Besides the Poin---No Bail Out

[Jacko3]

I am sure many of us are aware that the Congress is about to bail out big business or the rich. Call your Congressman and tell them to say "No" to this bail out or if they choose to vote for the bail out, tell them to ensure that the companies in question file for bankruptcy first, before they get govt funds. Anything besides this, is simply criminal and immoral.

[dusred]

Sorry to dig up the past, Jacko, but it seems that you are now in favor of big Government spending. What happened?

[Jacko3]

Sorry to dig up the past, Jacko, but it seems that you are now in favor of big Government spending. What happened?

You want to call me out? Hahahahaha! You are gonna work extra extra hard to do that.

First of all, when that was said, it was not very clear what the source of the economic problems really was. I thought it was merely a domestic matter at that time. Well, over time, it appeared the problem was a global one far beyond the confines of the companies that the US govt have been bailing out so far.

For example, http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-...b,hbc

and, http://www.usatoday.com/money/...N.htm

In both cases, as outlined above, other countries are roiling in a similar financial crisis. Thus, it is natural to change positions when the facts before us demand it. It would have been imprudent to do otherwise. So, our govt wa right to bail out organizations they deemed necessary.

So, my question to you is, what drove you to seek out this information, and to what end? What were you trying to prove?

[480sx]

He didnt seem to have to work very hard to call you out at all really.

[Jacko3]

He didnt seem to have to work very hard to call you out at all really.

He merely dug through a database, which isn't that hard to do, is it?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

He merely dug through a database, which isn't that hard to do, is it?

Which makes your statement that he'll "have to work extra hard to do that" even more nullified.

The information you've provided about Europe's economic crisis should only move to validate your expired stance on bailouts. You have produced no real information actually proving bailouts are now an acceptable act of governance, you have instead materialized statements by banks and car companies clamoring for money.

That would be similar to basing your opinion of the healthy amount of candy a diabetic child should eat by asking him.

Faulty logic.

[dusred]

Thus, it is natural to change positions when the facts before us demand it.

AKA "Flip Flopping".

Actually, Jacko, I wasn't looking for something to call you out on. I just went to page 10 on the Politics forum and saw a post of yours and clicked it. I didn't know you knew about the politics forum back then so I was curious about what you had to say back then. Thats all.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

AKA "Flip Flopping".

Changes in opinions based on changes in facts is not "flip flopping."

[Jacko3]

Which makes your statement that he'll "have to work extra hard to do that" even more nullified.

The information you've provided about Europe's economic crisis should only move to validate your expired stance on bailouts. You have produced no real information actually proving bailouts are now an acceptable act of governance, you have instead materialized statements by banks and car companies clamoring for money.

That would be similar to basing your opinion of the healthy amount of candy a diabetic child should eat by asking him.

Faulty logic.

I said, "extra extra hard" (there is no typo here). Digging through a database, is not in my judgement, a form of working "extra extra hard". So, I am unsure how my comment was nullified.

I never said or implied that bail outs are an acceptable act of governance. I used the term "deemed necessary" to convey the contingency associated with bailing out corporations, when it becomes an imperative.

Banks and auto companies are not just clamoring for money. They are simply requesting assistance. requesting assistance is a purpose-driven behavior while clamoring for something, tends to be driven by less of purpose adn more of avarice.

Again, I am unsure where the logic became flawed, if at all.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I said, "extra extra hard" (there is no typo here). Digging through a database, is not in my judgement, a form of working "extra extra hard". So, I am unsure how my comment was nullified.

You sir, said (and a direct quote so you can not fixate on a missing word):

You are gonna work extra extra hard to do that.

You then said:

He merely dug through a database, which isn't that hard to do, is it?

So, by doing an activity that you admit isn't that hard, he did something you said he's going to have to work hard to do?

How hard, exactly, is it then to "call you out"?

[Jacko3]

You sir, said (and a direct quote so you can not fixate on a missing word):

You then said:

So, by doing an activity that you admit isn't that hard, he did something you said he's going to have to work hard to do?

How hard, exactly, is it then to "call you out"?

1. I did not "say". Rather, I "asked".

2. Since he did not call me out, as he has admitted, thus, he did not work extra extra hard.

3. Since digging through a database isn't that hard, thus, he did not work extra extra hard, and consequently, he did not call me out.

Don't forget, the question was "You want to call me out?" If he was trying to do so, then he would "work extra extra hard" to achieve that end. Digging through a database does NOT meet the test of extra extra hard.

And, if he did not intend to call me out as he has admitted, then certainly, there was no need to "work extra extra hard", to begin with.

In both cases, he did not "work extra extrra hard".

Extra extra hard is to be determined when an event that calls for such, becomes evident.

So, whats the point? The syllogism you postulate seems to have some cracks in it.

[480sx]

Verbose vayjay at it again. Epic failure of a thread. I will further your verbal beating.

2. Since he did not call me out, as he has admitted, thus, he did not work extra extra hard.

So simply because he said he didnt call you out, that means he didnt work extra hard? Yes nod?

3. Since digging through a database isn't that hard, thus, he did not work extra extra hard, and consequently, he did not call me out.

This is one of the most fallacious and retarded statements i have seen from you yet.

Don't forget, the question was "You want to call me out?"

Your question was rhetorical. He pretty much did called you out, and you had a chance to be a man and explain your position. You did. You laid down a pretty bad argument citing two sources. Your first source should be read as why a larger government fails in practice.

Your second source is nothing more than a talk between toyota and the government asking for a bailout. So, because they MIGHT do it we should do it? Great.

If he was trying to do so, then he would "work extra extra hard" to achieve that end.

Why is that? Because your such a great debater? Because your so smart, and Nicos poet, whos arguments are so air tight that only 'a really really hard worker' can poke holes in them? Your a f***ing joke kid.

Digging through a database does NOT meet the test of extra extra hard.

So, therefor, your original statement is NULLIFIED like charlio said. Like i said.

The test of extra extra hard.. Unbelievable that your here saying this garbage.

And, if he did not intend to call me out as he has admitted, then certainly, there was no need to "work extra extra hard", to begin with.

So.. What? You love circular logic.

In addition, even if he didnt intend to call you out, he could have still needed to 'work extra extra hard' because he wanted to contribute to the best of his ability to the community.

Extra extra hard is to be determined when an event that calls for such, becomes evident.

And thus, my first post in this thread. There was no need for 'extra extra hard work' because he took an unbelievably easy shot at you. You could have taken the time to give a mans argument for your position, instead you, as usual, gave us crap. Crap that didnt support your ideas at all, crap that just makes you look like what you are.

So, whats the point? The syllogism you postulate seems to have some cracks in it.

You lack the ability to forum a syllogistic argument. While you may postulate, your mental strengths(if you have any at all) lie elsewhere, therefor your postulates are usually taken as jokes.

[Jacko3]

Verbose vayjay at it again. Epic failure of a thread. I will further your verbal beating.

So simply because he said he didnt call you out, that means he didnt work extra hard? Yes nod?

This is one of the most fallacious and retarded statements i have seen from you yet.

Your question was rhetorical. He pretty much did called you out, and you had a chance to be a man and explain your position. You did. You laid down a pretty bad argument citing two sources. Your first source should be read as why a larger government fails in practice.

Your second source is nothing more than a talk between toyota and the government asking for a bailout. So, because they MIGHT do it we should do it? Great.

Why is that? Because your such a great debater? Because your so smart, and Nicos poet, whos arguments are so air tight that only 'a really really hard worker' can poke holes in them? Your a f***ing joke kid.

So, therefor, your original statement is NULLIFIED like charlio said. Like i said.

The test of extra extra hard.. Unbelievable that your here saying this garbage.

So.. What? You love circular logic.

In addition, even if he didnt intend to call you out, he could have still needed to 'work extra extra hard' because he wanted to contribute to the best of his ability to the community.

And thus, my first post in this thread. There was no need for 'extra extra hard work' because he took an unbelievably easy shot at you. You could have taken the time to give a mans argument for your position, instead you, as usual, gave us crap. Crap that didnt support your ideas at all, crap that just makes you look like what you are.

You lack the ability to forum a syllogistic argument. While you may postulate, your mental strengths(if you have any at all) lie elsewhere, therefor your postulates are usually taken as jokes.

You are a very funny guy!

What is verbal beating? Is it like beating a verb or words?

You said, "So simply because he said he didn't call you out, that means he didnt work extra hard?"

My response: What does your mind think, and tell you, in this current instance?

You said, "This is one of the most fallacious and retarded statements i have seen from you yet."

My response: I don't beleive I have come across any reasonable or credible argument from you so far on most topics, have I? If you have, please show us. I am eager and quaking in excitement to engage you in a real debate of substance. So, I wonder on what basis you were able to reach such spurious conclusions.

You said, "Your question was rhetorical. He pretty much did called you out, and you had a chance to be a man and explain your position. You did. You laid down a pretty bad argument citing two sources. Your first source should be read as why a larger government fails in practice."

My response: Conjecture, opinion, and speculation do little to buttress and/or support an empty argument. They are generally good for a heart-felt conversation.

You said, "Your second source is nothing more than a talk between toyota and the government asking for a bailout. So, because they MIGHT do it we should do it? Great."

My response: I didn't talk. I merely posted a link about Toyota. Again, where do you come up with these troubling comments?

You said, "Why is that? Because your such a great debater? Because your so smart, and Nicos poet, whos arguments are so air tight that only 'a really really hard worker' can poke holes in them? Your a f***ing joke kid."

My response: Would you like to be the next NICO's poet? That would bring tears and joy to my eyes and heart, you know. and

You said, "So, therefor, your original statement is NULLIFIED like charlio said. Like i said."

My response: What original statement are you talking about and what was nullified? Please help me, I am incapable of understanding these things.

You said, "The test of extra extra hard.. Unbelievable that your here saying this garbage."

My response: What garabage? Extra extra hard are three words in the English Langauage. They were not created by bums. So, how did you come to the conclusion that those three words, whether syntatically or semantically, amount to garbage? Can you save me from the incongruities of these thoughts you present?

You said, "So.. What? You love circular logic. In addition, even if he didnt intend to call you out, he could have still needed to 'work extra extra hard' because he wanted to contribute to the best of his ability to the community."

My response: I don't love circular logic, even if you beleive so. And the terms "circular" and "logic", used together in a colloquial manner, is semantically and syntatically incorrect. Logic, among many other credible adjectives and prefixes to substantiate its stance, can either be flawed or compeling. . Contributing to this community does not require additional effort beyond the ordinary.

You said, "And thus, my first post in this thread. There was no need for 'extra extra hard work' because he took an unbelievably easy shot at you. You could have taken the time to give a mans argument for your position, instead you, as usual, gave us crap. Crap that didnt support your ideas at all, crap that just makes you look like what you are."

My response: You are truley funny . Shot????? Easy shot??? Do we take shots at others???? Why???? Man????? What is a man in your opinion??? I am certainly not female, martian, or hermaphrodite, not that you will ever beleive me, anyway.

You said, "You lack the ability to forum a syllogistic argument. While you may postulate, your mental strengths(if you have any at all) lie elsewhere, therefor your postulates are usually taken as jokes."

My response: LOL! You are way too much fun. I am unsure how to respond to this last concern. So, where do you think one's mental strength lie? I am curious!

I love banter of this nature. Can you give me some more of this fun and excitement? Gifts should keep on giving.




Modified by Jacko3 at 3:39 PM 3/4/2009

[Cold_Zero]

Memo to self, dont get into a semantics battle with Charlieo.

So let me get this straight. Jacko3 has become a new convert to the faith (Personal and Corporate financial responsibility). Dusred calls him out on his flip flopped position and Jacko quotes two articles claiming that because Rome .. I mean Europe is now burning, it is ok to switch his opinion?

Ok guys, it is really ok to change your mind, stance or viewpoint on things.

But seriously, the Europe card is so played out. Where have you guys been when Northern Rock Bank was being nationalized in 2007? I remember Gordon Brown and the Brits in Feb 2008 arguing over bailing out the bank. I also remember UBS hemorrhaging tons of money in quarterly losses in early 2007 and turning to Singapore to be bailed out (cash infusion). We also had the banking system in Iceland collapse and the Swedes and Brits come to their rescue before the EU could mount a bail out. In 2008, Deutsche Bank reported its first annual loss in 50 years. Or the Federal Minister of Finance (Germany) scolding the US for creating the Subprime Mortage Scandal and basically stating that the US should be on the hook to fix the(ir) problem.

I guess my question is why now is this some special revelation?

[Jacko3]

Memo to self, dont get into a semantics battle with Charlieo.

So let me get this straight. Jacko3 has become a new convert to the faith (Personal and Corporate financial responsibility). Dusred calls him out on his flip flopped position and Jacko quotes two articles claiming that because Rome .. I mean Europe is now burning, it is ok to switch his opinion?

Ok guys, it is really ok to change your mind, stance or viewpoint on things.

But seriously, the Europe card is so played out. Where have you guys been when Northern Rock Bank was being nationalized in 2007? I remember Gordon Brown and the Brits in Feb 2008 arguing over bailing out the bank. I also remember UBS hemorrhaging tons of money in quarterly losses in early 2007 and turning to Singapore to be bailed out (cash infusion). We also had the banking system in Iceland collapse and the Swedes and Brits come to their rescue before the EU could mount a bail out. In 2008, Deutsche Bank reported its first annual loss in 50 years.

I guess my question is why now is this some special revelation?

Excellently said! We just wanna have fun with some banter.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

1. I did not "say". Rather, I "asked".

2. Since he did not call me out, as he has admitted, thus, he did not work extra extra hard.

3. Since digging through a database isn't that hard, thus, he did not work extra extra hard, and consequently, he did not call me out.

Don't forget, the question was "You want to call me out?" If he was trying to do so, then he would "work extra extra hard" to achieve that end. Digging through a database does NOT meet the test of extra extra hard.

And, if he did not intend to call me out as he has admitted, then certainly, there was no need to "work extra extra hard", to begin with.

In both cases, he did not "work extra extrra hard".

Extra extra hard is to be determined when an event that calls for such, becomes evident.

So, whats the point? The syllogism you postulate seems to have some cracks in it.

The implied intention of your "question" was rhetorical. You incorrectly postulated that dusred was attempting to drag your heretofore unexplained change of heart into the searing light that is this public quorum, and you then commenced in the validation of your revised ideals with the articles you presented.

Your syllgoism suffers the curse that is common with Aristotle's thinking, as given by this example:

Your mothers are female.Female dogs are mothers.Therefor, your mother is a dog.

Verbose vayjay at it again. Epic failure of a thread. I will further your verbal beating.

So simply because he said he didnt call you out, that means he didnt work extra hard? Yes nod?

This is one of the most fallacious and retarded statements i have seen from you yet.

Your question was rhetorical. He pretty much did called you out, and you had a chance to be a man and explain your position. You did. You laid down a pretty bad argument citing two sources. Your first source should be read as why a larger government fails in practice.

Your second source is nothing more than a talk between toyota and the government asking for a bailout. So, because they MIGHT do it we should do it? Great.

Why is that? Because your such a great debater? Because your so smart, and Nicos poet, whos arguments are so air tight that only 'a really really hard worker' can poke holes in them? Your a f***ing joke kid.

So, therefor, your original statement is NULLIFIED like charlio said. Like i said.

The test of extra extra hard.. Unbelievable that your here saying this garbage.

So.. What? You love circular logic.

In addition, even if he didnt intend to call you out, he could have still needed to 'work extra extra hard' because he wanted to contribute to the best of his ability to the community.

And thus, my first post in this thread. There was no need for 'extra extra hard work' because he took an unbelievably easy shot at you. You could have taken the time to give a mans argument for your position, instead you, as usual, gave us crap. Crap that didnt support your ideas at all, crap that just makes you look like what you are.

You lack the ability to forum a syllogistic argument. While you may postulate, your mental strengths(if you have any at all) lie elsewhere, therefor your postulates are usually taken as jokes.

While most of the time, I view your comments as nothing but annoyances to be swatted away like the flies that glide around so much refuse, tonight, I have decided that my opinion of you can be modified based on the recent sampling of your action.

So let me get this straight. Jacko3 has become a new convert to the faith (Personal and Corporate financial responsibility).

More semantics: you have Jacko's position switched backwards.


Modified by charlieo at 8:27 PM 3/4/2009

[Jacko3]

The implied intention of your "question" was rhetorical. You incorrectly postulated that dusred was attempting to drag your heretofore unexplained change of heart into the searing light that is this public quorum, and you then commenced in the validation of your revised ideals with the articles you presented.

Your syllgoism suffers the curse that is common with Aristotle's thinking, as given by this example:

Your mothers are female.Female dogs are mothers.Therefor, your mother is a dog.

While most of the time, I view your comments as nothing but annoyances to be swatted away like the flies that glide around so much refuse, tonight, I have decided that my opinion of you can be modified based on the recent sampling of your action.

More semantics: you have Jacko's position switch backwards.

I really wished someone actually tried to drag one into searing light, as you put it. I really wish! I never revised a thing. I wish i did.

Time and time again, Cold_Zero produces excellent arguments and sound logic, why on earth would you want him to go backwards, if that is what "switch backwards" really means?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I really wished someone actually tried to drag one into searing light, as you put it. I really wish! I never revised a thing. I wish i did.

Time and time again, Cold_Zero produces excellent arguments and sound logic, why on earth would you want him to go backwards, if that is what "switch backwards" really means?

Again, you've fixated on what is an obvious typo, dodging the true point of a comment. You're quite aware that it should have been "switched backwards," as you're also quite aware that my issue wasn't with his argument, but yours.

You absolutely revised something: your stance on bailouts.

And as par for the course, you haven't actually said anything in this, and many threads. It's as if you read Clouds and decided that the satirical way Aristophanes portrays Socrates speaking is how intelligent people actually speak.

Well, one can only listen to so much banter about gnats farting before one grows wearisome of it. Typical poet, to say so much drivel.

[liquid_cool]

I am sure many of us are aware that the Congress is about to bail out big business or the rich. Call your Congressman and tell them to say "No" to this bail out or if they choose to vote for the bail out, tell them to ensure that the companies in question file for bankruptcy first, before they get govt funds. Anything besides this, is simply criminal and immoral.

they are bailing out the rich...there bailing them selves out!..ohh btw..your class envey democrats..are rich man..really stinking filthy rich!...its ok to take from the private sector , to take from there pockets..its only fair rite?..but not there pockets..as a matter of fact..they try not to even pay taxes..take from us..but not from them..thats the democrat way...and all to "Help Americans"..its the blind leading the blind!

[Cold_Zero]

More semantics: you have Jacko's position switched backwards.Modified by charlieo at 8:27 PM 3/4/2009

Thanks bro, someone is paying attention and setting me straight.

[Jacko3]

Again, you've fixated on what is an obvious typo, dodging the true point of a comment. You're quite aware that it should have been "switched backwards," as you're also quite aware that my issue wasn't with his argument, but yours.

You absolutely revised something: your stance on bailouts.

And as par for the course, you haven't actually said anything in this, and many threads. It's as if you read Clouds and decided that the satirical way Aristophanes portrays Socrates speaking is how intelligent people actually speak.

Well, one can only listen to so much banter about gnats farting before one grows wearisome of it. Typical poet, to say so much drivel.

All I can say is that you are so much fun. What is "clouds"? Never heard of it before. Who is Aristophanes and how did he portray Socrates? Do you mind tutoring me on this?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

All I can say is that you are so much fun. What is "clouds"? Never heard of it before. Who is Aristophanes and how did he portray Socrates? Do you mind tutoring me on this?

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

It's actually pretty amusing, once you chew through the dialog's structure.

Especially to you, because you're a dead ringer for Strepsiades