Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 10:06:23 GMT -5
The "us" is the US. I don't subscribe to John Edwards' "Two Americas" or any variant of it. I like to think we all live in purple states.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 3, 2013 10:13:50 GMT -5
Not Fox. Not Heritage. Not Rush. Not WND. Not Alex Jones. "White Hat" hackers- no security was ever built into the ObamaCare site. www.cnbc.com/id/101225308
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 3, 2013 10:16:14 GMT -5
The "us" is the US. I don't subscribe to John Edwards' "Two Americas" or any variant of it. I like to think we all live in purple states. There's the people, and there's the self-styled political ruling elites in the political class. Some of us are informed, aware, and vigilant; others- that the political class depends on are um..."low information", but there is most assuredly an "us" and a "them".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 3, 2013 10:20:24 GMT -5
Look for the Dems to go full-bore distraction. They're gonna have to quick whip up some 'war on women', anti-gay, anti-immigrant distraction, or else. Because if 2014 is a referendum on ObamaCare, the Democrats are TOAST. www.newsmax.com/Politics/Landrieu-Senate-Louisiana-Obamacare/2013/12/03/id/539629It is certainly possible the Democrats will be able to contrive a distraction- especially with an impotent GOP not willing to fight on anything. But it could also well be that this issue is bigger than both parties, bigger than politics, and it may just come down to if you have any of the stink of ObamaCare on you- you're done.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 10:23:15 GMT -5
I can think of a number of people running for re-election next year who will want it remembered: it will be a positive plank of their anti-Obamacare campaign. you are both banking on there NOT being another one. don't. I think we can agree that the American people are not so goldfish-memoried that they have forgotten the shutdown that happened just a few weeks ago. And yet 'generic Republican' has more support than either 'generic Democrat' or President Obama in polling - a situation that I don't think ever obtained even in the runup to the 2010 'shellacking' election. Certainly, if I was in the President's inner circle, I'd be counselling a waiting game - there's a piece in the WSJ today about the "Next GOP Crackup", and that lays out a very plausible route to shutdown. I'd expect the President to gamble that he's already close to his own popularity floor and this would drown some bad news about Obamacare, so given the chance I feel sure he'll jump at it. Mitch McConnell strengthened his hand rather in Kentucky by brokering a resolution to the last shutdown, but I think both he and Boehner will be keen to avoid another. Pelosi is obviously advantaged by anything that puts GOP House leaders under pressure, so she'll be pro-shutdown (without saying so publicly, of course). Reid is something of a wild card: his recent evolution on the filibuster question suggests to me that he sees the Senate as slipping toward the GOP next Fall, and therefore might be inclined toward Hail Mary politics. It rests on Boehner to navigate a course that lets a majority sign on to fund the government into 2014. But, even if he fails, as he well might, there is huge danger for Democrats in being party to another shutdown; and, after that shutdown there will be further waves of bad news about Obamacare. This is a guarantee. There will be more cancellations of plans, this time in the small-employer market (and some larger employers, too); there will be a revisiting of Obama's claim that only 5% of people would be effected by his lie about keeping their plans (a reiteration then that he lies even about his lies); there will be significant sticker shock at the 2015 rate increases; there will be Supreme Court cases concerning the law; there will be a huge ad spend by GOP-friendly sources indicting Obamacare; there will be millions of losers to tell their tales to the nation's media. And this is assuming that we don't reach a tipping point where people actually endorse the threat of shutdown as the only means left to enjoin Democrats to see sense (for what it's worth, I think that line will only play in the deep-red districts that send Tea Party-aligned Republicans to Congress).
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 10:29:07 GMT -5
Yeah, but it is Drudge. I mean, if you're saying "don't discount it because of its bias," that's one thing. But the above litany at least implies your source doesn't share the bias imputed to those, and clearly it does.
I incline to the view that you can be biased without being deceitful in the process - Drudge's partisan interest in exposing the stultifying failure to safeguard information that the law mandates Americans must provide to the healthcare.gov website doesn't make that stultifying failure less noteworthy or factual, any more than Breitbart's interest in shaming a rising Democratic star meant that was, after all, just a pistol in Weiner's undies.
I think you rather undermine this point with the "not Fox, not Heritage" schtick. Certainly, somebody who heralded a blog at DailyKos by proclaiming it wasn't MSNBC wouldn't impress me.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 10:40:24 GMT -5
Interesting that you drew that conclusion from my correlation of zero poverty with maximal redistribution. I don't see how my premise that we don't redistribute among the sufficiently well-off just for shits and giggles - that, to be clear, the function of redistribution is the alleviation of poverty - leads rationally to the assertion that poverty is necessarily caused by inequality. The premise that poverty is non-universal is implicit in the concept of redistribution, and does imply that poverty correlates with inequality, but saying one causes the other is rather like saying the redness of blood causes it to flow. More accurately, both are properties of the same system or substance.
Relative poverty is a function of inequality to the extent that markets are free to set price points according to supply and demand dynamics. You are relatively poor if you can't afford goods that 80% of people can, for example, and this is true even if you are a millionaire.
Absolute poverty is only a function of inequality with a static pool of capital wherein redistribution is zero-sum and the transfer of wealth by government fiat is understood to counteract a notional wealth transfer in the other direction (morally, to correct a social injustice whereby money that should accrue to the poor instead accrues to the rich).
I'd really like to see you set out the reasoning that substantiates your comment here. It would illuminate an entirely alien view of economics to me.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 10:46:27 GMT -5
I know, you were asking ib.
What is anything worth? What is an orange worth? An acre of wheat? A human liver? A Pontiac Firebird? A first edition of Pride and Prejudice? A 1200 sq ft mobile home in Tornado Alley? A 1200 sq ft apartment in Manhattan? A bottle of water? A bottle of water after three days in the desert sun? A diamond? A lump of coal?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,228
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 3, 2013 10:49:52 GMT -5
Just felt the need to add a musical interlude
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 3, 2013 12:00:47 GMT -5
Yeah, but it is Drudge. I mean, if you're saying "don't discount it because of its bias," that's one thing. But the above litany at least implies your source doesn't share the bias imputed to those, and clearly it does. I incline to the view that you can be biased without being deceitful in the process - Drudge's partisan interest in exposing the stultifying failure to safeguard information that the law mandates Americans must provide to the healthcare.gov website doesn't make that stultifying failure less noteworthy or factual, any more than Breitbart's interest in shaming a rising Democratic star meant that was, after all, just a pistol in Weiner's undies. I think you rather undermine this point with the "not Fox, not Heritage" schtick. Certainly, somebody who heralded a blog at DailyKos by proclaiming it wasn't MSNBC wouldn't impress me. Drudge is an aggregator. The story linked to on Drudge is msnbc.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 3, 2013 12:13:55 GMT -5
you are both banking on there NOT being another one. don't. I think we can agree that the American people are not so goldfish-memoried that they have forgotten the shutdown that happened just a few weeks ago. And yet 'generic Republican' has more support than either 'generic Democrat' or President Obama in polling - a situation that I don't think ever obtained even in the runup to the 2010 'shellacking' election. Certainly, if I was in the President's inner circle, I'd be counselling a waiting game - there's a piece in the WSJ today about the "Next GOP Crackup", and that lays out a very plausible route to shutdown. I'd expect the President to gamble that he's already close to his own popularity floor and this would drown some bad news about Obamacare, so given the chance I feel sure he'll jump at it. Mitch McConnell strengthened his hand rather in Kentucky by brokering a resolution to the last shutdown, but I think both he and Boehner will be keen to avoid another. Pelosi is obviously advantaged by anything that puts GOP House leaders under pressure, so she'll be pro-shutdown (without saying so publicly, of course). Reid is something of a wild card: his recent evolution on the filibuster question suggests to me that he sees the Senate as slipping toward the GOP next Fall, and therefore might be inclined toward Hail Mary politics. It rests on Boehner to navigate a course that lets a majority sign on to fund the government into 2014. But, even if he fails, as he well might, there is huge danger for Democrats in being party to another shutdown; and, after that shutdown there will be further waves of bad news about Obamacare. This is a guarantee. There will be more cancellations of plans, this time in the small-employer market (and some larger employers, too); there will be a revisiting of Obama's claim that only 5% of people would be effected by his lie about keeping their plans (a reiteration then that he lies even about his lies); there will be significant sticker shock at the 2015 rate increases; there will be Supreme Court cases concerning the law; there will be a huge ad spend by GOP-friendly sources indicting Obamacare; there will be millions of losers to tell their tales to the nation's media. And this is assuming that we don't reach a tipping point where people actually endorse the threat of shutdown as the only means left to enjoin Democrats to see sense (for what it's worth, I think that line will only play in the deep-red districts that send Tea Party-aligned Republicans to Congress). ObamaCare is a massive failure- as has been stated, it truly is the worst public policy disaster in a generation. It will go down, and thereafter be the quintessential example of why government can't be trusted with anything. It is the last in a 70 year run of "major" government initiatives. It's the period on the end of a period. No politician will venture a bold government intervention into the economy again for another generation; and any proposal from here on out that recommends government involvement in anything will be described as another ObamaCare, or compared to ObamaCare. Once compared to ObamaCare, any policy proposal will be difficult to revive. The phrase, "The era of big government is over" is no longer one politicians can merely pay lip service to. The Obama left wing big government spasm which entails more than just ObamaCare- but trillions in debt, the weaponization of the bureaucracy, surrender and apology tours, selective enforcement of laws, decrees and executive orders-- it both threatens the country, but also marks the end of it all. Should we survive it- and at this point, it's hard to imagine we won't- that's it. The statists have had their run. It's the end of the progressive era. The tug and pull not just between Dems and the GOP, but between the GOP and the conservatives and libertarians is the beginning of the libertarian era. The progressives had their century, and now, it's over. The Democrats have to defend 16 Senate seats, and there are 11 GOP doctors running for the Senate making it fairly likely that the election won't be anything but a referendum on ObamaCare. thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/191621-gop-doctors-run-for-congress-amid-obamacare-fiascoThere's NO PR way out of this mess. If the Democrats are to survive, they will tone the progressivism way down, go back to piecmeal approach, and the New Democrat window dressing. But the party has been skunked by ObamaCare- and it's gonna take major lemons and tomato juice to fix this.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 12:14:44 GMT -5
It is, and it is. I'm talking about the optics. You go through that spiel of "See how nonpartisan this is" and then link to one of "the top ten anti-Barack Obama conservatives" (an approbative quote from the UK Telegraph's Toby Harnden). It just looks bad, imo.
The fact that Drudge and MSNBC both cover it would lead me to link to the original MSNBC source rather than the right-biased aggregator (I'm aware that as an aggregator, Drudge was found to bias left of center in that legendary study from the mid-noughties).
All I'm saying is that the approach seems to be a strategy to prebut the allegations of "oh, it's just Paul recycling right-wing talking points," but that the strategy is better served by linking to lefty sources directly rather than via right-wing aggregators. I fully agree with you about the security concerns - I'll be interested to see if Anonymous feels like getting political with this stuff over the next twelve months, and by extension what happens to Congressional efforts to police the Net
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 3, 2013 12:21:39 GMT -5
F. Chuck Todd states the obvious- and he agrees with me (or, if you prefer- I agree with him):
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 12:32:49 GMT -5
I had no idea it was easentially just the airport. OTOH, an airport is the first place I've ever seen a restaurant where customers enter their own orders. It's not necessarily about businesses leaving. It may become a great test bed for new technology. or overpriced items. like we have never seen THAT in airports before......
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 12:36:18 GMT -5
i don't know what you think i am arguing here. i have said paltry little about the ACA's provisions. edit: this wording issue may have to be resolved, or the SCOTUS might refuse to hear it. it is too bad Congress can't do it. but at the rate of 1 bill per week, i can see why arguing about a sentence in a 2000 page bill is not going to rate very high on their docket.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 12:37:10 GMT -5
The "us" is the US. I don't subscribe to John Edwards' "Two Americas" or any variant of it. I like to think we all live in purple states. good to know.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 12:38:18 GMT -5
Look for the Dems to go full-bore distraction. They're gonna have to quick whip up some 'war on women', anti-gay, anti-immigrant distraction, or else. Because if 2014 is a referendum on ObamaCare, the Democrats are TOAST. www.newsmax.com/Politics/Landrieu-Senate-Louisiana-Obamacare/2013/12/03/id/539629It is certainly possible the Democrats will be able to contrive a distraction- especially with an impotent GOP not willing to fight on anything. But it could also well be that this issue is bigger than both parties, bigger than politics, and it may just come down to if you have any of the stink of ObamaCare on you- you're done. did NewsMinn point out what the ratings are for the GOP?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 12:43:38 GMT -5
It is, and it is. I'm talking about the optics. You go through that spiel of "See how nonpartisan this is" and then link to one of "the top ten anti-Barack Obama conservatives" (an approbative quote from the UK Telegraph's Toby Harnden). It just looks bad, imo. The fact that Drudge and MSNBC both cover it would lead me to link to the original MSNBC source rather than the right-biased aggregator (I'm aware that as an aggregator, Drudge was found to bias left of center in that legendary study from the mid-noughties). All I'm saying is that the approach seems to be a strategy to prebut the allegations of "oh, it's just Paul recycling right-wing talking points," but that the strategy is better served by linking to lefty sources directly rather than via right-wing aggregators. I fully agree with you about the security concerns - I'll be interested to see if Anonymous feels like getting political with this stuff over the next twelve months, and by extension what happens to Congressional efforts to police the Net i was with you until the left wing talking points comment. i am just as against lefties doing it as righties. neither side is served by these tacitcs, imo.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 13:03:56 GMT -5
That does appear to be where your understanding diverged from my intent, yes.
I was making the tactical point that, in the service of a strategic goal of refuting ad hominem rebuttals centered on the allegations of bias common to the rhetorician and his cited source, an effective tactic is to employ sources of known contrary bias: i.e. for an unashamed "rightie," the better tactic is to go with equally unashamed "lefty" sources.
Taking a right-wing aggregator's repetition of a left-wing source's observation of the state of the security of patient's financial and health information submitted to healthcare.gov serves the different strategic end of substantiating the accuracy of the report on the basis that the relative bias of the two extremes leaves the report unaffected. But that strategic end is obscured if it's presented as something else.
Having some sort of bias is virtually unavoidable, that's another part of the value of plurality in discourse; the manifest biases of the contributors to discourse cancel one another out, in theory, or at the very least they are openly exhibited as biases and can be identified as such. The tendency in a messageboard format to nitpick over minutiae rather than grapple with the substance of argument is one such 'tell,' and I'm saying that without looking pointedly at anybody or thinking particularly of any of the myriad examples here and elsewhere, several of them authored by yours truly.
As an aside, if you truly don't believe Paul in particular is well-advised to attempt to insulate himself against specious rejection of his arguments on a fallacious ad hominem basis, I invite you to review the responses to any of the numerous threads Paul has started with a view to establishing a series of connected proposals regarding the state of the nation, its trajectory into the future, and the proper prescriptions for its remedy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 8, 2024 12:24:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2013 14:02:53 GMT -5
Generic ballot now shows Republicans with a 2.5-point advantage over Democrats. Didn't take long for the Dems to squander that 6.5-point advantage the Republicans so kindly handed them. Now if only the Republicans can avoid doing anything stupid over the next couple of months.... Fat chance, I'm sure....
DJ--Gold was trading down today in spite of tapering "worries". May not be such a good hedge after all?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 14:39:34 GMT -5
That does appear to be where your understanding diverged from my intent, yes. I was making the tactical point that, in the service of a strategic goal of refuting ad hominem rebuttals centered on the allegations of bias common to the rhetorician and his cited source, an effective tactic is to employ sources of known contrary bias: i.e. for an unashamed "rightie," the better tactic is to go with equally unashamed "lefty" sources. Taking a right-wing aggregator's repetition of a left-wing source's observation ..... wait- are you claiming that a right wing aggregator would never use left wing sources for material? that this fact somehow makes them "centrist"? what? if so, this is precisely the same mistake that the UCLA bias study made.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 14:54:29 GMT -5
Generic ballot now shows Republicans with a 2.5-point advantage over Democrats. Didn't take long for the Dems to squander that 6.5-point advantage the Republicans so kindly handed them. Now if only the Republicans can avoid doing anything stupid over the next couple of months.... Fat chance, I'm sure....
DJ--Gold was trading down today in spite of tapering "worries". May not be such a good hedge after all? markets are never 100% rational.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 14:55:05 GMT -5
For whatever reason, you and I seem to have fundamental difficulty understanding one another's English. Truly "two nations divided by a common language."
When I refer to "a right-wing aggregator's repetition of a left-wing source's observation" I am instantiating that occurence, and implicitly acknowledging that it does in fact occur. I tend to use RCP as my first line for political info, and I think most people would agree that the slant at RCP is right-of-center, but it includes plenty of counterpoint from the left - possibly enough, and I haven't done the counts, that the perception of its right-of-center bias (it's subtle things like the rewriting of headlines, the placement of headlines, the equal weight given mainstream opinion and fringe response) is belied by the preponderance of slant in the articles it aggregates. All of which is an aside to the response: no, I'm not claiming that right-wing aggregators only aggregate from right-wing sources; they're right-wing by virtue of editorial policy, not selection source.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 15:03:48 GMT -5
For whatever reason, you and I seem to have fundamental difficulty understanding one another's English. Truly "two nations divided by a common language." When I refer to "a right-wing aggregator's repetition of a left-wing source's observation" I am instantiating that occurence, and implicitly acknowledging that it does in fact occur. I tend to use RCP as my first line for political info, and I think most people would agree that the slant at RCP is right-of-center, but it includes plenty of counterpoint from the left - possibly enough, and I haven't done the counts, that the perception of its right-of-center bias (it's subtle things like the rewriting of headlines, the placement of headlines, the equal weight given mainstream opinion and fringe response) is belied by the preponderance of slant in the articles it aggregates. All of which is an aside to the response: no, I'm not claiming that right-wing aggregators only aggregate from right-wing sources; they're right-wing by virtue of editorial policy, not selection source. thanks. sometimes i am just asking for clarification, phoenix. this isn't personal for me. usually.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 15:08:35 GMT -5
I assume that's what you do every time. It often confuses me because to me it seems abundantly clear from the cited post what I was saying. As florid as my prose undeniably is, it's seldom so densely abstruse as to obscure the points you tend to raise as questionable, from my perspective.
You're not the only one who does it, and there are reasons contributing to my 'style' that mitigate in favor of people doing it, which, despite the burden they place on me (as well as the burdens they place on the reader), I find sufficiently material to resist impulses to change, so I don't take it personally either. It's just something I observe more with you because I get in more back-and-forth exchanges with you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 15:09:24 GMT -5
I assume that's what you do every time. It often confuses me because to me it seems abundantly clear from the cited post what I was saying. sorry to disappoint you.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Dec 3, 2013 15:13:39 GMT -5
Not at all disappointed, and if I were it would be with myself not you. It's the responsibility of the messenger to convey the message. If I saw myself as a messenger rather than an artist I'd approach this differently.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 15:32:26 GMT -5
Not at all disappointed, and if I were it would be with myself not you. It's the responsibility of the messenger to convey the message. If I saw myself as a messenger rather than an artist I'd approach this differently. phoenix, sometimes i THINK i understand what you are saying, and i don't. i am just trying to make absolutely sure.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 3, 2013 15:39:31 GMT -5
Generic ballot now shows Republicans with a 2.5-point advantage over Democrats. Didn't take long for the Dems to squander that 6.5-point advantage the Republicans so kindly handed them. Now if only the Republicans can avoid doing anything stupid over the next couple of months.... Fat chance, I'm sure....
DJ--Gold was trading down today in spite of tapering "worries". May not be such a good hedge after all? markets are never 100% rational. Of course they are. Asymmetry of information shouldn't be mistaken for irrationality.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 3, 2013 15:44:47 GMT -5
markets are never 100% rational. Of course they are. no. they are not.Asymmetry of information shouldn't be mistaken for irrationality. you seriously think that markets are rational? wow.
|
|