Why Hasn't the President Solved Unemployment?????!

[IBCoupe]

p.s. I love you.

[szh]

If you don't see the chain where you started calling my posts "feigned" and then called me lazy and cannot see anything prior to that where I called you anything, then I don't know how to answer your question.

From this and other threads, it seems to me that it always gets to personal comments from you about the individual - albeit not necessarily flaming virulence as is typical on the Internet - when somebody disagrees with something you post. If you don't see that, then I don't know how to take this discussion further either.

Z

[stebo0728]

Boy oh boy, where was the internet when Carter was president? That would have been a fun time too!

[IBCoupe]

If you don't see the chain where you started calling my posts "feigned" and then called me lazy and cannot see anything prior to that where I called you anything, then I don't know how to answer your question.

From this and other threads, it seems to me that it always gets to personal comments from you about the individual - albeit not necessarily flaming virulence as is typical on the Internet - when somebody disagrees with something you post. If you don't see that, then I don't know how to take this discussion further either.

Z

Now you're making excuses. I have gone and done the legwork for you. I have given you everything you should need to have some semblance of an understanding of this guy's expertise, and of what the Federal Reserve Board does. You should at this point be able to explain why I (and everybody else in this thread) lack the knowledge necessary to have an opinion on this subject.

There's only a limited number of reasons why you'd fail to actually do it, and instead focus on me:

1. You can't; you lack the mental capacity.
2. You're lazy; you lack the motivation.
3. You're afraid; you don't want to argue your case anymore because you might just be wrong.
4. You don't care about the issue that is central to the thread, and are only thread-s***ting at this point.

Now, we've already established that you know how you could substantiate your claim, but you have decided not to. I attributed that to laziness. Maybe that was unfair. What's your excuse for that?

And as far as insults are concerned, if you don't see that you came in here and insulted everybody participating with your first post, then you really need to brush up on your English skills. Do you even realize that the substance of your first post can be easily summarized as "shut the f*** up?" I had been operating on the assumption that you knew what you were writing, but maybe I was wrong. Maybe you don't have a clue. You didn't offer any explanation as to why we should STFU, even after I've chased you around this entire thread to get you to do so. If you think I threw the first insult here, bucko, you really need to take a step back. One of us is oblivious, Captain, but it ain't me.

I don't get insulty when people disagree with me. I get insulty as a matter of course. That's what happens when you grow up a Jew in a Catholic town. If this bothers you, I'm sorry that it does. Man the f*** up, abandon the psychobabble, and focus on the subject at hand. If you want to make a thread about me, get to it. In the meantime, quit cluttering up this one with irrelevant s***.

So I'll ask you once again:
What informs your determination that we are not qualified to have an opinion about whether Peter Diamond should be on the Board of the Federal Reserve?

[szh]

Call me lazy or lacking mental capacity or afraid ... whatever insult you want to use.

I call it not worth wasting my time on you, your posts here, and your ultra defensiveness when you don't have a leg to stand on.

My posts are obvious and direct - if you don't see it, I don't give a damn really.

Z

[IBCoupe]

I don't have a leg to stand on?

You have stated your conclusion without providing any supporting reasoning. You haven't made an argument yet.

If you're not going to make a substantive response, then stop responding altogether. Again, I'll ask: why the hell did you come onto this thread?

[szh]

To mess with it, of course, according to what you incorrectly believe.

Z

[IBCoupe]

To mess with it, of course, according to what you incorrectly believe.

You're trolling. Either you've been trolling this entire thread, or your last few responses have been trolling. You have not been responding with any kind of substance, and your comments appear to be designed to do nothing but inflame. Is that appropriate behavior for a NICO moderator?

This is not a rhetorical question: why are you posting in this thread?

[szh]

Trolling? Hardly! My posts have very clearly stated my position and I stand by them.

You seem to want to take offense and get rude and offensive when I do not choose to do what you insist I should do.

Sorry, I am not your lackey.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Z, how it works on the politics board is that you state your position, and you argue it. You've done the first part, I'm challenging it, and you're not doing the second part.

Standing by your position is only meritorious after you've shown that your position has merit. I'm glad to know that you're not trolling; I'm glad to know that you're not intentionally avoiding discussion. It kinda sucks, though, that now it's clear that you're unintentionally avoiding discussion.

I could tell you all the reasons why it might be that a person unintentionally avoids discussion, but then you'd be insulted by some of them, you'd call me rude, and you'd have yet another excuse to avoid discussion.

And knowing all that, I'm still going to say: talking to you has been like talking to a twelve-year-old who knows just enough to be an annoying prick, but not enough to know what he's talking about, or that he deserves a punch in the face.

So let's try this again:

Now, having said that, whether Paul Diamond was qualified for that position or not is not something you or anybody posting here is qualified to comment on.

Prove it.

And if that was the case, Z, why didn't you just lock the thread?

[heliochrome85]

i find this thread to be very interesting. i think that ultimately while there may be a bit of weight to put on the argument that one can not be a true judge of an applicant's merit unless they too are in the same field, what qualities does the great senator from alabama have that we dont about the qualifications of this job, and the ability to determine who is a qualified candidate?