CNBC: Colts’ player says Ben Bernanke “Looks Like a Crook”
-
at least 27 times when you were perfectly capable of taking another human life... heh We almost had that last night.
I missed the superbowl... I was too busy watching Tin Man[^] on Netflix. I only knew there was a game yesterday, because in between episodes (It's a mini-series), I looked out my window... I have a nice view of a bunch of other tall apartment buildings... I counted six TVs that I could see through the windows (Well, six that were on)... Four of them were on the same channel, and though I obviously couldn't make out details, half the time they were showing something green. Now either a lot of people are suddenly hooked on the gardening channel (Is there a gardening channel?), or there was a football game. Noticing that, I took a break from Tin Man and glanced over at one of the chat rooms I hang out in... I saw people talking about the Colts and... uh... whatever the other team was. I asked if there was a game today, and people expressed utter shock that I had no idea it was Superbowl Sunday. So I went back to Tin Man... Which was a LOT better than anything I would have seen on ESPN :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Not sure I can agree here either (suprise suprise :-O ) but wasnt golf invested by the lower class of Scot? wacking a ball along the beach with a stick? most upperclass of that era were pretty uncouth, most got there by killing and then nicking the dead guys stuff. ps who said this was the source of the games?
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
Alex hogarth wrote:
Not sure I can agree here either (suprise suprise ) but wasnt golf invested by the lower class of Scot? wacking a ball along the beach with a stick?
shepards knocking rocks into rabbit holes... ;) And it was quickly adopted by people with a ton of land to use and that they could maintain. You have the shepards being able to play, and the people in charge, and the folks in villages and cities generally didn't even know about the game. So it has a small disconnect where both the rich and the poor played it, it is a strange one. The upperclass were pretty thugish, yes, but they didn't tend to kill lower class and take their stuff. They had them in a feudal system, why kill them when you can make em work for you and pay a tithe? The aristocracy would spen a large amount of the summer running about beating one another up while wearing armor. You knocked a guy down, made him surrender and then had his family pay ransom. This was the accepted system and a fine way to spend the growing season. Once the crops were planted, off you went. When it was harvest season, everyone stopped fighting and went home. You spent winter indoors and once the spring hit you started the whole thing over.
-
josda1000 wrote:
All contributions, from anyone, are valid. Remember, this is a republic (even better than a democracy, as most people claim we have!) Everyone has a right to speak, whether you like it or not. All opinions count.
Valid, sure. EQUALLY valid? No. Would you respect the opinion of an ignorant child as much as that of an informed adult? Same thing here, but not quite to that degree. Everyone has the right to speak, sure, and we also have the right to ignore or disagree as we see fit.
josda1000 wrote:
They didn't say that he was. But if they knew what he did, I'm sure they would be able to see and figure out that he's a schemer.
Now you're putting words in their mouth. I'm not going to get into the Fed argument again, as we both know there isn't going to be much agreement there... But honestly, using a football player as "evidence" is pretty weak. I'm sure some of them are very intelligent, but most of them do have a reputation for being the opposite. And not only are you basing an economic/political argument on the view of an athlete, but on the idea that Bernanke "looks like" a crook... Come on... Have we really sunk that low?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Valid, sure. EQUALLY valid?
Understood. But you shouldn't just write someone off. Granted, again, they didn't know the whole story, so you could write the comment off. But my argument is that the comment is being written off because he's a football player, not because he doesn't know the whole story and doesn't know who he is. All I'm talking about is the fact that the player has instinct. And THAT was valid. If he did know the whole story, it WOULD be equally valid.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would you respect the opinion of an ignorant child as much as that of an informed adult?
Again, because he wasn't informed, you can write it off. If he was informed, you couldn't.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Everyone has the right to speak, sure, and we also have the right to ignore or disagree as we see fit.
Agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're putting words in their mouth.
Agreed, I take it back.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But honestly, using a football player as "evidence" is pretty weak.
Again, not true. In this particular case, that's true, because again, he doesn't know the full story. But if he DID know the story, it would be completely valid. Let's put it this way: I was a baseball player. Would I have no say? Would it be invalid, whatever my thoughts, if I knew the full story here?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm sure some of them are very intelligent, but most of them do have a reputation for being the opposite.
Which means that you're prejudice.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And not only are you basing an economic/political argument on the view of an athlete, but on the idea that Bernanke "looks like" a crook.
I understand that. But think of it. Natural instinct has been repealed from our society, however, you're doing the SAME EXACT THING! You're saying that most football players have no say in what a crook looks like. Put another way: the football players are saying what a crook looks like, while you're saying that football players are dumb, and shouldn't have a say in politics. But that's precisely what politics is: it's about instinct and getting a vote based on, not facts, but charis
-
I hope you realize what you've just said here. You're basically saying that he's the smartest man in the world; which only furthers my conclusion.
Alex hogarth wrote:
as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence
Since he's the head of the most secretive bank in the world, the financial organizer of the world, the head of the only bank to not have full audits (Ian, notice the term FULL audits), he is without a doubt the most successful man in the world, IMO. So I'd agree with you here. However, you're giving blind assumption as well, saying he's more intelligent than anyone. Just by saying that he's the head of that bank does not mean he's more intelligent than I am. So therefore, by saying this very statement, I'd have to say you're not as smart as you think you are. I might as well say that I'm smarter than you are. Nevermind the fact that you can't spell Bernanke, and can't capitalize the first word of a paragraph.
Alex hogarth wrote:
what he has done is not ilegal as far as I know, and even if not he is not making two bit programms that sounds like rants of a disgruntaled ex employee
If this is supposed to be a bash against me, it's really not working. A) you can't spell, B), I work for a government contractor. Thanks, try again.
Alex hogarth wrote:
I was refering to the fact that you seem to think a sportman and a contact sportsman at that is a valid contributor to said discussion.
All contributions, from anyone, are valid. Remember, this is a republic (even better than a democracy, as most people claim we have!) Everyone has a right to speak, whether you like it or not. All opinions count. And as I said, even though they didn't know who Bernanke was, they were just pointing out that he looked like a crook. They didn't say that he was. But if they knew what he did, I'm sure they would be able to see and figure out that he's a schemer. The Fed has been holding back information that the public deserves to know, that's all it's about. But I bet that if we did know, then they would become "valid contributor[s] to said discussion."
Alex hogarth wrote:
If you used a nobel prize winning ecomanist I would have said OK fine, but a sportsman? get real.
It's "Nobel Prize".
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>I hope you realize what you've just said here. You're basically saying that he's the smartest man in the world; which only furthers my conclusion.</blockquote> No I said he was a lot more successful than you but you choose to inflate this to a make it look silly this seems to show that you are not as smart as you like to think So he’s in charge of a bank - many people are but you are not yet he’s the clown? <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Alex hogarth wrote: as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence Since he's the head of the most secretive bank in the world, the financial organizer of the world, the head of the only bank to not have full audits (Ian, notice the term FULL audits), he is without a doubt the most successful man in the world, IMO. So I'd agree with you here. However, you're giving blind assumption as well, saying he's more intelligent than anyone. Just by saying that he's the head of that bank does not mean he's more intelligent than I am. So therefore, by saying this very statement, I'd have to say you're not as smart as you think you are. I might as well say that I'm smarter than you are. Nevermind the fact that you can't spell Bernanke, and can't capitalize the first word of a paragraph.</blockquote> No it was you that said he, was see first quote, unless you are claiming to be the second most intelligent man in the world? now from what he has achieved and what you have a achieved I can reasonably assume that he is smarter than you, but you disagree fine that is your right, maybe I am not as smart as you who knows! but that does not mean that mine is an invalid assumption. oh and I dont care that I posted with errors, in fact I have usually found that when it comes to picking the odd error then the responder is clutching at straws <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Alex hogarth wrote: what he has done is not ilegal as far as I know, and even if not he is not making two bit programms that sounds like rants of a disgruntaled ex employee If this is supposed to be a bash against me, it's really not working. A) you can't spell, B), I work for a government contractor. Thanks, try again.</blockquote> a, Correct I can't. b, so what? You still come across as one disgruntled ex employee <blockquote
-
I missed the superbowl... I was too busy watching Tin Man[^] on Netflix. I only knew there was a game yesterday, because in between episodes (It's a mini-series), I looked out my window... I have a nice view of a bunch of other tall apartment buildings... I counted six TVs that I could see through the windows (Well, six that were on)... Four of them were on the same channel, and though I obviously couldn't make out details, half the time they were showing something green. Now either a lot of people are suddenly hooked on the gardening channel (Is there a gardening channel?), or there was a football game. Noticing that, I took a break from Tin Man and glanced over at one of the chat rooms I hang out in... I saw people talking about the Colts and... uh... whatever the other team was. I asked if there was a game today, and people expressed utter shock that I had no idea it was Superbowl Sunday. So I went back to Tin Man... Which was a LOT better than anything I would have seen on ESPN :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
We watched it on the Sci Fi channel when it originally aired. Well, afterward, on the Tivo. :) Interesting twist on the entire thing. I liked it. Side note: Zooey Deschanel has amazing eyes. The wife asked me to pause it so she could stare at her eyes and then had a happy sigh.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Valid, sure. EQUALLY valid?
Understood. But you shouldn't just write someone off. Granted, again, they didn't know the whole story, so you could write the comment off. But my argument is that the comment is being written off because he's a football player, not because he doesn't know the whole story and doesn't know who he is. All I'm talking about is the fact that the player has instinct. And THAT was valid. If he did know the whole story, it WOULD be equally valid.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would you respect the opinion of an ignorant child as much as that of an informed adult?
Again, because he wasn't informed, you can write it off. If he was informed, you couldn't.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Everyone has the right to speak, sure, and we also have the right to ignore or disagree as we see fit.
Agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're putting words in their mouth.
Agreed, I take it back.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But honestly, using a football player as "evidence" is pretty weak.
Again, not true. In this particular case, that's true, because again, he doesn't know the full story. But if he DID know the story, it would be completely valid. Let's put it this way: I was a baseball player. Would I have no say? Would it be invalid, whatever my thoughts, if I knew the full story here?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm sure some of them are very intelligent, but most of them do have a reputation for being the opposite.
Which means that you're prejudice.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And not only are you basing an economic/political argument on the view of an athlete, but on the idea that Bernanke "looks like" a crook.
I understand that. But think of it. Natural instinct has been repealed from our society, however, you're doing the SAME EXACT THING! You're saying that most football players have no say in what a crook looks like. Put another way: the football players are saying what a crook looks like, while you're saying that football players are dumb, and shouldn't have a say in politics. But that's precisely what politics is: it's about instinct and getting a vote based on, not facts, but charis
josda1000 wrote:
By the way Ian, I notice that you didn't have an objection to all of what I'd said previously, which means to me that you may agree with the basic premise here.
Nah, I'm not getting into the Fed debate again... We'd be at it for another two weeks. Agreeing to disagree :)
josda1000 wrote:
understand that. But think of it. Natural instinct has been repealed from our society, however, you're doing the SAME EXACT THING! You're saying that most football players have no say in what a crook looks like. Put another way: the football players are saying what a crook looks like, while you're saying that football players are dumb, and shouldn't have a say in politics.
Point conceded. Not knowing much about this particular football player, I really can't say how knowledgeable he is about the issues. I can't even hear his name or the original quote, since CSS neglected to summarize the youtube video (Firewalled). All I can base my response on is the quoted argument "Looks like a crook," and that, to me, shows zero actual knowledge of the issues, or of the situation in general.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
It's not bankers, in general, that Americans have historically been afraid of. It's the big banks, and especially the central banks.
The sense of entitlement that Americans are so proud of puts a bit of fear into them over anyone who might be able to take their stuff, even if they willingly enter into the contract that says they can do that. Little banks are really exempt from that, they're just more likely to be intimidated.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Valid, sure. EQUALLY valid?
Understood. But you shouldn't just write someone off. Granted, again, they didn't know the whole story, so you could write the comment off. But my argument is that the comment is being written off because he's a football player, not because he doesn't know the whole story and doesn't know who he is. All I'm talking about is the fact that the player has instinct. And THAT was valid. If he did know the whole story, it WOULD be equally valid.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Would you respect the opinion of an ignorant child as much as that of an informed adult?
Again, because he wasn't informed, you can write it off. If he was informed, you couldn't.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Everyone has the right to speak, sure, and we also have the right to ignore or disagree as we see fit.
Agreed.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're putting words in their mouth.
Agreed, I take it back.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
But honestly, using a football player as "evidence" is pretty weak.
Again, not true. In this particular case, that's true, because again, he doesn't know the full story. But if he DID know the story, it would be completely valid. Let's put it this way: I was a baseball player. Would I have no say? Would it be invalid, whatever my thoughts, if I knew the full story here?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm sure some of them are very intelligent, but most of them do have a reputation for being the opposite.
Which means that you're prejudice.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And not only are you basing an economic/political argument on the view of an athlete, but on the idea that Bernanke "looks like" a crook.
I understand that. But think of it. Natural instinct has been repealed from our society, however, you're doing the SAME EXACT THING! You're saying that most football players have no say in what a crook looks like. Put another way: the football players are saying what a crook looks like, while you're saying that football players are dumb, and shouldn't have a say in politics. But that's precisely what politics is: it's about instinct and getting a vote based on, not facts, but charis
josda1000 wrote:
But that's precisely what politics is: it's about instinct and getting a vote based on, not facts, but charisma. I'm sorry, but this is hypocritical.
I am going to highlight this pearl of wisdom. This is actually dead on in such a fundamental way it is painful. Every time I see a certain quittingest governor putting down our president I realize this. Every time I see this same amazingly ignorant individual basking in being incapable of thinking things through, a hypocrite, or just plain unintellectual I want to choke everyone that prays for the day they can vote for another idiot into office. I will say this on the original matter. I really don't care who thinks whatshisbucket looks like a crook, weasel, vermin, or feminine hygine bag. If we gave headlines to such matters we would have seen a lot of such talk about more former presidents than I can remember. It's not important.
-
We watched it on the Sci Fi channel when it originally aired. Well, afterward, on the Tivo. :) Interesting twist on the entire thing. I liked it. Side note: Zooey Deschanel has amazing eyes. The wife asked me to pause it so she could stare at her eyes and then had a happy sigh.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Zooey Deschanel has amazing eyes. The wife asked me to pause it so she could stare at her eyes and then had a happy sigh.
Oh, no question about it... I have to admit, eyes are a big thing for me, and that inspired me to extend "The List" to three people... She now holds a place right behind Christina Ricci and Natalie Portman (V for Vendetta, not Jar Jar: The Trilogy). Interestingly, all three of them are the same age as me, give or take a year.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Zooey Deschanel has amazing eyes. The wife asked me to pause it so she could stare at her eyes and then had a happy sigh.
Oh, no question about it... I have to admit, eyes are a big thing for me, and that inspired me to extend "The List" to three people... She now holds a place right behind Christina Ricci and Natalie Portman (V for Vendetta, not Jar Jar: The Trilogy). Interestingly, all three of them are the same age as me, give or take a year.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Now I am going to be so very mean to you. Watch Leon the Professional. (Or just "The Professional") Gary Oldman is amazing. And the hitman in training will suddenly make you feel dirty.
-
Now I am going to be so very mean to you. Watch Leon the Professional. (Or just "The Professional") Gary Oldman is amazing. And the hitman in training will suddenly make you feel dirty.
Hey, Gary Oldman is my all-time favorite actor! I've seen that movie several times. And yes, I know Natalie Portman was in that one... And was only so-so.... Still...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
They started as organized games at those places. The roots of those games were much older. I suppose my history prof could be wrong, he was only one of the leading authorities on the medieval period and could read and speak 4 different ancient languages and had studied the information in the native language. Polo was started by mongols, but it was still imported and used by the rich. Just because someone else used it first doesn't mean that other people wouldn't adapt it and enjoy it. rugby is kinda a weird duck, it got popular in the aristocracy. Probably because it is as violent as it is and every young male with too much testosterone likes indicating how virile they are to the young women watching the game.
I will bow to superior Knowledge, I had always thought that "football" was quite recent, as kicking anything in barefeet that is at all hard is unlikely to catch on as a sport! Polo was actually imported by the miltary who picked it up in India, most Polo clubs were(are) based around regiments, miltary schools or service clubs. A lot of this is guesswork based on a little evidence but as your prof has undoubtally more and superior sources I will stop disagreeing
Go away and research the subject, analyze the options for and against, understand the problem and them come back when you agree with me.
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>I hope you realize what you've just said here. You're basically saying that he's the smartest man in the world; which only furthers my conclusion.</blockquote> No I said he was a lot more successful than you but you choose to inflate this to a make it look silly this seems to show that you are not as smart as you like to think So he’s in charge of a bank - many people are but you are not yet he’s the clown? <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Alex hogarth wrote: as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence Since he's the head of the most secretive bank in the world, the financial organizer of the world, the head of the only bank to not have full audits (Ian, notice the term FULL audits), he is without a doubt the most successful man in the world, IMO. So I'd agree with you here. However, you're giving blind assumption as well, saying he's more intelligent than anyone. Just by saying that he's the head of that bank does not mean he's more intelligent than I am. So therefore, by saying this very statement, I'd have to say you're not as smart as you think you are. I might as well say that I'm smarter than you are. Nevermind the fact that you can't spell Bernanke, and can't capitalize the first word of a paragraph.</blockquote> No it was you that said he, was see first quote, unless you are claiming to be the second most intelligent man in the world? now from what he has achieved and what you have a achieved I can reasonably assume that he is smarter than you, but you disagree fine that is your right, maybe I am not as smart as you who knows! but that does not mean that mine is an invalid assumption. oh and I dont care that I posted with errors, in fact I have usually found that when it comes to picking the odd error then the responder is clutching at straws <blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">josda1000 wrote:</div>Alex hogarth wrote: what he has done is not ilegal as far as I know, and even if not he is not making two bit programms that sounds like rants of a disgruntaled ex employee If this is supposed to be a bash against me, it's really not working. A) you can't spell, B), I work for a government contractor. Thanks, try again.</blockquote> a, Correct I can't. b, so what? You still come across as one disgruntled ex employee <blockquote
Alex hogarth wrote:
So he’s in charge of a bank - many people are but you are not yet he’s the clown?
I wonder, have you been watching the news? Have you seen that Bernanke almost lost his job as Chairman? All of the political pressure put on him, all of the dealings that have been going on? The fact that so many people are out of work right now, especially in California? The bailouts? This is why he's a clown, especially in Austrian circles.
Alex hogarth wrote:
No it was you that said he, was see first quote, unless you are claiming to be the second most intelligent man in the world?
Again, you were comparing me to him on a scale of inteligence, when this is only the second time I've ever had a conversation with you. You're making prejudicial claims against me, and I dislike that very much. It's not a very fair claim at all. And to defend myself, I am making a few observations of my own, and a logical deduction: because he's arguably the most powerful man in the world, you're basing intelligence on power. If that were true, then he's the most intelligent man in the world, and you and I are not intelligent at all. See your first quote: "as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence." What a pure prejudicial statement. How sad.
Alex hogarth wrote:
now from what he has achieved and what you have a achieved I can reasonably assume that he is smarter than you, but you disagree fine that is your right, maybe I am not as smart as you who knows! but that does not mean that mine is an invalid assumption.
You mean, you can reasonably he's smarter than both of us. And again, that is totally assumption. And yes, it is probably invalid. Think about it. Maybe he just got lucky. All he is in the end is an economist. It's a different field. You're a developer. Are you saying you weren't smart enough to be an economist instead? That's your own call; to each his own.
Alex hogarth wrote:
oh and I dont care that I posted with errors, in fact I have usually found that when it comes to picking the odd error then the responder is clutching at straws
No, I'm just pointing it out because you said, without a great argument, that Bernanke was smarter than I. That was pretty low, even if you d
-
Hey, Gary Oldman is my all-time favorite actor! I've seen that movie several times. And yes, I know Natalie Portman was in that one... And was only so-so.... Still...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
heh, showed it to someone, then showed them her in the second prequal wearing that white outfit. He felt so dirty. And Oldman is the bomb. Also has a Bacon number of 1 so he is awesome for that game.
-
heh, showed it to someone, then showed them her in the second prequal wearing that white outfit. He felt so dirty. And Oldman is the bomb. Also has a Bacon number of 1 so he is awesome for that game.
Well see, I don't have to feel dirty for liking Natalie Portman in Leon, or for liking Christina Ricci in the Addams Family... Because when those movies were made, I was that age too :) Actually I think Ricci is nine months younger than me, and Portman is nine months older... Deschanel is about 10 months older. Ok, now I have to start a new thread...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Well see, I don't have to feel dirty for liking Natalie Portman in Leon, or for liking Christina Ricci in the Addams Family... Because when those movies were made, I was that age too :) Actually I think Ricci is nine months younger than me, and Portman is nine months older... Deschanel is about 10 months older. Ok, now I have to start a new thread...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Youngin. I watched that movie in college. When it was new. One of my friends: "She's a hottie, watch nerds go gaga over her the moment she's legal." Man was he ever right, I shoulda asked him for stock tips.
-
Youngin. I watched that movie in college. When it was new. One of my friends: "She's a hottie, watch nerds go gaga over her the moment she's legal." Man was he ever right, I shoulda asked him for stock tips.
Well, more recently... Have you seen Speed Racer? I mean the movie was ok, little kiddie, but Ricci... I don't know why exactly, but wow...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Well, more recently... Have you seen Speed Racer? I mean the movie was ok, little kiddie, but Ricci... I don't know why exactly, but wow...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
wait, she was in speed racer? Crap, now I have to add it to my que. Damn you Ian, damn you to hell for making me watch something like this.
-
Alex hogarth wrote:
So he’s in charge of a bank - many people are but you are not yet he’s the clown?
I wonder, have you been watching the news? Have you seen that Bernanke almost lost his job as Chairman? All of the political pressure put on him, all of the dealings that have been going on? The fact that so many people are out of work right now, especially in California? The bailouts? This is why he's a clown, especially in Austrian circles.
Alex hogarth wrote:
No it was you that said he, was see first quote, unless you are claiming to be the second most intelligent man in the world?
Again, you were comparing me to him on a scale of inteligence, when this is only the second time I've ever had a conversation with you. You're making prejudicial claims against me, and I dislike that very much. It's not a very fair claim at all. And to defend myself, I am making a few observations of my own, and a logical deduction: because he's arguably the most powerful man in the world, you're basing intelligence on power. If that were true, then he's the most intelligent man in the world, and you and I are not intelligent at all. See your first quote: "as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence." What a pure prejudicial statement. How sad.
Alex hogarth wrote:
now from what he has achieved and what you have a achieved I can reasonably assume that he is smarter than you, but you disagree fine that is your right, maybe I am not as smart as you who knows! but that does not mean that mine is an invalid assumption.
You mean, you can reasonably he's smarter than both of us. And again, that is totally assumption. And yes, it is probably invalid. Think about it. Maybe he just got lucky. All he is in the end is an economist. It's a different field. You're a developer. Are you saying you weren't smart enough to be an economist instead? That's your own call; to each his own.
Alex hogarth wrote:
oh and I dont care that I posted with errors, in fact I have usually found that when it comes to picking the odd error then the responder is clutching at straws
No, I'm just pointing it out because you said, without a great argument, that Bernanke was smarter than I. That was pretty low, even if you d
josda1000 wrote:
Again, you were comparing me to him on a scale of inteligence, when this is only the second time I've ever had a conversation with you. You're making prejudicial claims against me, and I dislike that very much. It's not a very fair claim at all. And to defend myself, I am making a few observations of my own, and a logical deduction: because he's arguably the most powerful man in the world, you're basing intelligence on power. If that were true, then he's the most intelligent man in the world, and you and I are not intelligent at all. See your first quote: "as for bernanka being a clown, he seems to be a might more successful than you, this would imply that he has more intelligence." What a pure prejudicial statement. How sad.
No I am basing his intelligence on his position compared to his peers, he is by position one of the top of his professions, you however are not, this would imply that he was more successful then you, now yes this is not a "proof positive" way of judging intelligence it is certainly a valid way of doing so. I am also judging it oh the peception of your Intelligence as shown on here, now again this is not error free but would suggest a trend. Yes you may be his equal if you had choosen his profession, however should this have been the case you prove not to be his equal though demonstration of poor choice. You claim prejudicial, whilst I claim that you have an opinion of yourself that has not been supported, you were and are the one claiming that he is the most powerfull man on the planet and this makes him the most intellligent (not something I Have claimed) yet you cannot explain who such a man got to such a position, you fail to acknowledge his qualification and his position against his peers, this man has reached a hight only achieved by a small % of people in his choosen profession, or are you claiming that you would be the equal of all succesfull people if only you had choosen a different profession? You also claim that a footballer is valid to quote because he feels something yet I CANNOT WITH REGARDS TO YOU? mmm there maybe a name for that!
josda1000 wrote:
A) I'm not saying that Canada or SA are ahead of the USA, though I think they'll be in a better position to beat the next crisis. B) Funny you mention that gold is not that rare. I think even Christian would disagree with you here. He believes that there's not enough gold to make an economy wo
-
wait, she was in speed racer? Crap, now I have to add it to my que. Damn you Ian, damn you to hell for making me watch something like this.
It's actually not that bad. Sure, it's a kiddie movie, but it's a LITTLE more intelligent. The ending sequence is actually really good... Keep in mind, the Wachowski brothers directed it... Ya know, the Matrix guys...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)