I'm also fond of this one, which I think has been around for a while.
Posted on 01/11/2004 5:36:57 PM PST by kellynla
Better pay more attention to propping up your failed arguments than my sign-on date next time. You might come out better in the debate.
Yes, we DO kick them out...
Ever been to farm country??? You know, where the locals schools quit for a few weeks during the harvest season, the kids go out and help their families pick the produce? And maybe earn a little extra money for school-clothes, their first car, or something like that??? You know, working for a farmer for a few weeks...?
Does any of this ring a bell???
Have you ever seen farm country???
Americans have lost their balls!
To paraphrase a line from a popular current 3 part movie, "You may not want the fight, but the fight is upon you."
So we are being offered the radical left, or the left.
Neither for me, thank you.
Hb
I'm also fond of this one, which I think has been around for a while.
ME: What happens if a rumor surfaces of a merger between two large companies...? Say, between GTE and Bell-Atlantic (BA bought GTE)??? People clamor to buy the stocks, because the value of the stock is suddenly worth more.
You: Idiots might clamor to buy said stock, based on speculative information that is at best suspect. Wise investors don't change their portfolios based on wild rumors or because some Internet shill tries to browbeat or scare them into it. You pose a bad example and make my point for me.
Answer: It happens ALL the time. People act on tips on a regular basis. Sometimes analysts get tips that make them start crunching numbers on a particular company. IF the numbers look good, and there's some chance that the rumor is actually true, then there is investment- if only in a small amount. Happens all the time. To pretend otherwise, is to demonstrate that you're a liar. A case in point, is Martha Stewart- acting on a tip, dumping stock... Of course, the only difference between her and others is that the tip was from an insider, not outsider who put two and two together... No real difference.
YOU SAID: The point is, to blame somebody for something bad merely because they discuss it flies in the face of every free speech right we enjoy in the US. Using that logic, a Dean administration could prohibit discussion of anti-abortion activists or techniques by using the rationale that a few idiots bomb abortion clinics or shoot abortionists, "and we don't want to encourage them." And while we're at it, let's shut down the NRA's website and ban publication of gun magazines because a firearm might be used in another Columbine shooting, "and we don't want to encourage them."
This statement is SO poorly written, that you are effectively incoherent. You might as well spout baby-talk, for all the "logic" it exhibits...
ME: Your knee-jerk reaction ignores group psychology... And therefore fails.
YOU: Seriously suggesting the censorship of honest discussion of a topic is the real "knee-jerk" behavior here. And yours are twitching like you're suffering from St. Vitus' Dance.
ANSWER: You have yet to state anything that is both
A.) truthful, and
B.) Coherent.
In other words, you wrote a typical newbie rant... Hence, I was kind to you, last time... You'll not get the same consideration again.
Now, get lost. I have little tolerance of fools.
Yep. Having some expertise in this area, I can tell you that you are exactly correct.
Take for example, Australia. They're a growing producer of wines- very good wines, I might add...
They have a severe manpower shortage, as it is... They rely heavily upon automation, and compete quite nicely, thank you very much. BTW, they are also quite strict on their immigration policies... They don't like- or want- illegal aliens in their country... 8^)
No, I don't think I will. I like shoving the old 50-volt cattle prod into namecallers - the resulting sweet music is just too good to miss.
Because I don't enjoy wasting my time in conversations with vacuous windbags
What does that have to do with the topic of this thread? I'm not having a lot of fun conversing with you either, but I feel that its my duty to show vacuous windbags just how wrong they are.
It happens ALL the time.
People vote for Democrats all the time. People smoke cigarettes all the time. People drive half in the bag all the time. Doesn't make it smart, desirable, or right.
People act on tips on a regular basis.
Sometimes they do. But as I said, the smart ones use tips only as one small part of their analytical process, when there is also valid evidence to back up their assumptions. And to somehow smear the mere discussion of a controversial topic into the encouragement of lawbreaking is ludicrousness on your part.
Sometimes analysts get tips that make them start crunching numbers on a particular company. IF the numbers look good
Thank you for proving my point for me.
A case in point, is Martha Stewart- acting on a tip, dumping stock... Of course, the only difference between her and others is that the tip was from an insider, not outsider who put two and two together... No real difference.
So you've already tried and convicted Stewart of insider trading. (And no, that was not a question). Not only do you seem to have a problem with the concept of free speech, the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty seems to stick equally in your craw. Instructive.
This statement is SO poorly written, that you are effectively incoherent.
Translation: "I have no answer for what you said, so ... YOU'RE A DOODYHEAD!" Well done - this might not take as long as I thought it would.
In other words, you wrote a typical newbie rant...
(yawn)
Hence, I was kind to you, last time... You'll not get the same consideration again. Now, get lost. I have little tolerance of fools.
Many people don't like their own company. I hope you have a dog.
Again, with all due respect, with the exception of about 10% or so, they have lumped themselves together.
Not really. Just another bold, largely unpopular move by the President to do the right thing instead of doing what the polls say. First Iraq, now this.
If the shoe fits, eat it.
I'm not having a lot of fun conversing with you...
Fools rarely do- I tend to stomp on 'em...
My original statement was "What happens if a rumor surfaces of a merger between two large companies...? Say, between GTE and Bell-Atlantic (BA bought GTE)??? People clamor to buy the stocks, because the value of the stock is suddenly worth more."
You fail to understand the reasons of this, because you believe that if a person is not a financial analyst (which, btw, I happen to be), they're not "smart." And, as uneducated as you clearly are, you also fail to understand that macroeconomic analysis is based upon the actions of people who are not educated in macroeconomics... More, you clearly fail to understand why such rumors or tips (or SEC filings to buy large stock holdings of a company) would cause the value of the stock to increase... A small hint: smart analysts will react on such tips, if they want to be successful... But you don't want to believe such realities.
What I MOST enjoy, however, is that after 4-5 posts you finally admit what I've said all along:
the smart ones use tips only as one small part of their analytical process...
In other words, you admit that tips DO influence the behavior of people. Whether that person is considered "smart" by someone as demonstrably ignorant as yourself, is irrelevant. And as any savvy, successful businessman will tell you, success involves a lot of networking and tips- from all kinds of sources...
The bottom line is simple: While it was like pulling teeth for a while, you've finally demonstrated- with your own words- the flaws in your "logic." Clearly, there is no logic in your statements...
In the battle of intellects... You are unarmed, and therefore unworthy of further consideration.
But thanks- it's was fun blasting you out of the water. ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.