• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.

America...the Thread

If everyone ignores me,then why do you reply?It is true.It's nothing to be racist,it's true.In the end,it's what people say."The truth hurts".Do what ever you want,but in the end..it won't be what you want.Lastly,your the ass because your signature confirms what i said.

1.jpg
 
I only reply with mockery, so I don't pay attention to you that much. It's mostly "hey the guy with america up his/her ass posted again" and so more mockery issues forth
 
huh
so a civil debate drew in a racial profiling shock-poster.
don't you just love the internet. When no one can see your face your more apt to say anything
 
I'm the same in real life. Sarcasm, mockery, skepticism and misanthropy
 
If everyone ignores me,then why do you reply?It is true.It's nothing to be racist,it's true.In the end,it's what people say."The truth hurts".Do what ever you want,but in the end..it won't be what you want.Lastly,your the ass because your signature confirms what i said.

1.jpg

I don't ignore you, I think you're funny. Like a little hitler with your cute little moustache yelling hate and bigotry and I just keep picturing you getting red in the face as you denounce whole nations of people and throw in some good old school racism for fun. I know hitler was a monster but he was a funny looking little guy, it's how I picture you.

The truth hurts? Really? That's what you've got for us? You make a racist and incredibly false statement and say the truth hurts? I think you should look up that big word "truth" cause you're not using it correctly.

"Do what ever you want,but in the end..it won't be what you want." ????
What the hell does this mean? Anyone?
 
I don't ignore you, I think you're funny. Like a little hitler with your cute little moustache yelling hate and bigotry and I just keep picturing you getting red in the face as you denounce whole nations of people and throw in some good old school racism for fun. I know hitler was a monster but he was a funny looking little guy, it's how I picture you.

The truth hurts? Really? That's what you've got for us? You make a racist and incredibly false statement and say the truth hurts? I think you should look up that big word "truth" cause you're not using it correctly.

"Do what ever you want,but in the end..it won't be what you want." ????
What the hell does this mean? Anyone?
it means that not every quote is worth remembering
 
Yeah, it's like how the US gets involved in other people's problems instead of letting them get away and then thousands of our soldiers die while they go on vacation and we continue to find idiotic ways to justify being there in the first place. Yeah, it's kind of like that.


No it's not.
 
I meant a real war where american actually had to make sacrifices, there was a draft, and everybody knew somebody who was fighting. Maybe even foreign troops bretched our shores.
 
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!:woot:

LOLZ!!!111 Reading comprehension ftw.

yeah, that whole "much more than you English" totally backs up THAT statement.
boy is MY face red.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Did you read the whole ****ing sentence, or did you just see a section that made no sense to you and decided it "hilarious". Read again, cujo. "what with trying to teach /someone who probably knows alot more than you/ English". I guess you couldn't get it the first time so I'll add two commas to seperate it for you. what with trying to teach someone, who probably knows alot more than you, English. My mistake. I thought you would've had enough of a brain to understand it. Honest to goodness misguided view.

But let's not let this devolve into a grammar nitpick-fest, shant we?


LOL, again.
way to TRY and sound smart, but you didn't actually say anything did you?
you placed one example ( one bad example)then said something completely unrelated to said example and didn't back it up.
but yeah...I'm sure you're "mortified"(I'm also sure you think the meaning of "mortified" has something to do with Zombies, but you're not quite sure).
uh...yeah, way to say nothing except something comparable to "Nuh-uh"

Did you ever take an economics class? Or did you bribe the teachers to let your dumb ass squeak out of high school? I'll make this simpler for your obviously ailing mind: Consumers have habits that are not changed by policy. No matter what. They will buy milk, toilet paper, gas, car washes, or any kind of food or necessity until the end of time. This shows that, despite policy change, the President can not outright change the economy without actively pursuing a path akin to FDR.

Nice use of your p's and q's. Though, next time, make what you say mean something. Otherwise it's just alot of useless verbage. [As an aside, if you're wondering: being mortified is the feeling of intense dread or terror]


LOL, what's "panick" mean anyway? is it like "panic" but for the cool "internets" crowd?:huh: or maybe just the people that "know more than me English" who's to say?

Sorry, that's the past/present verb form of panic. (panicking, panicked) I slipped up once, oh well. Want me to correct your horrible sentence structure and grammar? Or is that enough for you?

why would I? when were talking about the effects of a President on consumer confidence.
I'm talking about the effects of economic policies on the spending habits of a populace.
I mean, you CAN trot out an unrelated example like the depression.
but.
at your own risk.

Really now? Because you were talking about how the president affected the economy. Economic policies (budget, etc.) tend to have little impact how we, as a populace, spend our money. Unless of course you're saying that the economy has significantly changed based on the president's spending and policies. And if you could provide examples, that'd be great.

government deficit spending is ONE of those explanations.
so while I had not initially considered the Depression relevant to my argument you have gone and made it not only relevant, but you have unwittingly (as most of your life probably happens, due to lack of wit) made an argument in my favor.

so thanks for that! :up:

One of the other, and more accepted, explanations is the wide use of CREDIT by the wide majority of American people. They tended to pay for most everything on credit. Well, when you can't pay back items on credit immediately, you find yourself paying larger, and larger sums. And debt starts to swell. Combine this with another one of the explanations, the rush after the stock market collapsed, and you have a volatile mix. People rushed to pull their money out of the banks during this period and this not only made plenty of banks fail, it wrecked one of the nation's key financial infrastructures. And the loss of money through being forced to pay back loans they couldn't afford to banks trying to sustain themselves led to job/pay cuts in many companies. Which led to a stagnant economy. People didn't have much money to spend those days. When consumers don't have money to spend, businesses suffer. This leads to an economic depression. We were pulled out of the depression by way of all of the work programs that the government started up as the situation got worse.

man, for an internet Genius, you use a lot of concepts you don't really seem to understand.
but, you failed again.
lack of disposable income has been cited, over and over again as a cause for a decrease in spending. It's actually mentioned at least once every Christmas shopping season.

Great. And how has the government's policies effected the income of workers thus far? What bill did the president support that caused all of these people to be without extra spending money? Who has control over how much these people are paid? Companies or the government?

just last Monday I was watching the Today show and they had a report of probable sales that the larger retailers might have due to fear of low turnout after black Friday.
one of the reasons cited?
"less disposable income" so, actually, less disposable income HAS an effect on the economy more often than not.
how ironic is THAT ****?
I mean, It was kind of logical, but I CAN see how you'd miss it.

Great. Prove how the president's policies caused this. I'm waiting.


I like how so far, you have failed to back up any statement you have made.
I'd also like a list of those other economic factors.
fact is, consumer confidence is KEY in the economy and in the modern economy the economic policies and the POLITICS that a given countries President engages in are a very important factor.

Have you? I mean, the droves of evidence you have given might have gone completely over my head.. but I don't see you supporting any of your "ideas" either. Provide an example, please.

the continuing, and rather baffling delusion you live in notwithstanding.
I know you won't like to hear this.
but people smarter than me, and vastly smarter than you have argued about just how much influence any President has over the economy.
they range from people that blame EVERYTHING on the President to people that think that Presidents hold almost no effect.
now, do I think that a War abroad affects an economy?
yeah, I do.

Wow. And even then.. who voted to go to war? The Congress, you say? Great, we're making progress then. The President can't actually reach out and change the economy without going through another body first. But even then, how much of an effect on the economy is the war having? Can you show me estimates? Guesstimates, even?


yeah, you have provided SOOOO much to back up your argument.
wait, you kind of didn't.
so.
uh...that must be awkward for you.

Ditto. :o

I bow to both your little knowledge of basic economics.
and your mad, mad skills ( by which I mean "complete incompetence") at sentence construction.

Wow, funniest thing I've read today. You can really claim I have bad sentence construction when there's so many things wrong with JUST THOSE TWO SENTENCES that my missteps pale in comparison. That's amazing.

uh, Kudos on that.

Kudos on proving to me that you are an idiot.
 
LOLZ!!!111 Reading comprehension ftw.

LOL, only you can try and justify your obvious mistake as lack of reading comprehension on my part.


Did you read the whole ****ing sentence, or did you just see a section that made no sense to you and decided it "hilarious". Read again, cujo. "what with trying to teach /someone who probably knows alot more than you/ English". I guess you couldn't get it the first time so I'll add two commas to seperate it for you. what with trying to teach someone, who probably knows alot more than you, English. My mistake. I thought you would've had enough of a brain to understand it. Honest to goodness misguided view.

But let's not let this devolve into a grammar nitpick-fest, shant we?

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! you're still trying to justify your mistake!:woot:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"shant we?"

ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!



Did you ever take an economics class? Or did you bribe the teachers to let your dumb ass squeak out of high school? I'll make this simpler for your obviously ailing mind: Consumers have habits that are not changed by policy. No matter what. They will buy milk, toilet paper, gas, car washes, or any kind of food or necessity until the end of time. This shows that, despite policy change, the President can not outright change the economy without actively pursuing a path akin to FDR.

I'm sorry, you are aware of the meaning of "disposable income" right?
and...uh...you mean, you finished high school?

I wouldn't go around disclosing that information, I had a little respect for you when I thought you were a real scrappy 11 year old.

now?

not so much.

Nice use of your p's and q's. Though, next time, make what you say mean something. Otherwise it's just alot of useless verbage. [As an aside, if you're wondering: being mortified is the feeling of intense dread or terror]

you meant "verbiage" the word "verbage" is a made up word.
god, it must be humiliating, all those neat words you thought would make you seem smart, and they don't even exist.:csad:


Sorry, that's the past/present verb form of panic. (panicking, panicked) I slipped up once, oh well. Want me to correct your horrible sentence structure and grammar? Or is that enough for you?

no, "panick" doesn't exist, it's simply "panic"

oh lord.:csad:




Really now? Because you were talking about how the president affected the economy. Economic policies (budget, etc.) tend to have little impact how we, as a populace, spend our money. Unless of course you're saying that the economy has significantly changed based on the president's spending and policies. And if you could provide examples, that'd be great.

:huh: economic policies have vast and lasting effects on the way people spend.
I know, I know, milk, eggs and toilet paper, but again, you seem to forget that the economy doesn't hinge on the bare bones necessity items.
you get that.....don't you?
there were books written about the economic policies effect ( effect not "affect" remember that) on the economy in the US.
and other countries.

a simple example.

government regulations affect (see?) the automotive industry, in that, now, finally, they are being pressured to have higher mileage on their vehicles.
but lack of government regulation of these auto makers and oil companies result in larger amounts of money spent at the pump.

now you can't get that nice pink sweater from the gap you had your eye on XtromaniaK, don't you see?



One of the other, and more accepted, explanations is the wide use of CREDIT by the wide majority of American people. They tended to pay for most everything on credit. Well, when you can't pay back items on credit immediately, you find yourself paying larger, and larger sums. And debt starts to swell. Combine this with another one of the explanations, the rush after the stock market collapsed, and you have a volatile mix. People rushed to pull their money out of the banks during this period and this not only made plenty of banks fail, it wrecked one of the nation's key financial infrastructures. And the loss of money through being forced to pay back loans they couldn't afford to banks trying to sustain themselves led to job/pay cuts in many companies. Which led to a stagnant economy. People didn't have much money to spend those days. When consumers don't have money to spend, businesses suffer. This leads to an economic depression. We were pulled out of the depression by way of all of the work programs that the government started up as the situation got worse.

actually, there is no "accepted explanation".
the only one that comes close to being a widely accepted explanation hinges on technology.
most books on the great depression and it's causes pretty much say that outright.
man, all that neat text you wrote and for what?

nothing that's what!



Great. And how has the government's policies effected the income of workers thus far? What bill did the president support that caused all of these people to be without extra spending money? Who has control over how much these people are paid? Companies or the government?

:huh: I already did.
as you have clearly shown no grasp of even WHAT disposable income means, well, explaining it to you sounds like a waste of time doesn't it?
you apparently don't understand the very basic concept of fiscal policy influence on the economy of a nation.
for god's sake, fiscal policy has an effect on INTEREST RATES! what does that tell you?

nothing?


Great. Prove how the president's policies caused this. I'm waiting.

:huh: didn't I already point out the fact that Bush administration has engaged in deficit spending, to the tune of 200 billion dollars this year alone fir operation "infinite desert camp out" or whatever the hell they are calling it this year.
your denial aside, deficit spending IS one of the "accepted" theories for the cause of the great depression.
you have been reading my responses right?



Have you? I mean, the droves of evidence you have given might have gone completely over my head.. but I don't see you supporting any of your "ideas" either. Provide an example, please.

I have, I did.
you haven't and won't.



Wow. And even then.. who voted to go to war? The Congress, you say? Great, we're making progress then. The President can't actually reach out and change the economy without going through another body first. But even then, how much of an effect on the economy is the war having? Can you show me estimates? Guesstimates, even?

I can't....

I can't....

believe you just asked me that.

uh....they HAVE been talking about adverse effects for the economy since BEFORE the war.
you know who has?

economists.

have a problem with their outlook, feel free to take it up with them.

1 2
3
4
5
6
7


but seriously, thanks for asking that.
solidly proving that you happen to be an idiot.



oh man, after that whole "show me the effect of the war on the economy"
this must be embarrassing for you.



Wow, funniest thing I've read today. You can really claim I have bad sentence construction when there's so many things wrong with JUST THOSE TWO SENTENCES that my missteps pale in comparison. That's amazing.

LOL...you men I "can't" claim you have bead sentence construction.
but Ironically I "can".

Irony.



Kudos on proving to me that you are an idiot.


LOL, you're really not that bright are you?
 
Oh man I left htis thread yesterday in a state of peace...who started the war?
 
I meant a real war where american actually had to make sacrifices, there was a draft, and everybody knew somebody who was fighting. Maybe even foreign troops bretched our shores.

Yeah, the US would be and has always been much better at that. An actual war garners support because people are fighting for their very country. If it happened look for a WW2 atmosphere. Citizens will ration and run drives and our military rather than fighting people in cities would be fighting armies without having to worry about who they attack (not that friendly fire doesn't happen or mistakes and slaughters don't occur but it's not nearly as bad as Iraq or Vietnam). So considering the US military hardware is the best in the world, they would slaughter an opponent in a standard war senario. It's this "peace-keeping" war nonsense that we suck at and our citizens don't get behind.
 
TRAVEL-AMISH.jpg


"Do you think they really believe *****ing on their demon-boxes will cause change?"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"