PDA

View Full Version : Economics 101 - HEY RINGO you stupid shit shit stain - this one's for you.



PoliCon
01-16-2009, 07:08 PM
Considering the current global economic crisis, it would be nice if students could become more conversant with economic terminology, even if it’s only the basics.

Until that happens, however, here are some handy tips from Yelp.com on how to remember the difference between competing political/economic ideologies:

SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you a glass of milk.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

TOTALITARIANISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

COMMUNISM: You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker about who has the most “ability” and who has the most “need.” Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

LIBERTARIANISM: You have two cows. One has actually read the constitution, believes in it, and has some really good ideas about government. The cow runs for office, and while most people agree that the cow is the best candidate, nobody except the other cow votes for her because they think it would be “throwing their vote away.”

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

CAPITALISM: You don’t have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don’t have any cows to put up as collateral.

ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

ENVIRONMENTALISM: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Ringo
01-16-2009, 07:11 PM
Did I post anything that you disagree with concerning economics ?

If so, post the complaint and I will discuss it with you. Is it possible for you to enter this debate ?

Ringo
01-16-2009, 07:16 PM
Thats what I thought.

Goldwater
01-16-2009, 07:20 PM
Thats what I thought.

Give him more than five minutes to reply...

Ringo
01-16-2009, 07:22 PM
Give him more than five minutes to reply...

Bring it. I only have 42 posts.

Goldwater
01-16-2009, 07:23 PM
Bring it. I only have 42 posts.

...

What?

Ringo
01-16-2009, 07:26 PM
...

What?

There will be no debate. the poster is an idiot, just go read what he is posting in the other threads.

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 07:30 PM
...

What? exactly. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 07:31 PM
There will be no debate. the poster is an idiot, just go read what he is posting in the other threads.I'm an idiot? I'm not the one trying to pass of a paraphrase with 6th grade grammar errors and IM speak as a quotation.:rolleyes:

Ringo
01-16-2009, 07:31 PM
exactly. :rolleyes:

I called it.

Go ahead, address my first post.

What do you disgree with concerning economics ?

LOL, and Goldwater actually thought you were going to debate an issue. thanks for playing.

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 07:34 PM
I called it.

Go ahead, address my first post.

What do you disgree with concerning economics ?

LOL, and Goldwater actually thought you were going to debate an issue. thanks for playing.http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=10097

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 07:45 PM
yea thought so . . . :rolleyes:

Ringo
01-16-2009, 07:50 PM
yea thought so . . . :rolleyes:

You couldn't be more wrong.

After the repubs removed Glass/Steagal and the regulations and protections that it provided for almost 70 years it only took 9 years for the country to collapse under the weight of unregulated free market.

What do you disagree with here ?

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 07:53 PM
You couldn't be more wrong.

After the repubs removed Glass/Steagal and the regulations and protections that it provided for almost 70 years it only took 9 years for the country to collapse under the weight of unregulated free market.

What do you disagree with here ?You stupid shit head - we don't HAVE an unregulated free market. :rolleyes:

Ringo
01-16-2009, 07:54 PM
You stupid shit head - we don't HAVE an unregulated free market. :rolleyes:

So now you don't think the repub congress removed the protections and regulations Glass/Steagall provided ?

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 07:57 PM
So now you don't think the repub congress removed the protections and regulations Glass/Steagall provided ? No I think you're a total jackass because you think that that removing that one act made us an unregulated free market. :rolleyes:

Ringo
01-16-2009, 08:00 PM
No I think you're a total jackass because you think that that removing that one act made us an unregulated free market. :rolleyes:

Glass/Steagall contained the banking reforms needed to keep a depression from happening again ...the repubs tore it down and 9 years later we are fucked with the same banking problems that brought on the great depression.

PoliCon
01-16-2009, 08:03 PM
Glass/Steagall contained the banking reforms needed to keep a depression from happening again ...the repubs tore it down and 9 years later we are fucked with the same banking problems that brought on the great depression.OH BULLSHIT. Spoken like someone who has no clue what caused the great depression or what caused our current economic crisis. :rolleyes:

Ringo
01-16-2009, 08:09 PM
OH BULLSHIT. Spoken like someone who has no clue what caused the great depression or what caused our current economic crisis. :rolleyes:

The depression was caused by bank failures. go figure. Just look how the banks disappeared.

http://www.econreview.com/events/images/banks.png

Constitutionally Speaking
01-16-2009, 08:32 PM
You couldn't be more wrong.

After the repubs removed Glass/Steagal and the regulations and protections that it provided for almost 70 years it only took 9 years for the country to collapse under the weight of unregulated free market.

What do you disagree with here ?

Glass/steagal was a SMALL part of the problem. The largest part of the problems is people who could not afford to make house payments were given loans. Guess who promoted and FORCED that brilliant move???

Guess which Presidential Candidate SUED citibank when it refused to make such loans???

Get a clue you fricking moron.

enslaved1
01-17-2009, 10:00 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/righteous_slave/67252496.gif


That is all.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 10:04 AM
The depression was caused by bank failures. go figure. Just look how the banks disappeared.

http://www.econreview.com/events/images/banks.pngYou really are ignorant aren't ya. The Depression was not CAUSED by bank failures - they were a symptom of the cause - not the cause itself. You really should get an education. :rolleyes:

Ringo
01-17-2009, 10:42 AM
I noticed you are a pro at telling people they are wrong ....But you NEVER EVER correct the poster as to the 'real truth'

Ringo
01-17-2009, 10:43 AM
Glass/steagal was a SMALL part of the problem. The largest part of the problems is people who could not afford to make house payments were given loans. Guess who promoted and FORCED that brilliant move???

Guess which Presidential Candidate SUED citibank when it refused to make such loans???

Get a clue you fricking moron.

Got any proof that the people Citibank gave loans to went bellyup ?

Nope ....thats what I thought

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 10:45 AM
I noticed you are a pro at telling people they are wrong ....But you NEVER EVER correct the poster as to the 'real truth'you don't learn history from being indoctrinated. You learn history from getting off your ass and doing research - not of vapid books designed to indoctrinate - but research of the primary source documents. Like most leftists - you are lazy and as long as you are lazy - you will never learn to think for yourself.

JB
01-17-2009, 03:46 PM
Guess which Presidential Candidate SUED citibank when it refused to make such loans???

Got any proof that the people Citibank gave loans to went bellyup ?

Nope ....thats what I thoughtOy. You should try and answer direct questions from now on.

If a bank does not wish to make a loan but is forced to make the loan under threat of lawsuit, are you OK with that?

That's what CS was asking you. Whether every penny was paid back or not is irrelevant.

Ringo
01-17-2009, 03:56 PM
you don't learn history from being indoctrinated. You learn history from getting off your ass and doing research - not of vapid books designed to indoctrinate - but research of the primary source documents. Like most leftists - you are lazy and as long as you are lazy - you will never learn to think for yourself.

You just told me in another thread that the Dems were the first to filibuster a judge.

The facts are that the Repubs were the first to do so in 1968. I am right, and you are wrong..... again.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-17-2009, 04:23 PM
Got any proof that the people Citibank gave loans to went bellyup ?

Nope ....thats what I thought


Sorry moron. They had LOTS of bad mortgages - are you really that stupid???? By definition ALL of the loans made via guaranteed loans are not of the type that would have been made without government involvement.

http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/citibank-announces-moratoriu-on-mortgage-foreclosures-private-plan-that-wont-cost-taxpayers-a-dime/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123144562914865337.html

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 04:49 PM
You just told me in another thread that the Dems were the first to filibuster a judge.

The facts are that the Repubs were the first to do so in 1968. I am right, and you are wrong..... again.you really need to learn how to read and you might want to learn a TINY little bit about history. :rolleyes:

Ringo
01-17-2009, 04:51 PM
you really need to learn how to read and you might want to learn a TINY little bit about history. :rolleyes:

Are you now claiming the repubs never used the filibuster against a judge in 1968 ?

That would be absurd. It is a fact of history you stupid fucking idiot.

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 05:24 PM
Are you now claiming the repubs never used the filibuster against a judge in 1968 ?

That would be absurd. It is a fact of history you stupid fucking idiot.They used the filibuster against a criminal who happened to be a judge - BIG DIFFERENCE to anyone with a brain.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-17-2009, 10:13 PM
They used the filibuster against a criminal who happened to be a judge - BIG DIFFERENCE to anyone with a brain.


Ahhh ---- but there is the rub!!!

PoliCon
01-17-2009, 10:16 PM
Ahhh ---- but there is the rub!!!yea tell me about it:rolleyes:

Lars1701a
01-18-2009, 08:19 AM
yea tell me about it:rolleyes:

LOL can't you see Ringo does not care about facts? he is here just to rile you up and piss you off (please dont say you are not) The moment he started to post you should have noticed this and ignored him. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I even realized it.

Teetop
01-18-2009, 09:11 AM
I should apologize to Ringo for asking a mod to change his/her name to Dildo. His/her name should actually be shit-stained dildo.

marinejcksn
01-18-2009, 09:24 AM
LIBERTARIANISM: You have two cows. One has actually read the constitution, believes in it, and has some really good ideas about government. The cow runs for office, and while most people agree that the cow is the best candidate, nobody except the other cow votes for her because they think it would be “throwing their vote away.”



This one made me smile. Nice work. :D

Ringo
01-18-2009, 09:32 AM
Ahhh ---- but there is the rub!!!

If he was a criminal he would have been chrged and jailed.

Calling a man a criminal before charges and a trial is absurd.

What happened to innocent till proven guilty ? ...and as far as I can tell ...he was NEVER CHARGED and found guilty.

CS is calling an innocent man a criminal ....go figure.

Sonnabend
01-18-2009, 09:52 AM
If he was a criminal he would have been chrged and jailed.

Calling a man a criminal before charges and a trial is absurd.

What happened to innocent till proven guilty ? ...and as far as I can tell ...he was NEVER CHARGED and found guilty.

CS is calling an innocent man a criminal ....go figure.

Who keeps calling Pres. Bush a liar?
Who keeps saying he outed a CIA agent?
Who keeps saying he is a "criminal"?

Funny...this "innocent until proven guilty" schtick didn't seem to be applied to the President.

Pot, kettle, over.

Ringo
01-18-2009, 10:11 AM
Bush IS a liar. Jeeeesh.

marinejcksn
01-18-2009, 10:18 AM
Bush IS a liar. Jeeeesh.

Lied about what? WMDs?

Maybe you'd like to read this (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)

Ringo
01-18-2009, 10:22 AM
Lied about what? WMDs?

Maybe you'd like to read this (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)


LOL, Sonnabread knows Bush is a liar, that is why they didn't ask about a lie.

Bush lied about the biggest thing a president could lie about. Going to war.

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Do you believe Bush when he says the inspectors were never allowed in Iraq ?

Sonnabend
01-18-2009, 10:35 AM
LOL, Sonnabread knows Bush is a liar, that is why they didn't ask about a lie.

Nope.

Sonnabread never said any such thing. Who's Sonnabread anyway?


Do you believe Bush when he says the inspectors were never allowed in Iraq ?

Yep. I believe PRESIDENT Bush when he says that..because it's true

Oops Ringo (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2002/0305straw.htm)


The international community's most pressing demand is for Iraq to allow UN officials to inspect his weapons programmes. Saddam broke his word and has been in breach of his international obligations since he effectively threw out the UN inspectors three years ago. If he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he let them return and do so without preconditions? As long as he refuses, we can only suspect the worst - and this obliges us to look at other ways of limiting his capability


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html

Ringo
01-18-2009, 10:37 AM
So, you now believe Saddam never let the inspectors in ?

djones520
01-18-2009, 10:40 AM
So, you now believe Saddam never let the inspectors in ?

Did Saddam let inspectors in. No one will deny that he didn't, at the last minute. But even then, he would not let the inspectors do their jobs. He denied them access to area's they where supposed to inspect, wouldn't let them interview people they needed to see, and did everything he could to keep them as in the dark as possible.

So you tell me. Whats the point of the inspectors coming into the country, if they can't do their job?

PoliCon
01-18-2009, 10:57 AM
LOL can't you see Ringo does not care about facts? he is here just to rile you up and piss you off (please dont say you are not) The moment he started to post you should have noticed this and ignored him. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I even realized it. lol I'm not pissed. :) I'm enjoying leading him around tweaking him and watching the stupid stuff he says. :) I'll give you a tip. When I am angry - I get quiet.

PoliCon
01-18-2009, 10:58 AM
This one made me smile. Nice work. :D
I wish I could take claim - that's an old joke email that has been circulating for years - and shit stain thought it was serious. :cool:

PoliCon
01-18-2009, 11:01 AM
If he was a criminal he would have been chrged and jailed.

Calling a man a criminal before charges and a trial is absurd.

What happened to innocent till proven guilty ? ...and as far as I can tell ...he was NEVER CHARGED and found guilty.

CS is calling an innocent man a criminal ....go figure.Innocent until proven guilt - IN A COURT OF LAW. This you smelly ass emission is not a court of law. AND - even if it was - the evidence is clear. He's as guilty as you are nescient.

PoliCon
01-18-2009, 11:02 AM
Bush IS a liar. Jeeeesh.so sayeth the troglodyte!!

PoliCon
01-18-2009, 11:03 AM
Lied about what? WMDs?

Maybe you'd like to read this (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp)
way to go - he threw that out so that he could bait you into another one of his talking points. And you fell for it. :p

marinejcksn
01-18-2009, 11:35 AM
way to go - he threw that out so that he could bait you into another one of his talking points. And you fell for it. :p

What can I say, I'm a sucker for punishment. :p

Meanwhile....back in mom's basement....the least talented Beatle searches the internet for another arguement to hurl forth as his ace-in-the-hole! Go forth young avenger and show we idiots the errors of our Conservatarian ways! :rolleyes::D

djones520
01-18-2009, 11:38 AM
What can I say, I'm a sucker for punishment. :p

Meanwhile....back in mom's basement....the least talented Beatle searches the internet for another arguement to hurl forth as his ace-in-the-hole! Go forth young avenger and show we idiots the errors of our Conservatarian ways! :rolleyes::D

I hope he doesn't forget his other arguments. I'm still waiting for him to show me how Obama spending $150 million is the same thing as Bush spending $62 million.

Lars1701a
01-18-2009, 11:41 AM
Come on ringo how is spending 62 million the same as 150 million?

PoliCon
01-18-2009, 11:42 AM
I hope he doesn't forget his other arguments. I'm still waiting for him to show me how Obama spending $150 million is the same thing as Bush spending $62 million. you left out that Bush's was all paid for privately and Barry's is mostly coming out of the public coffers.

djones520
01-18-2009, 11:43 AM
you left out that Bush's was all paid for privately and Barry's is mostly coming out of the public coffers.

I want to start off slow and simple with him. Then we can work up to abstracts like that. Don't wanna overload the poor kid.

PoliCon
01-18-2009, 11:44 AM
I want to start off slow and simple with him. Then we can work up to abstracts like that. Don't wanna overload the poor kid.He's going to have the same reaction either way - best to throw as much as possible out at once so that he has more things to chose from for his predictable replies :cool:

Ree
01-18-2009, 03:53 PM
He's going to have the same reaction either way - best to throw as much as possible out at once so that he has more things to chose from for his predictable replies :cool:
But it's so cute when he stamps his widdle feet and screams.....now if we could just get him to hold his breath till he turns blue...;)

AlmostThere
01-19-2009, 04:46 AM
Got any proof that the people Citibank gave loans to went bellyup ?

Nope ....thats what I thought

Ya know Ringworm, I've been reading your posts with some aggravation and more than a few chuckles. But you really showed your ass here. You obviously don't have the vaguest familiarity with economics. Here, learn something. Go ahead and download the video. It might be too much for you to absorb in 10 minutes.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june08/domino_03-21.html

enslaved1
01-19-2009, 08:50 AM
This guy needs to up his ritillin. He can't seem to stay on one topic long enough to even try and defend himself. Oh, wait that is his defense, change the subject when he gets smacked down.