One more thing. Are you "mrbill"? I'm not continuing this discussion at all unless you come clean one way or the other. If you don't have the balls to address me under your usual moniker and have me thinking I'm addressing someone else, that's crap.
Again, which one of AK's numbers did you want to debate? The Unemployment rate? [/QUOTE] Again, as the record shows, I said from the gate that I never had any desire to debate about the numbers AK put up. I simply called you out for saying they were fake, yet not providing any evidence to prove otherwise. You can read it for yourself below, as Iâm sure many others have by now. The difference is, I can support my "assertions" that the data he put up is bullshit. And I can do it with the official government stats.[/QUOTE] Weâre still waiting for you to support your assertions that the data he put up was BSâ¦..???? Go ahead and provide the numbers that says his Unemployment Stat was bunk. If not, donât accuse him of putting up fake numbers. That is my only point. So let's wait until we're in the abyss to try to fix the situation? Please![/QUOTE] You acknowledge here that we not yet in the abyss, yet you keep running around saying the sky has fallen, and that the last 4 years have been a complete and utter disaster. What you donât acknowledge is much has improved over the last 4 years, I.e., unemployment, the stock market, housing, military deployment from a hostile environment, etc. etc. If you have seen previous posts of mine (and you probably have under a different moniker) you'd know I was a social liberal. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but that sounded to me like you were saying you used to post under a different moniker. I said YOU were using another moniker. Not me. And I maintain that stance. [/QUOTE] Yeah, and youâre about the sixth one of your pack of dingoes who has accused me of being someone else I am not. Why is that you canât accept me for who I am? Is it because you think the only way I could have any real strength is to have more than one identity? Or, Could it be because you and your friends all have different monikers, and being the cynics that you are, itâs just natural for you to assume that others are doing it as well. Either way, your accusations are getting tiresome, and frankly, they are out of line. You make it sound as if having friends is a bad thing. Iâm simply pointing out that you seem to have a group of them that tend to hang on your words, and rely on you to defend them, as they seem not to have working minds of their own. Besides, it was you who first started with pointing to others as being my friends and that I should join them. But hypocrisy seems to come pretty easily for you, as Iâm sure you and others can read for yourselves. Just check the facts. And you accused me of acting like a 3rd grader? wow Iâm pretty sure if Tsing Tao went to the doctor for having jock itch, they might look into the microscope and find Trader666 as a culprit. Ok. You too, Lucrum. Holy drama queen. Sorry, I'm not going to argue with more speculation, especially when it's this emotional.[/QUOTE] I wasnât aware I was ever being overly emotional. Am I adamant about doing whatâs right for our nation, and the planet? Absolutely! Sounds to me like you are the one who has a hard time keeping emotions under control. Just have a look. But I am a fiscal conservative who has just becomes so God damned familiar with the math, that I cannot in good conscience vote for Obama again.[/QUOTE] Most of what you put out there is speculation. So no, it's not a debate. It's just a discussion. When you follow it up with sarcasm like "be careful what you wish for" like I'm supposed to be intimidated by your "rapier" sharp wit, then you get a sarcastic response. Don't like it? Don't offer it up. [/QUOTE] I have no problems with a debate or a discussion. Iâm not put off by either one, and Iâm really not sure why you would think I am. Below you are, again, clearly dodging a simple question I have asked multiple times, in multiple ways, yet you wonât answer. I stated that a bounty of 1 or 2 billion dollars would have likely brought Bin Ladenâs head in much sooner, than it was. To which your reply was: Do you have proof of this? Or are we talking more hoofhearted speculation? Because if it's the latter, I think we've reached our limit on bullshit.[/QUOTE] Iâm not asking for any proof, as you are asking of me, as we both know there is no such proof. Iâm merely asking you to humor me(us) and speculate from your own point of view, on the matter. Iâll ask you one more time, in a way that you shouldnât have to think real hard on. Do you agree that by raising the bounty on Bin Ladenâs head, from 25 million dollars to a whopping 1 or 2 billion, could have at least gave us a better chance to bring him in sooner than we did? I was referring to the video, in which Cramer interviewed Tim Massad of the Treasury Dept. In my opinion, his points are much more valid than yours when it comes to the TARP program, and the ways in which it is being recovered. And lay off Cramer, would ya? I know he can be a little nutty sometimes, but heâs helped me more than anyone else as far as making sound investments is concerned. Besides maybe Put Master. Individual companies are counted on to make profit. If that means they have to terminate employees to do so, then guess what - that is what competition is all about. The government telling them they cannot fire people, or that they have to do this and that chokes off productivity and profit. .[/QUOTE] Mitt Romney would likely agree with you here, which is precisely why Iâm not voting for him. He, like you, any many others, prefer the bottom line to be of utmost importance. I like to think that doing what is right by our people, our animals, and our planet takes precedent over any silly bottom line. You seem to want government calling all the shots. This has been a proven failure time and time again.[/QUOTE] I donât want govt calling all the shots. Hardly. I just want them to step in when the shot needs called and no one else is capable of doing so. If we didnât have laws against drunk driving, or speeding, guess what? More people would be killed on the roads. Govt can be a good thing, but trying to keep them completely out of business, is what got us into this mess to begin with. The government has a disastrous track record of trying to pick winners or manage agencies designed to offer a service or product. .[/QUOTE] They have some failures, true, but also some success. I can tell you, that I have a shipping business, and the U.S.P.S. is far superior to Fedex or UPS. They are faster, cheaper, and more reliable. When prices rise, it matters little how convenient anything is. We saw this with the oil spike in 2007 - solar and green was the place to be. But when the spike became temporary, all those faded back into the wood work.[/QUOTE] Thatâs my point exactly. The dirty cheap money prevails, while the worthwhile technology waits, and hopes that someday it will have a shot to succeed. Sadly, that day may never come, but you just keep saying âeventuallyâ.
Dude, is it your intent to make it as hard to read your posts as possible? Learn how to use the quote function. I cannot tell which one of those comments is from last time and which one is current. Can you please clean it up a little? When I post in response to you, it is clear and concise. You can see what you said and what I am saying. Yours is a gibberish of formatting errors. But I will open a new thread to dispute the unemployment stat (for starters) in AK's post. I expect you'll join me immediately since you've been asking me to state my side of the argument.
The letters in bold are yours, while the letters that aren't are mine. It's pretty simple. I look forward to your new thread, as I have no doubt you want this one buried as quickly as possible. Now if you'll excuse be, I have to get ready for another interview on CNBC.
I created the new thread, and now I'll attempt to answer the pigsty you posted above. Feel free to address them once you wake up from your imaginary interview.
Imaginary- hardly. Sue Herera had Art Cashin as a guest, discussing today's market events, and I wanted to get some popcorn. Are you always so cynical, that you can't even believe something as trifling as such?
You called me out, and asked you to specify which one you wanted me to debate. You never did that, so I finally settled on the unemployment one. Thread is created. I don't acknowledge it because it's not real. Unemployment is a statistical joke - look at the U6. Look at labor participation. The stock market is driven by Fed propped up QE, that's all, which is why it dives when there is talk of no more QE, and rockets up (with oil and everything else) when Benny Bucks fall from heaven. As for military deployment from a hostile environment...wtf No, we pretty much don't need to hide behind anything but our one pseudonym. People rarely come to this site and instantly start posting into the Political/Religion forums. So if that is indeed what you did, then apologies. But many of us still don't believe it. What can I say? We can all smell a bullshitter when we hear one. Is English your first language? Because if it's not, it sure would explain a lot about your posting style. I gotta tell ya, maybe you are actually giving interviews on CNBC. With this advanced sense of humor of yours, it sure would explain the ratings! Adamant...is that what they call drama queens now? It's difficult to keep up with the PC in this country. Yes, it would have given a better chance. But that's not what you asked. You asked me if I thought we should have done that instead of going into a way to spend "kazillions" on. In a simplistic world (which you apparently reside in) that might have worked. Why not make it 50 billion? So we put this higher bounty out there and then what? Wait around for a few years to see if we have any takers? Yes, because Treasury will always tell us the truth. As far as Cramer helping you, what are we talking about? He helped you trim your hedges? Or paint your garage? Because it couldn't possibly be in making sound investments. Or maybe you mean you fade him persistently. If that's the case, then good on ya. So when you invest in all these companies your pal Jim tells you to, do you do so in hoping they spend the bottom line on philanthropy? Or are you looking for a dividend and some return? Federal government should be responsible for national defense, and a few (very few) other things - check out the Libertarian platform for more on what I believe in this area. Where we are now is WAY off that base. State laws. Different entirely from federal regulations. I actually support the states making the decisions, not the federal government. So you'll find no argument from me here. LOL! Is that why it needs a friggen bailout all the time? It's so successful? It comes when government gets out of the way. The dirty cheap money prevailing right now is the government IN the way, not out of it. Get the Fed out of the market and watch what happens.