order trumpy.

That's the whole basis of Krugmans model for this. We recovered but things were flat ( employment etc. ) until the push in WWII pulled us out of it. Now if your going to use Krugman against Obama then you are you in agreement with his ideas. If not then it's hardly a counter argument. Krugman has stated he likes Obama but is disappointed in his appoach to this crisis. He want's him to be more like FDR and the new deal thing.

So which is trumpy?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #334 of 452
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But trumpy where's the logic in your argument? Krugman wouldn't like your idea's either! All you've done is complain about how much this is costing. If Krugman had his way that's what would happen and I think it'll go that eventually anyway. He definitely doesn't like what the republicans have been proposing.

Well it's pretty simple. Since I don't engage in the appeal to authority fallacy, I don't need to worry about whether that authority agrees or disagrees with my logic.

This is hilarious. It is as if you can see the fallacy, but can only understand it one way. Of course Krugman wouldn't see it my way, but I am presenting facts that are independent of an authority. I don't need an endorsement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post



Say that again please!

When I started posting about Bush in 2000 ( I've been a member since 1999 but that's before the forum went dark for awhile you wouldn't know about that that's why records only go back to 2001 ) it was rally around the president here! But I see you haven't been here that long so I can understand. It wasn't until the Iraq debacle that things started to turn around and people here ( even groverat ) saw things for what they were. So I guess it's only been 7 years for you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh trumpy! The depression hung on well after it's begining and things didn't really get back to normal until WWII. Get your history in order trumpy.

That's the whole basis of Krugmans model for this. We recovered but things were flat ( employment etc. ) until the push in WWII pulled us out of it. Now if your going to use Krugman against Obama then you are you in agreement with his ideas. If not then it's hardly a counter argument. Krugman has stated he likes Obama but is disappointed in his appoach to this crisis. He want's him to be more like FDR and the new deal thing.

So which is trumpy?

First you are repeating me so get your own history in order.

Second, I do not have to endorse your false dilemma at all. Especially when the deep choices involve "the new deal thing."

This is the problem with appeals to authority. You present another fallacy to support the first. Two wrongs don't make a right and showing how appeal to authority is a fallacy does not mean I have to endorse that authority. Likewise it does not mean I have to endorse Obama. What it does mean is that some people need to learn their logic.

So to make it even more clear, no one has to "use Krugman against Obama." Rather when someone is making an appeal to authority argument, ie Obama is right because Krugman says so, then noting that Krugman does not say so is done on hopes you will see the fallacy. Thus Krugman or Obama should be right because of the facts they present and other historical models where there reasoning has prevailed. They are not right because one agrees or endorses the other.

So enjoy your false dilemma. It's been fun pointing out the fallacies. I'd love to see some facts presented some day in a post rather than "Krugman says so, Obama won, get over it." Maybe we will luck out and have Nordkopp change his handle again and then project some more.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #335 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

What it does mean is that some people need to learn their logic.

Personal Attack

Quote:
Maybe we will luck out and have Nordkopp change his handle again and then project some more.

Personal Attack
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #336 of 452
Thread Starter 

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #337 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post



Say that again please!

When I started posting about Bush in 2000 ( I've been a member since 1999 but that's before the forum went dark for awhile you wouldn't know about that that's why records only go back to 2001 ) it was rally around the president here! But I see you haven't been here that long so I can understand. It wasn't until the Iraq debacle that things started to turn around and people here ( even groverat ) saw things for what they were. So I guess it's only been 7 years for you!

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

I've been on AI since before the Great Blackout, since before it was AI (That's Reality for you!)

I would love anyone to explain to me when exactly AI went through a "Rally around George W. Bush" phase, in or around the year 2000.

Be as specific as possible please. And the month 9-11 took place a year later doesn't count.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #338 of 452
Thread Starter 
Who cares Frank. Ignore him. Be part of the solution and not part of the problem. The problem is that when presented with ideas and facts, the left responds with ad-homs. We don't need the history of those ad-homs or their delusions either. Just keep tossing out good facts and ideas and those attacking with cartoons and names can let the lack of true argument speak for themselves.

It is like the boomers who are now taking reverse mortgages on their homes, that the already own less of than the previous generation, to help bridge the gap in investment income which they had little to none of anyway. They want to address everything BUT the reality of their situation. They want to discuss who is mean, heartless, greedy, etc. They DON'T want to discuss how they need to face the comeuppance.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #339 of 452
As usuual both trumpy and Frank 777 use a tactic not logic to try and win an argument. That's why they stoop to insults and try to discredit the opposition instead of providing adequate support for their supposition.

It's what has been wrong with the whole approach the republicans have been using so I don't know why anyone would be surprised.

Oh and Frank Bush was president a year before 911 that's why I used that year.

Back then he was just a slacker president. As of 2001 coming here and asking real questions about 911 and how it could have happened ( was Bush's response all it could have been ) got really angry responses like : " Who are you to question the president? "


During Iraq it was much the same but that soon changed ( you do remember groverat was a Bush supporter ) when people realized this war wasn't as advertised. You might say it kind of followed his approval ratings until you get all the way to 2008 where people were ready to just run him out of town on a rail.

One of my favorite responses back then when I questioned the notion of WMD " Well let's see if you feel that way when the mushroom clouds start to sprout in your back yard " or some such hysteria.

After a while there was only a few of you. Those few certainly are loud and annoying.

So ok if you've been around here so long how come it took you 5 months longer than most to reregister?

And trumpy :
Quote:
Well it's pretty simple. Since I don't engage in the appeal to authority fallacy, I don't need to worry about whether that authority agrees or disagrees with my logic

You are really no authority and certainly not one I'd appeal to.

Let's see you have a conservative blog with your buddies from here ( all well known ).

You come through and lay waste to forums that people have been coming to for years.

You're loud.

You tend to stoop to any tactic to cancel out the opposition.

Your name seems to be Nick. That's all I can be pretty sure about. So why would I trust your word over a real economist?

I've already explained this trumpman ( what a name ). You can be anyone here ( anyone remember MadTOoL and his Truth train or Miss Tron? ) so that's why we use sources of authority to support our argument. In a way it makes us all equal ( something I'm sure you don't like ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #340 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Personal Attack



Personal Attack

Are you surprised?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #341 of 452

Well one of the reasons I tend to give Krugman more credit is one's a glorified stock broker the other's a nobelaureat and professor of economics.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #342 of 452
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As usuual both trumpy and Frank 777 use a tactic not logic to try and win an argument. That's why they stoop to insults and try to discredit the opposition instead of providing adequate support for their supposition.

Yep, all those links are really just personal attacks. Welcome to bizarro world.

Quote:
It's what has been wrong with the whole approach the republicans have been using so I don't know why anyone would be surprised.

Oh and Frank Bush was president a year before 911 that's why I used that year.

Back then he was just a slacker president. As of 2001 coming here and asking real questions about 911 and how it could have happened ( was Bush's response all it could have been ) got really angry responses like : " Who are you to question the president? "

During Iraq it was much the same but that soon changed ( you do remember groverat was a Bush supporter ) when people realized this war wasn't as advertised. You might say it kind of followed his approval ratings until you get all the way to 2008 where people were ready to just run him out of town on a rail.

One of my favorite responses back then when I questioned the notion of WMD " Well let's see if you feel that way when the mushroom clouds start to sprout in your back yard " or some such hysteria.

After a while there was only a few of you. Those few certainly are loud and annoying.

This reasoning is comical. Starting with the premise that while typing on a forum, we are "loud" and second how being "annoying" somehow stops everyone else from being able to do whatever it is they want to do. Up until around ten days ago, I hadn't posted on here for a month. No one came in and filled the void. I took off during the entire election and even had every supposedly "spamming" post removed. No one crying foul like yourself acted or posted any differently.

You need to stop projecting your problems onto others as a form of personal attack.

Thanks for citing Groverat because if it shows anything it shows that someone can quickly turn on a popular president and thus claiming popularity as a precedent is just bad form. Perhaps you can apply this reasoning to yourself and figure out how to explain if something is right or wrong using facts instead of saying simply "We won, Bush lost, get over it." No one need get over it because those popularity numbers can reverse.

Quote:
And trumpy :

You are really no authority and certainly not one I'd appeal to.

Let's see you have a conservative blog with your buddies from here ( all well known ).

You come through and lay waste to forums that people have been coming to for years.

You're loud.

You tend to stoop to any tactic to cancel out the opposition.

Your name seems to be Nick. That's all I can be pretty sure about. So why would I trust your word over a real economist?

I've already explained this trumpman ( what a name ). You can be anyone here ( anyone remember MadTOoL and his Truth train or Miss Tron? ) so that's why we use sources of authority to support our argument. In a way it makes us all equal ( something I'm sure you don't like ).

Well that is an awful lot of you's... for someone who claims such low tactics of others, half your posts always deal with the poster. The reality is that when yourself and others called down the mods, they informed you that posts like the one above aren't arguments and are in fact huge ad-homs. Without the ability to use ad-homs and being left to use arguments, most left because they don't have any arguments, only ad-homs.

You ask why you should trust my arguments and again fall back on background which is nothing but a logical fallacy.

It is sad, sad, sad. You do understand that I could actually BE Paul Krugman typing to you right now and that wouldn't make a statement right or wrong. To claim that my point can't be right or wrong because you can't prove or endorse who I am just highlights the lack of logic.

We are on planet Earth.

Jimmac: How can we be sure that is true? All I know is that I can say your handle wrong and your first name.

That lack of logic is just laughable.

You ask how you can trust my word while failing to realize that I ask you to do just the opposite. I am asking you not to take anyone at their word and examine the facts instead. I present facts. If you don't like those facts, add your own. If you don't like the arguments I present, then present your own. I would never declare anything to be right "because I say so or because so and so says so." That is a logical fallacy.

Do you comprehend that?

Finally in appealing to your requests that are not logical I cited Laurence J. Kotlikoff with credentials as follows. He is a professor of economics at Boston University, fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and former senior economist, Presidents Council of Economic Advisers. He has published extensively in the field of public finance and tax reform, and is a leading scholar on the generational accounting of social security. He has written that the economic future is bleak for the United States without tax reform, health care reform, and Social Security reform.[1] Kotlikoff is a supporter of the FairTax proposal, contributing to research of plan's effects and the required rate for revenue neutrality.[2] He was an economic adviser to formerly-Democratic candidate Mike Gravel during the 2008 Democratic Primary.

The classic response to such cited credentials, "We all know" you really don't think this Trumptman. "We all know" you hate boomers and finally "We all know" Republicans have been doing "this" for years and lost so get over it.

I do cite the facts presented by people. I will post links if I feel they are making the same point I want only more concise and thus better. That still isn't saying they are right because of who they happen to be though but noting when they give a better presentation of the facts.

Quote:
Well one of the reasons I tend to give Krugman more credit is one's a glorified stock broker the other's a nobelaureat and professor of economics.

Give people credit for being right. Anything else is illogical. Kotlikoff has plenty of credentials to his credit and I cited his book which people on this board promptly ignored and decided they would rather discuss whether I "hate" old people/boomers.

Again, ad-homs like that should be gone. The board is better without them. I'd rather read one poster who adds information than 30 who add stupid pictures and ad-homs.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #343 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As usuual both trumpy and Frank 777 use a tactic not logic to try and win an argument. That's why they stoop to insults and try to discredit the opposition instead of providing adequate support for their supposition.

What 'tactics' am I using, other than your own words?

You quoted an economist several times in this forum in support of the Obama Economic plan.
That very economist now believes the plan will fail, and fail badly.

Bringing up Bush, 9-11, Trumptman, Groverat or any other strange issues does not obscure the basic fact that most intelligent people on both the left and the right believe that Obama's plan will not work.

In fact, it may make things worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So ok if you've been around here so long how come it took you 5 months longer than most to reregister?

That's not really any of your business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well one of the reasons I tend to give Krugman more credit is one's a glorified stock broker the other's a nobelaureat and professor of economics.

That "glorified stockbroker" was taking abuse on national TV for years, calling attention to the impending crisis, while many economists were asleep at the wheel.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #344 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

What 'tactics' am I using, other than your own words?

You quoted an economist several times in this forum in support of the Obama Economic plan.
That very economist now believes the plan will fail, and fail badly.

Bringing up Bush, 9-11, Trumptman, Groverat or any other strange issues does not obscure the basic fact that most intelligent people on both the left and the right believe that Obama's plan will not work.

In fact, it may make things worse.



That's not really any of your business.



That "glorified stockbroker" was taking abuse on national TV for years, calling attention to the impending crisis, while many economists were asleep at the wheel.

Quote:
most

Do you have a link to support that statement or are you just wiggling your fingers on the keyboard Frank?

Quote:
That "glorified stockbroker" was taking abuse on national TV for years, calling attention to the impending crisis, while many economists were asleep at the wheel

He's not the only one Frank so how does that change the difference between Krugman and Schiff?

What Krugman says is slightly different than what you're saying. He says that he doesn't think his plan is big enough. Something that you guys have been saying is the wrong direction. So which is it? Krugman says it's like he's taking advice from the old guard ( which you supported ). So I'm guessing you don't agree with Krugman either? Right?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Econo...7161203&page=1


Quote:
He explained it's better to have a stimulus bill than nothing. Even the plan to deal with these toxic assets is maybe better than doing nothing at all.

"But it's just inadequate," he said. "We've got the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and we've got a set of half-measures in terms of economic policy and a general sense that the Treasury Department and Obama think if they can do a little more on the technical side, we'd wake up and realize it's two years ago all over again."
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #345 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yep, all those links are really just personal attacks. Welcome to bizarro world.



This reasoning is comical. Starting with the premise that while typing on a forum, we are "loud" and second how being "annoying" somehow stops everyone else from being able to do whatever it is they want to do. Up until around ten days ago, I hadn't posted on here for a month. No one came in and filled the void. I took off during the entire election and even had every supposedly "spamming" post removed. No one crying foul like yourself acted or posted any differently.

You need to stop projecting your problems onto others as a form of personal attack.

Thanks for citing Groverat because if it shows anything it shows that someone can quickly turn on a popular president and thus claiming popularity as a precedent is just bad form. Perhaps you can apply this reasoning to yourself and figure out how to explain if something is right or wrong using facts instead of saying simply "We won, Bush lost, get over it." No one need get over it because those popularity numbers can reverse.



Well that is an awful lot of you's... for someone who claims such low tactics of others, half your posts always deal with the poster. The reality is that when yourself and others called down the mods, they informed you that posts like the one above aren't arguments and are in fact huge ad-homs. Without the ability to use ad-homs and being left to use arguments, most left because they don't have any arguments, only ad-homs.

You ask why you should trust my arguments and again fall back on background which is nothing but a logical fallacy.

It is sad, sad, sad. You do understand that I could actually BE Paul Krugman typing to you right now and that wouldn't make a statement right or wrong. To claim that my point can't be right or wrong because you can't prove or endorse who I am just highlights the lack of logic.

We are on planet Earth.

Jimmac: How can we be sure that is true? All I know is that I can say your handle wrong and your first name.

That lack of logic is just laughable.

You ask how you can trust my word while failing to realize that I ask you to do just the opposite. I am asking you not to take anyone at their word and examine the facts instead. I present facts. If you don't like those facts, add your own. If you don't like the arguments I present, then present your own. I would never declare anything to be right "because I say so or because so and so says so." That is a logical fallacy.

Do you comprehend that?

Finally in appealing to your requests that are not logical I cited Laurence J. Kotlikoff with credentials as follows. He is a professor of economics at Boston University, fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and former senior economist, President’s Council of Economic Advisers. He has published extensively in the field of public finance and tax reform, and is a leading scholar on the generational accounting of social security. He has written that the economic future is bleak for the United States without tax reform, health care reform, and Social Security reform.[1] Kotlikoff is a supporter of the FairTax proposal, contributing to research of plan's effects and the required rate for revenue neutrality.[2] He was an economic adviser to formerly-Democratic candidate Mike Gravel during the 2008 Democratic Primary.

The classic response to such cited credentials, "We all know" you really don't think this Trumptman. "We all know" you hate boomers and finally "We all know" Republicans have been doing "this" for years and lost so get over it.

I do cite the facts presented by people. I will post links if I feel they are making the same point I want only more concise and thus better. That still isn't saying they are right because of who they happen to be though but noting when they give a better presentation of the facts.



Give people credit for being right. Anything else is illogical. Kotlikoff has plenty of credentials to his credit and I cited his book which people on this board promptly ignored and decided they would rather discuss whether I "hate" old people/boomers.

Again, ad-homs like that should be gone. The board is better without them. I'd rather read one poster who adds information than 30 who add stupid pictures and ad-homs.

Quote:
Yep, all those links are really just personal attacks. Welcome to bizarro world.

Hey buddy your attacks have been quoted and they had nothing to do with the links and you know it oh king of misrepresentation.

Quote:
You ask how you can trust my word while failing to realize that I ask you to do just the opposite

Yes I do. I realize that I can say anything here and it really means nothing. That's why I bring in a 3rd party who's a recognized expert. But really I shouldn't have to explain the obvious.

And I'm sorry trumpy! Maybe you really do have creditials in the real world ( I kind of doubt it though ) but here on this forum where you can be anyone it means nothing. Already been there already explained this.

Quote:
Again, ad-homs like that should be gone.

trumptman this entire thread and it's premise is an Ad-hom.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #346 of 452
Hey I've got an idea... someone can start a thread saying that all music teachers are the source of what's wrong in education, then present very little evidence to support their position, and just argue about non-related issues for the whole thread.

That would be so cool!
post #347 of 452
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey buddy your attacks have been quoted and they had nothing to do with the links and you know it oh king of misrepresentation.

Ad-hom

Quote:
Yes I do. I realize that I can say anything here and it really means nothing. That's why I bring in a 3rd party who's a recognized expert. But really I shouldn't have to explain the obvious.

Rationalization for logical fallacy.

Quote:
And I'm sorry trumpy! Maybe you really do have creditials in the real world ( I kind of doubt it though ) but here on this forum where you can be anyone it means nothing. Already been there already explained this.

trumptman this entire thread and it's premise is an Ad-hom.

Repetition of rationalization for ad-hom, declaring disagreement = hate and thus an ad-hom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Hey I've got an idea... someone can start a thread saying that all music teachers are the source of what's wrong in education, then present very little evidence to support their position, and just argue about non-related issues for the whole thread.

That would be so cool!

I'll be happy to entertain the premise. If you could provide facts like when the entire educational system was turned over to music teachers, they raises costs 200%, dropped achievement 50%, went from this to that, whatever, I would absolutely give it consideration.

Because via books and links that is what has been provided here for boomers.

Let's just take one, U.S. went from world's biggest creditor to biggest debtor on their watch. That isn't just something "every generation does" it is a fundamental difference.

Think about that for just a moment Tonton. You hopefully have a little more worth now than say when you were 20 years old. As you get older, I'm sure you hope this continues to improve and that the result of a lifetime of work will be that you have a lot more worth than when you started being an adult and working.

Imagine you come to the end of that and instead of showing a lifetime of savings, you show a lifetime of debt and to fix it, all you have to do is put it on your grandchildren and your daughter.

Is it an ad-hom, a hate crime, any sort of blame game to suggest that it is wrong to do this? We aren't talking about infrastructure. We aren't saying daddy put the down payment on the road or bridge you'll use to get to work your entire adult life and you'll pay your share too. (Quite the opposite the road and bridges are falling apart) We are saying Dad never built any equity in his home, his retirement account, his savings, none of it even during his prime earning years and now will show up at retirement in bad health and demanding the government inflate away or cancel out his debts and put them on the back of the young.

That is not something "every generation" has gone through. It is not something that is standard practice. Finally no other generation has been narcissistic enough to keep trying the same stupid shit over and over again while expecting a different result. We swear "the rules of have changed this time, the internet... housing.... commodities.... economic growth.... debt...currency.... all are different and we can create a never ending upward trajectory that will never stop." It's one thing to make a mistake. It's another thing to keep applying the same delusional bullshit over and over again.

This is the generation that will have taken a superpower and made it a banana republic.


Why is it so hard to believe that we have to do and make something to have something? The whole premise of fixing the financial sector right now is "we need to fix credit so we can borrow more." You can't get better terms on broke. You can't regulate away or demand more oversight on broke. Declaring the American consumer is broke and declaring the government will borrow trillions and become the consumer in their place won't fix broke.

So just take that nugget, biggest creditor to biggest debtor and show how that is just like "every other generation."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #348 of 452
lol, this thread is fascinating as a study in interpersonal interaction. It would be more valuable to as part of a psychology curriculum than as part of an economics curriculum.

But hey, i'm here reading it. So what's that say about me?
(I'm also a Jerry Springer fan.)
post #349 of 452
Don't look at me. I just hit and run post these days.

The real financial crisis:

post #350 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

We're fine at 'Nova. Don't waste time worrying about us.

'Us'? 'Us' includes me. I've been a member there since day one too. It's nice there. I don't post about politics there. I don't worry about you.
post #351 of 452
Ok. I'll tell you one thing about Obama's economic package and the crisis as a whole. After talking to my Econ. professor friend at work ( who's a fan of Krugman ) I'm inclined to think that Obama should be doing more in regard to the crux of the situation. Also the republicans were probably counting on the bad economy slowing down the democratic legislation and agenda that would start at the beginning of the new administration and aren't exactly pleased that he's trying to do both.

I think that he will have to increase the size of this package and focus more on just fixing the problem that is the legacy of the Bush administration. Too bad we had to be straddled with that but we've had hypermismanagegement for years. Now they want to try to make Obama the bad guy but what do you think things would be like if clueless and the wolf shooter had won? We'd be in the same boat only they'd be following the same tired policies that put us here in the first place and doing nothing ( which by the way Krugman does give Obama credit for : " At least he's doing something " ).

Do I have straight foward/magic bullet answers for this situation? No. But one thing I'm sure of trumptman and Frank777 don't either.

I don't think anyone does.

We will have to find our way out of this unusual situation by any means we can. Will it end? Yes. I think as predicted we'll begin to recover next year but the nature of that recovery will depend on how we handle it. Like Krugman says we could recover and the problems will linger for years if not handled correctly. That's what he's trying to prevent. A sort of post great depression type recovery that will seem like things are still lack luster for possibly as long as decade. Let's hope not.

So there you go no links or smiley faces just me.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #352 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Ad-hom



Rationalization for logical fallacy.



Repetition of rationalization for ad-hom, declaring disagreement = hate and thus an ad-hom.



I'll be happy to entertain the premise. If you could provide facts like when the entire educational system was turned over to music teachers, they raises costs 200%, dropped achievement 50%, went from this to that, whatever, I would absolutely give it consideration.

Because via books and links that is what has been provided here for boomers.

Let's just take one, U.S. went from world's biggest creditor to biggest debtor on their watch. That isn't just something "every generation does" it is a fundamental difference.

Think about that for just a moment Tonton. You hopefully have a little more worth now than say when you were 20 years old. As you get older, I'm sure you hope this continues to improve and that the result of a lifetime of work will be that you have a lot more worth than when you started being an adult and working.

Imagine you come to the end of that and instead of showing a lifetime of savings, you show a lifetime of debt and to fix it, all you have to do is put it on your grandchildren and your daughter.

Is it an ad-hom, a hate crime, any sort of blame game to suggest that it is wrong to do this? We aren't talking about infrastructure. We aren't saying daddy put the down payment on the road or bridge you'll use to get to work your entire adult life and you'll pay your share too. (Quite the opposite the road and bridges are falling apart) We are saying Dad never built any equity in his home, his retirement account, his savings, none of it even during his prime earning years and now will show up at retirement in bad health and demanding the government inflate away or cancel out his debts and put them on the back of the young.

That is not something "every generation" has gone through. It is not something that is standard practice. Finally no other generation has been narcissistic enough to keep trying the same stupid shit over and over again while expecting a different result. We swear "the rules of have changed this time, the internet... housing.... commodities.... economic growth.... debt...currency.... all are different and we can create a never ending upward trajectory that will never stop." It's one thing to make a mistake. It's another thing to keep applying the same delusional bullshit over and over again.

This is the generation that will have taken a superpower and made it a banana republic.


Why is it so hard to believe that we have to do and make something to have something? The whole premise of fixing the financial sector right now is "we need to fix credit so we can borrow more." You can't get better terms on broke. You can't regulate away or demand more oversight on broke. Declaring the American consumer is broke and declaring the government will borrow trillions and become the consumer in their place won't fix broke.

So just take that nugget, biggest creditor to biggest debtor and show how that is just like "every other generation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson


Quote:
Hanson is a registered Democrat and a conservative who voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election.[5] He is not a neoconservative, though he agrees with some neoconservative views.[6] He has criticized both left-wing and right-wing politics. In 2008, he had a robust exchange with Pat Buchanan

I'll agree with one thing " this generation " ( which includes you since he didn't use the Boomer phrase once. Also you're an adult and a consumer so you're part of it which of course is the big hole in your Boomer argument ) has been to the excess well too many times.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #353 of 452
I think you guys should endorse this 'blame your parents for why my life is shit' meme started by the trump.

Everyone knows it is the Republicans who are the bunch of last centurys' blue rinsed, mentally infirm, incontinent trouser pissing tossers, so if the winger agenda is 'blame it on the old folks' then lets go with that, and that will keep the Republicans out of power for even longer than the 8 years of complete irrelavence they are currently facing.

I better add a toon for posperity... Let me see if I can find an irrelavent boomer, trouser pissing Republican...



As for the rest of this thread, are we really going to listen to financial advice from someone who thinks God started the world on the 3rd October 4004BC

at 9 o friggin clock.

Were the markets open then?
post #354 of 452
Actually, while we're talking about Nova, here's one of Nick's greatest contributions.

Classy!

http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=27961
post #355 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Actually, while we're talking about Nova, here's one of Nick's greatest contributions.

Classy!

http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=27961

He tried to pull that scam off here too....which might explain why he felt the need to have all his posts deleted....

...But the real reason, is that once Obama was in office, it was necessary for all the posts to be deleted so that we couldn't look up the last 8 years of trump history - we couldnt be allowed to have trumpts very own posts to be used as counter evidence for his posts now.

We couldn't be allowed to expose the complete hypocricy of the wingers need to "create, manufacture and nourish a crisis whatever the situation".

Its no wonder noone wants to engage with Nick or this subforum, after 8 years, we all know the fraud, the lies and deceit - we dont need to link to his history to know what he pushes - and all that is left is to mock with cartoons and talk of Prince albums, because a conversation with Nick is entirely fake.

Im sure he'll be screaming from the top of his voice that was an ad-hom, its all part of the game.

The real question is, why did the mods allow this? i've known other posters request a deletion of their past, and have been catagorically told "NO".
post #356 of 452
oops!
post #357 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordkapp View Post

He tried to pull that scam off here too....which might explain why he felt the need to have all his posts deleted....

...But the real reason, is that once Obama was in office, it .

I'm confused. His threads are still here.

Like this one.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...ghlight=coddle

The Outsider version of the other thread.
post #358 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Actually, while we're talking about Nova, here's one of Nick's greatest contributions.

Classy!

http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=27961

I see so it's all his wife's fault!

And he doesn't like me to talk about my personal stuff?

The poster that said being a couple is about team work is right! Otherwise what's the point? You're in a relationship and still treating things like you are single.

Of course there you are only getting trumpy's side of things.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #359 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by nordkapp View Post

He tried to pull that scam off here too....which might explain why he felt the need to have all his posts deleted....

...But the real reason, is that once Obama was in office, it was necessary for all the posts to be deleted so that we couldn't look up the last 8 years of trump history - we couldnt be allowed to have trumpts very own posts to be used as counter evidence for his posts now.

We couldn't be allowed to expose the complete hypocricy of the wingers need to "create, manufacture and nourish a crisis whatever the situation".

Its no wonder noone wants to engage with Nick or this subforum, after 8 years, we all know the fraud, the lies and deceit - we dont need to link to his history to know what he pushes - and all that is left is to mock with cartoons and talk of Prince albums, because a conversation with Nick is entirely fake.

Im sure he'll be screaming from the top of his voice that was an ad-hom, its all part of the game.

The real question is, why did the mods allow this? i've known other posters request a deletion of their past, and have been catagorically told "NO".

Pretty much right on!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #360 of 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

I'm confused. His threads are still here.

Like this one.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...ghlight=coddle

The Outsider version of the other thread.

There was a period just after Obama was elected that trumpy disappeared for a few weeks, and all his posts were deleted, I remember it well, it was AI utopia - are they back now? I cant be bothered to check.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Generational Blind Spot-BOOM!