How do you own me? With your strawman arguments? I mention job loss rate, you assume I meant unemployment rate. I mention bank holidays and you assume I meant all of the new deal. I take your logic and apply it to another situation (and cite the debate principal I'm using) and you counter by saying "i don't think it applies". Your arguments lack precision and logic, and are chock full of arbrtrary opinions.

I'm about double your age, quite wealthy and am in the top tax bracket. I don't claim that any of that makes me smarter, but I don't want to hear any BS like "maybe if you had money you wouldn't be so quick to believe in democrats" (and for the record I am not a democrat)

im glad your parents worked so hard so they could give you an inheritance. My logic has been sound all the way through. You just say that it isn't and offer no explanation as to why it is.

As to the applying a logic set out of context. I will repeat this one more time in hopes that maybe you stop being dumb. Government non intervention in the economy has been proven to produce good results. However just because gov non intervention in the economy works DOES NOT mean that gov non intervention would work in law enforcement or military or in any other sector.

I think that the reason you are failing to understand this is because you are not looking at why it works with the economy. With the economy the government is an outside force that generally contributes no goods and very few services. They do however regulate and thus impede the flow of goods and services for everybody else. Minimize that interference and the economy is better of for it.

If you really need me to explain why this logic doesnt get to be extended to whatever you want it to then you are absolutely retarded.

also you have yet to explain any of your logic, all you have offered is a series of short one and 2 sentence statements that in a nutshell say
'i dont agree with you so therefor you are wrong. the reason you are wrong is because i said so'
or
'that is a strawman argument, because i said so'
I might have a little bit of respect for you if you would offer some explanation or evidence as to why you are right.
Until you start debating intelligently instead of being an argumentative moron, i will always own you.

- All my money I earned myself. No inheritance. No lotto. No luck. Just hard work. Your statement is yet just another one in a series where you've made a false assumption.

- I don't care if you respect me. I don't respect you, and won't until you learn some critical thought.

- I've never said "I don't agree with you therefore you wrong", or anything that can be construed that way. I challenge you to find where I said that.

- I've never said that if non intervention was good for the economy that it meant it was good for enforcement. So again you are making a strawman argument. What I said was your reasoning for the recent economic downturn being "American peoples" fault was retarded and could just as easily be applied to enforcement. I'm questioning your placement of blame and demonstrating it's illogic by applying you logic to other areas. Here's another way to put it - why would it be OK for the government to let the entire financial industry go out of business, wiping out millions of peoples savings, but not OK for the government to let terrorist kill citizens? Lets at least try to get you to be more precise - by non-inteventionish are you suggesting that the laws that were created after the depression that limited how much money banks could loan were a bad thing?

>Until you start debating intelligently instead of being an argumentative moron,

How ironic.

"I've never said that if non intervention was good for the economy that it meant it was good for enforcement. So again you are making a strawman argument. What I said was your reasoning for the recent economic downturn being "American peoples" fault was retarded and could just as easily be applied to enforcement. I'm questioning your placement of blame and demonstrating it's illogic by applying you logic to other areas. Here's another way to put it - why would it be OK for the government to let the entire financial industry go out of business, wiping out millions of peoples savings, but not OK for the government to let terrorist kill citizens? Lets at least try to get you to be more precise - by non-inteventionish are you suggesting that the laws that were created after the depression that limited how much money banks could loan were a bad thing?"


A lot of unnecessary text could have been avoided if you would have been this clear earlier. Now at least we are on the same page as to what your argument on that ONE point is.

If there was such a thing as a omnipotent, benevolent God, mayonnaise would grow on trees.

Discuss.

" All my money I earned myself. No inheritance. No lotto. No luck. Just hard work. Your statement is yet just another one in a series where you've made a false assumption. "

Relax you shouldnt take any offence to my statement about inheritance. I was trying to lighten the mood (granted at your expense). laugh it off and move on.

"I'm about double your age, quite wealthy and am in the top tax bracket. I don't claim that any of that makes me smarter, but I don't want to hear any BS like "maybe if you had money you wouldn't be so quick to believe in democrats" (and for the record I am not a democrat)"

I never said any such BS also although it may very well be true posting your age and financial status is pointless since there is no way for us to verify it. So I'm sorry but I have to ignore that statement. And I formally apologize for soliciting unreliable data (your age).

Ryansucks321 said
"I've never said that if non intervention was good for the economy that it meant it was good for enforcement"
you are correct you never said that. But you tried to claim that that is what my logic claimed.
"By this retarded logic, it's the fault of the people who were in the twin towers that they got killed because the government was just being non-interventionist with terrorists."


"why would it be OK for the government to let the entire financial industry go out of business, wiping out millions of peoples savings, but not OK for the government to let terrorist kill citizens?"

First off the entire financial industry is not collapsing and it never was. A few of the larger banks payed big for some bad decisions they made. They where forced to sell out or declare bankruptcy. Nobody lost their savings. What people lost was their invested money. This goes back to the whole taking risks to make money deal. The stock market is not a for sure deal like people thought it was in the 20s. If you invest money in the market and the market crashes, well thats a risk you take.
Just like if you but a race horse in perfect condition. Then 2 days later it hurts it's self and you don't win any money off of it. Nobody is going to come in and say 'well your investment didn't pan out this time so here is your money back. Oh and you can not invest in racehorses anymore'

OPINION ALERT
The government is not responsible for maintaining the economy of its constituents.
FACT
Less regulated economies tend to be stronger then more regulated economies.

IN SHORT
It's ok for the gov. to let large groups go out of buisness because they are going out of buisness for a reason. (the reason varies in each case. Poor management, inability to adapt to a dynamic market, or products not in demand are a few common reasons) In the long run the economy is made stronger when these inefficient companies go under because a void is created in the market and new companies are allowed to form.

Its not ok for the gov to let its people get killed because (and seriously don't even argue with this ) the physical protection of people and property is the chief reason that governments have been forming for 5000 years.
Plus any loss of life is tragic, and I think we can all agree that it should be prevented whenever possible.


"Lets at least try to get you to be more precise - by non-inteventionish are you suggesting that the laws that were created after the depression that limited how much money banks could loan were a bad thing? "

Cite the specific laws you want me to comment on and I will.
I think that as long as a bank can cover any withdrawal demand that it should be allowed to loan out as much as it would like.

my internet isn't working so well. I will have to adrress the rest later on tonight when it will be easier to browse through ll of the previous comments.

Nunes, God is benevolent. He also has a good since of humor. Mayo is in no short supply my friend. Besides in what way would you like it to grow on trees? like a mayo fruit? or would you prefer it to be more of a syrup?

detenmile, 100+ post threads that are composed of 98% threads by the OP are toolish.

but keep on posting to yourself