I am saying that it is getting worse because the investor class doesn't have any confidence in Obama. They've seen the writing on the wall that his agenda is a full-on assault on american capitalism. Dieb's got his own opinion on the matter, which seems to be "it's getting worse because these figures show that it's getting worse."A Troll said:
Which, lets be clear, you are allowed to. I see it as satire/parody similar to South Park. Offensive? Yes? Funny? Not to you (incidentally, not to me either but then again I don't laugh at every single joke on South Park so I guess two individuals can't be the arbiter's of what is or isn't actually funny can we?) but unlike you I don't find racism in it.Dieb said:
Mr. Limbaugh would agree with you on that. That was the entire reason he used it in his parody. A liberal calling the black candidate "The Magic Negro". Makes for a hell of a parody don't it? As to why he used Sharpton, well, we will get to that belowDieb said:
You are dealing entirely with subjective things here and cannot seriously expect me to agree that you are the one who says what is joking or isn't. If you don't "know" when Rush is using parody or making points through humor then again, we have to agree to disagree. That's really all we can do.Dieb said:
Ah, now here is the meat of the thing where you totally missed my boat. The reason I brought Gwen Ifill up is because her issue was one that was discussed prominantly in the media during the election, by everyone from Sharpton to Jackson to Obama (hell, he even LIED about his ties to the movement in Selma, so obviously he understood the need to connect with the previous generation of Black leaders) to the MSM. So Rush creates a parody that focuses on this issue. Was he going for a "serious" discussion of the issue? Only so far as any of the other entertainers do, but that's not the point. The point is it was exactly Ms. Ifill's issue that Rush was commenting on. To not see that misses the ENTIRE point of the bit, after all that was THE reason he used Sharpton. To tie the issues together.Dieb said:
Nice to see you agree with me here but since your post is riddled with things like:Dieb said:
That's fair. A lot of people don't respect the South Park guys and with damn good reason. But I'm not going to scream RACISM or HOMOPHOBIA whenever they satirize or make fun of those things. I think I will close today with some words from Clint Eastwood, ''I don't want to be politically correct. We're all spending too much time and energy trying to be politically correct about everything."Dieb said:
No reason to be rude, Gas. Unless, of course, you'd like our discussions to go back to the old format of me replying in kind to you. You want to play in the mud, that's fine with me. However, it will likely be me pointing out how lame things likeGasBandit said:Reading comprehension for the win. I said the figures aren't a cause, they're a description of the symptom. Read. Digest. Post. I know that's asking a lot from you.Krisken said:That whole pesky figures verses opinion!
is.
GasBandit said:Reading comprehension for the win. I said the figures aren't a cause, they're a description of the symptom. Read. Digest. Post. I know that's asking a lot from you.Krisken said:That whole pesky figures verses opinion!
Lame how? The democrats want to end the voucher program that is letting those parents (of minority students, even) have the option of deciding where to send their kids. Obama, like the other democrats, is beholden to the teacher's unions, which are dead-diddly-dee-dead set against any kind of voucher system. Where's the problem? It's just another example of how liberals harm most those they purport to help.Krisken said:
Not quite. I'm saying it's GOING to get worse for the stockmarket because this figure (specifically, the P/E ratio of the market) is not AS BAD AS IT USUALLY GETS DURING DOWNTURNS. Now, maybe the problem here is knowledge of what, specifically, the P/E ratio is (even if you do Gas, I'm sure some people reading this do not know what it is). So let me explain.GasBandit said:
Do you seriously believe anything Jim Cramer says? His show is all about entertainment - you'd make more money doing the opposite of his advice than actually following it. I'd trust a monkey throwing darts to pick stocks more than I would Jim Cramer. Seriously. Random picks would be FAR better.
I'm sorry, I was being unclear. Humor is obviously subjective. Just because I find something to not be funny doesn't mean that it is objectively not funny. Satire is notoriously hard to define. Like porn, you just have to know it when you see it - but people will therefore have different opinions on it. And even if I find it funny or not, that doesn't mean it's racist to me or not. I've found racial humor not funny and not thought it was racist, and yea, I've laughed at racist jokes. I do feel that humor is a good general guide, however.
All that is a description of an observation of a tendency. The P/E ratio is an observable indicator, but not a why.Dieb said:
Do you seriously believe anything Jim Cramer says? His show is all about entertainment - you'd make more money doing the opposite of his advice than actually following it. I'd trust a monkey throwing darts to pick stocks more than I would Jim Cramer. Seriously. Random picks would be FAR better.[/quote:1dbzq6kl]
I totally agree, it's like the Chappelle show thing, I know black people that love it and those who find it horribly racist. It's one of those things people will never totally agree on.Dieb said:
I did WHAT?! (goes back to look)Krisken said:
Lol, ok, I'll accept that it was an honest mistake. (note- do not read sarcasm here)GasBandit said:I did WHAT?! (goes back to look)
That was not supposed to be that. That was supposed to link to THIS.
This is what I get for doing 13 things at once.
Don't abandon that. You're right.Krisken said:
Oh, now I see your critisism. No, the p/e ratio is not a cause. The cause of the stock market dropping like a stone is that we are in the middle of a pretty freaking big recession. Now, hopefully, we can all agree that 1) we are in a recession and 2) that recessions tend to cause the stock market to fall. My understanding was that you felt the stock market was falling even farther than normal during recessions because of President Obama's actions. I brought up the p/e ratio to explain that, in fact, the stock market hasn't gone down by nearly as much as it tends to during recessions, therefore 1) Obama has nothing to do with the current slide and 2) the stock market will continue to fall.GasBandit said:
You can take Jon Stewart as valid political commentary, as long as you keep in mind that he's an entertainer, a comedian, first, and that moreover he's hardly an expert. That is to say, you take him with a grain of salt. Jim Cramer, on the other hand, you take with a whole freaking shaker full of salt. For example, see(http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20080922)
It'd still go away in 2-3 years if we didn't spend umpity trillion dollars implementing every dream program cooked up by democrats in the last 40 years and calling it "stimulus." It will probably take longer and hurt us a lot more in the long run since we have decided to do that, though.@Li3n said:
That's still not a why. What determines whether a recession will be a "little" or "big" recession? Surely the circumstances leading up to it play a part, but also the reaction once it starts. Since the governmental response has been to push a trillion or two in favorite pet projects through with a "this is for stimulation" sticker slapped on the boxes, it probably at best will have no effect in shortening the recession and at worst could prolong it... not to mention that once we've finally dug ourselves out we'll be finding ourselves in a centrally-administrated Obamanation.Dieb said:
http://h2.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?thear ... 0109109026Krisken said:Lol, ok, I'll accept that it was an honest mistake. (note- do not read sarcasm here)GasBandit said:I did WHAT?! (goes back to look)
That was not supposed to be that. That was supposed to link to THIS.
This is what I get for doing 13 things at once.
This. And now for that McGurbin comment
http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/financialaid.asp
It costs $30000 a year to enrol in Sidwell Friends. Assuming kids get the average $20000 scholarship, parents still have to fork out $10000 a year. The school voucher program which subsidises another $7500 is a lot. That's like 75% of the cost.
So rich people need all that money to survive? That extra 400k per million (UK tax rates) they're not paying is absolutely vital to their survival? The other 600k isn't enough. Of course not. How silly of me.GasBandit said:
Perhaps because in the same time their market value fell 56%. If I was a share holder who'd lost over half his investment I'd certainly be wondering if that money could be better spent. (Although tbh, the fall in market value isn't their fault really, so personally I've got no problems with a company in profit paying bonuses, just saying why some people might have a problem with it).GasBandit said:
Ouch. That one time fee they are talking about is going to hurt a whole lot of small banks that are already hurting.GasBandit said:
Sure, both the circumstances leading up to it and the reaction once it starts are what determine if a recession is a "little" one or a "big" one. But in this case, the circumstances leading up to the recession were SO bad that they are causing it to be a giant recession before the government plays any part. I mean, we've had TWO extremely large bubbles burst. As you pointed out, the FDIC is almost bankrupt! Surely you don't blame that on Obama, only a month and a half into his tenure?GasBandit said:
I'm not so sure, personally. Yes, the initial causes were bad, but I am not willing to hazard guesses on how much to blame are the preexisting conditions and how much are continued worsening of confidence brought on by demonstrated and intended policy. Naturally, I do not blame the crunch on the FDIC on Obama, that would be silly. But as to how much government (mis)handling affects the speed of recovery is certainly a murky subject of debate.Dieb said:
It might not actually be a forest.Krisken said:
And whore for Big Pharma and professional quack. Thank fucking god.Scarlet Varlet said:
But that's just missing the forest for the trees.Krisken said:
But that's supposed to be a good thing, since a current account deficit is offset by a capital account surplus. Or are you starting to become one of them communist left wingers?GasBandit said:
