Bullshit, lying bitch. You claimed nobody asked me for a cite (which was not true) Than you claimed I didn’t provide a cite (which was not true.) Then you claimed I was trying to pass off a memory of a course I took as a cite (which was also not true.)
Finally, when confronted with the fact that I actually provided two cites, you are now claiming that they aren’t really cites because I used them improperly, or they are weak or somesuch and that’s really what you meant all along.
No, actually I claimed that nobody held off rebutting you until you provided a cite. Post 884.
That’s still true. Sorry.
If you disagree with my explanation of why it is against all reason that what you provided should be regarded as a cite, then you’re free to spell out your disagreement. If you have no issue with that explanation, then it is not a cite.
I’m sorry that some imposter broke into your computer and published post 868 under your name.
They are not weak or strong. You haven’t so much used them improperly as failed to cite anything at all beyond, “there is something in here that supports my point. Have fun finding it, sucker.”
If that’s a cite, then so is the Library of Congress, or (per 'luci) Google.
Dunno for sure but this whole “cite” business – as ‘proved’ by the very OP’s ignorance of current affairs – appears to be nothing but a shell game to those who despise Los Indignados, OWS & their world-wide acceptance.
Status Quo: We are doing the best we can – should you fail it’s not our fault but your lack of belief/resistance to group-think…no matter how absurd it is.
Tons of articles explaining current capitalist trends. IOW justifications for personal greed.
I don’t buy it and neither should any Americans with brain-matter left.
Must admit I remain a sympathetic backer of this movement. Yet I firmly believe that the current status quo manipulates all dissection into either their Utopia, or else, ridicule any & all hope that doesn’t abide by their demonstrable nonsense.
Hey! I’d love for you to find the answer to current inequality. But I don’t think it is in your best interest.
If nobody “held off rebutting me” that means that everybody was rebutting me. That isn’t true.
No. You can say that, but your saying it doesn’t make it true. If I chose not to bother rebutting you, that doesn’t mean I agree or that you are right. It might mean that your argument is too stupid or inconsequential to merit a response. Or, that I consider you a troll and don’t wish to feed you. Or, that your stance is self-rebutting. For example, in this case, that it is a cite can be supported by the fact not only did I present my cite in that format, somebody else did to, and until you took issue with it, all three cites were accepted. Or I probably show thousands of examples of cites on this board presented in exactly the same manner without having ever been challenged as not being cites.
In fact, I will doubt you can find a case where somebody produced a link to an on topic paper as a cite and somebody else claimed that it wasn’t a cite. So, certainly by precedent it’s a cite.
Which is in fact a cite. And, since **Elucidator’s]/b] request was non specific, it was appropriate. And, since he didn’t follow up with any other questions afterwards, I think it was reasonable for me to take it as accepted. If he wanted something more specific he should have asked or followed up.
For you to show up how many pages later? and suggest that I cheated somehow is just a trollish hijack. But you do those well, don’t you?
Yes. It’s a fascinating and important topic. Thank God we have you to keep us focussed on it.
You know, if you spent half as much time addressing my actual arguments in this thread as you have spent coming up with excuses to avoid doing so, Sir Robin, we might’ve actually advanced the discussion somewhat.
Let us consider this one for a minute, because it’s rather interesting IMHO.
First off, I don’t think you can troll a single person without substantially redefining trolling. And if we assumed arguendo that I was trolling, rather than (as is the case) presenting what I regard as legitimate arguments in the hopes of having an honest debate, the reality would be that I would only be trolling you.
In which case, you’ve already pretty much conceded victory to me-as-troll, haven’t you?
The weird thing is, you’re the one who’s acting more as a troll in this back-and-forth. You’ll do everything but actually debate, and you’ll come up with endless excuses why you won’t, spending far more time on such excuses and diversions than you might’ve needed for a simple rebuttal or two.
I’m sure I can find some of the instances I’ve authored over the years. As I say, this is a position I’ve long held and have reiterated on a number of occasions here on the Dope.
By the way, I’m still waiting on a cite of my having followed you around the boards a year or so ago. (Like I’d bother.) You first!
One? Of all the noive! How dare I show up a whole page after your bullshit claim, and question whether you’ve substantiated it!
Suppose, in the course of the discussion, you offer as fact the following proposition: that hyphenated balderdash is identical in every practical respect to tommyrot.
You then offer a link to the Journal of American Hyphenometrics:
I like that slogan. Because with the world’s population reaching 7 billion, that’s 70 million (of the 1%), then 700,000 (by the 1%), and then 7,000 (for the 1%).
From the article:
May I remind you that there are 100 US Senators. I’m sure you can see that they aren’t members of that 1%. :eek:
The bankers have obviously destroyed any faith and trust the people had in them. They are thought of as the problem, not the solution. It is not hard to get laws passed to corral people in who are hated. That is why the bankers may actually be on the verge of having the game changed . The people want something done. It may actually be possible to pass laws now.
Ah, no. The only reason I didn’t follow up on this is that you didn’t actually post a cite. You offered a gesture, you pointed over at a study which may, or may not, actually support your thesis. I’m damned if I’ll read forty pages of liberal academic nerditude just to be sure you’re not yanking my chain. Or even to be sure that you are.
Unless you can show that you read this thing yourself, and you actually know which parts of it support your thesis, you leave open the unfortunate presumption that you offered a smokescreen rather than a cite. Which, to be brutally frank, remains my suspicion, pending some proof to the contrary.
Are you purposefully trying to portray OWS as an anti-semitic phenomenon? Doesn’t that mean you’re playing into the “Jew bankers” stereotype yourself? OWS is anti-BANKER, not anti-JEWISH. Only if you believe that all bankers are Jewish would you make that connection. Considering that there are a LOT of Jewish OWS protesters out there, including people who have set up a sukkah in quite a few of the Occupy cities for Sukkot, I would reconsider the idea that OWS is anti-semitic. Also considering that the whole anti-semitic angle was the tack that conservative pundits have been taking the past few days, I shouldn’t be surprised that you’ve pulled it in here.
Yes, because there’s totally a similarity between a work calling to punish people who chose a career over perceived wrongs committed and a work calling to punish people who were born to an ethnicity for no reason other than manufactured hatred. It’s all so clear. :eek:
Is there something about this topic that makes you so angry you can’t post sense?
The anti semetism is a new thought train to me and it is derailed . The bankers are mostly white, east coast, Harvard types, who have learned the art of theft at the hands of other bankers who worship money. They don’t care about the country or the people. They are now international thieves and con men. I think there is a growing chance that the admin will show the balls and nail a few of them to the walls. They sure have it coming to them.
The S & L crisis was a hell of a lot smaller, yet over 1,000 people served time for what they did. This one was bigger and more dangerous. They should face justice.
SCYLLA, that was a weird take . Do you have a persecution complex? I have no problem blaming the bankers for what they did to the economies of the world. I mentioned no race or nationality. Do you think only Jewish people are bankers? I don’t.
You do not have to make up laws, merely enforce the ones we have.
With full knowledge that I’ll probably piss off everyone remaining in this thread,it doesn’t seem all that complex to me.
The financial institutions were finally deregulated under the Clinton administration.
Astoundingly piss poor decisions were made. (Wasn’t it Goldman Sachs that in essence, bet against itself?)
Some members of the financial sector became filthy rich as a result of said decisions.
When the house of cards came crashing down, the American taxpayer bailed out the banks because we were told that the whole world would come to a crashing end if we failed to do so.
Yes, many banks have already payed back their loans.
Big whoop.
How fast do you think I could’ve paid off my mortgage if it was interest free?
Mean while, back on the farm, Americans lost their jobs, their homes, their healthcare, while banks like CITIGROUP earned a record 71% profit this quarter.
So a group of mainly young people tried to do something to call attention to the situation.
The occupiers know that neither the democrats nor the republicans will ‘fix’ anything.
They know they’ve been betrayed by the liberals and they don’t have faith in the union leadership.
They do have faith in each other and the hope that maybe, just maybe they can affect change.
Participatory democracy is laborious. When you are inclusive, that means everyone has a voice, even the marginals.
It takes a long time.
But traditional hierarchical systems aren’t working any more, if they ever did for more than a few.
How many of you have sat through a general assembly?
Spoken at the mike?
Why don’t you take the time to talk to some of these folks?
Seen what’s really going on?
