Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/11/13 11:49 PM, poxpower wrote: some more racist stuff
I don't think he's knowingly malicious, I just think he has major issues with reading comprehension which probably explains a lot lol.

If I do, then we both do honey child. Oops, was that too black for you? LMAO

At 6/11/13 11:49 PM, poxpower wrote: I don't think he's knowingly malicious, I just think he has major issues with reading comprehension which probably explains a lot lol.

Maybe not, but calling somebody racist when they aren't is just a really shitty thing to do from where I sit.

At 6/12/13 12:28 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 6/12/13 12:10 AM, Poniiboi wrote: If I do, then we both do honey child. Oops, was that too black for you? LMAO

Because it was just so blatantly obvious. Being black has nothing to do, at least on the surface, with being a Chippendale's dancer (we all know it does), yet somehow that was an adjective she chose to use along with fat and disgusting to present a reason why a particular person could not be included in a particular setting. It was irrelevant and is obviously a deep set feeling if she felt she had to include it. I'm just sorry she's stuck in 1982 - the kids are over this stuff, man.

At 6/11/13 11:29 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Uh huh. Love how you assume I haven't read any of this.

Oh, so you have read them! Great! So can I ask how exactly is Sander's GAO report not independent from the Fed when there's some pretty damning evidence against the people inside the institution and their connections to powerful Wall Street players? And other rather massive conflicts of interest? I mean, the report seems to be on the same track with your mantra here so I can only wonder why you're so keen to throw away GAO reports on the basis that it's not "independent," yet there has been no clearly established link between the GAO and the very institutions it is overseeing by you this far. If you're going to claim that an audit by the GAO isn't "truly" independent then you couldn't possibly mean anything else other than an insinuation that somebody is pulling their strings at some level.

Even if that were the case, here's an audit concerning all FRBs from an independent auditng firm (Deloitte, if you're curious). What's wrong with it?

Fact is any bank that overplayed their hand in derivatives should have been shut down. It's crazy that a little PDF file that YOU probably haven't even read can completely take your eye off the ball of the massive injustice that was done by the government saving these institutions, not just saving them, but upholding the huge salaries the top execs pay themselves and accepting that money back in campaign contributions.

It's a shame you never bothered to check out my post history, where I have called for the prosecution of the people who did this and criticized the DOJ for having zero interest in doing so. But, eh, whatever. I'm curious to hear your case for why letting the banks fail was preferable to bailing them out, though.

At this point it's like watching a train wreck into the ocean during an earthquake caused by Godzilla. You should really run in the opposite direction as fast you can and find some shelter fast, but it's so damn amusing to watch.

At 6/12/13 03:08 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: At this point it's like watching a train wreck into the ocean during an earthquake caused by Godzilla. You should really run in the opposite direction as fast you can and find some shelter fast, but it's so damn amusing to watch.

You're probably going to die anyway so you might as well enjoy the show.

At 6/12/13 01:33 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 6/11/13 11:29 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Uh huh. Love how you assume I haven't read any of this.

Oh, so you have read them! Great! So can I ask how exactly is Sander's GAO report not independent from the Fed when there's some pretty damning evidence against the people inside the institution and their connections to powerful Wall Street players? And other rather massive conflicts of interest? I mean, the report seems to be on the same track with your mantra here so I can only wonder why you're so keen to throw away GAO reports on the basis that it's not "independent," yet there has been no clearly established link between the GAO and the very institutions it is overseeing by you this far. If you're going to claim that an audit by the GAO isn't "truly" independent then you couldn't possibly mean anything else other than an insinuation that somebody is pulling their strings at some level.

Even if that were the case, here's an audit concerning all FRBs from an independent auditng firm (Deloitte, if you're curious). What's wrong with it?

Fact is any bank that overplayed their hand in derivatives should have been shut down. It's crazy that a little PDF file that YOU probably haven't even read can completely take your eye off the ball of the massive injustice that was done by the government saving these institutions, not just saving them, but upholding the huge salaries the top execs pay themselves and accepting that money back in campaign contributions.

It's a shame you never bothered to check out my post history, where I have called for the prosecution of the people who did this and criticized the DOJ for having zero interest in doing so. But, eh, whatever. I'm curious to hear your case for why letting the banks fail was preferable to bailing them out, though.

Everything is "independent" of the Fed because the Fed and the federal government have no formal relationship, so your assessment is pretty baseless on its face. kthnxbai

Are you kidding? Let's ignore the huge irony that you supposedly think something criminal was done here and yet you still want to throw free money at the criminals.

You think that leaving a power vacuum at the top of the financial structure would have created more chaos for the average person. Untrue. Power vacuums are never vacuums for long. There are plenty of hungry young guns who would have filled that space in an instant, so YOUR conspiracy theories of ATM machines stopping and the financial gears of the world grinding to a halt would NOT have come true.

Everything is "independent" of the Fed because the Fed and the federal government have no formal relationship, so your assessment is pretty baseless on its face. kthnxbai

Oh I see, we're doubling down on factually incorrect assertions. Following the script down to a tee. I guess I'll just reiterate for the regulars here, since they see me cover this all the time. I've always found the claim that the Federal Reserve is a private bank to be quite odd - it is not public, for a very good reason; public control of the reserve removes its objective ability to control monetary policy. Rather, it is quasi-public - the chairman of the bank, and its board of governors is appointed by the President and approved by Congress, and is governed by the legal laws that cover the Federal government, not private enterprise. The Fed is very much connected to the federal government. It literally cannot operate without it, and is subjected to oversight, both Federal and public.

Well that was easy. What else do we have here...

Are you kidding? Let's ignore the huge irony that you supposedly think something criminal was done here and yet you still want to throw free money at the criminals.

Whoa now, one step at a time! What about the GAO? Sanders' report? Deloitte's audit? No comment? We're skipping that part? Conceding the point? I'm sure you'll think of something in the meantime.

Anyway, who said I was in support of the bank bailouts? Go ahead and Ctrl+F my post history, you'll see nothing of the sort at any period of my time posting here. There was no insinuation, I was making an honest inquiry. I know you're in character here but try to take the snarkiness down a few notches so this dialogue can be a bit more streamlined.

You think that leaving a power vacuum at the top of the financial structure would have created more chaos for the average person. Untrue.

Cool, so you're just going to incorrectly assume my beliefs and respond to invented assertions I've never made and never will make. What else?

Power vacuums are never vacuums for long. There are plenty of hungry young guns who would have filled that space in an instant, so YOUR conspiracy theories of ATM machines stopping and the financial gears of the world grinding to a halt would NOT have come true.

That all being said, you're just begging the question here: who do you think would hypothetically fill in those trillion dollar gaps? I'd like to hypothetically meet these young guns.

At 6/12/13 06:02 AM, Feoric wrote:

Well that was easy. What else do we have here...

Repeating the same points over and over does not negate the fact that there are criminal elements and your information bias is to trust them although they are historically unworthy of that trust. This is your argument's first flaw and until you address that, nothing else you say is worth mentioning.

Are you kidding? Let's ignore the huge irony that you supposedly think something criminal was done here and yet you still want to throw free money at the criminals.

Ah ah! You skip my points, I skip yours. This is a basic dodge by saying I didn't cover everything you ever said in your past posts. And tell me again why I should search your entire history when you won't even give me the concession of calling me anything other than a conspiracy theorist?

Some men are tall and all doctors are tall. Does it follow that some men are doctors?

lol

At 6/12/13 02:23 PM, poxpower wrote: Some men are tall and all doctors are tall. Does it follow that some men are doctors?

lol

Depends who's telling you the information. If its government than OMG IT'S A CONSPIRICY TINFOIL HAT TIMEYOU CAN'T TRUST ANYONE

Lol

At 6/12/13 02:29 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: If its government than OMG IT'S A CONSPIRICY TINFOIL HAT TIMEYOU CAN'T TRUST ANYONE

FIAT CURRENCY!!!!!

Oh... Wait... Wrong person.

At 6/12/13 06:56 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Repeating the same points over and over does not negate the fact that there are criminal elements and your information bias is to trust them although they are historically unworthy of that trust. This is your argument's first flaw and until you address that, nothing else you say is worth mentioning.

The original point was that there was "no formal relationship" between the federal government and the Federal Reserve. "Criminal elements" has no bearing on whether or not that relationship exists. Now, I do find it funny that you're making the accusation that I'm just blindly following in the Fed's footsteps when I've linked a rather incriminating report by Bernie Sanders. I actually keep calling attention to it yet you just keep on ignoring it. Funny how that works.

Ah ah! You skip my points, I skip yours. This is a basic dodge by saying I didn't cover everything you ever said in your past posts.

Not a dodge at all, I was making a point: I don't support how the bank bailouts went down. I addressed that rather straight on, actually, but thanks for the admission that you're skipping my points.

And tell me again why I should search your entire history when you won't even give me the concession of calling me anything other than a conspiracy theorist?

You walk like a duck and quack like one, too.

At 6/12/13 03:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: FIAT CURRENCY!!!!!

Oh... Wait... Wrong person.

No, right person.

YAY FIAT CURRENCY IS THE BEST YAY IT GROWS WITH OUR ECONOMY SO WE EARN MORE YAY MATH

SUCK IT GOLD STANDARD FOR BEING PRONE TO HYPERINFLATION THAT COULD LEAD TO MUCH BIGGER DISASTERS (see monetary policy during the 20s and 30s, lol)

*sweet dance music*

At 6/12/13 04:42 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: SUCK IT GOLD STANDARD FOR BEING PRONE TO HYPERINFLATION THAT COULD LEAD TO MUCH BIGGER DISASTERS (see monetary policy during the 20s and 30s, lol)

I think you mean deflation, hyperinflation under a gold standard is nearly impossible.

At 6/12/13 04:44 PM, Feoric wrote: I think you mean deflation, hyperinflation under a gold standard is nearly impossible.

If you want to use "mainstream" (lol) word than yes, deflation.

In economic academia, deflation is inflation, just the other way, so it's just inflation. Kind of like there's no such thing as subtraction, just addition of negative numbers.

Oh no, there's more math.

At 6/12/13 04:50 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: In economic academia, deflation is inflation, just the other way, so it's just inflation.

Are you being facetious?

At 6/12/13 06:56 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Ah ah! You skip my points, I skip yours.

Stop posting.

At 6/12/13 05:21 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 6/12/13 06:56 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Ah ah! You skip my points, I skip yours.

Stop posting.

LOL

At 6/13/13 08:25 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 6/13/13 01:12 AM, Poniiboi wrote:

At 6/12/13 05:21 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 6/12/13 06:56 AM, Poniiboi wrote: Ah ah! You skip my points, I skip yours.

Stop posting.

LOL

and your guilty as hell for that in other threads.

So everyone's guilty. Stalemate. What from here? (Rhetorical question - I don't want you to answer it nor care for your answer)

If you're going to just troll each other, I'm locking this thread. If there's still something you feel is worth saying, then go ahead and say it.

Or you know, just let this die already. But you don't get to flame back and forth, that stops now.

At 6/18/13 06:22 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: If you're going to just troll each other, I'm locking this thread. If there's still something you feel is worth saying, then go ahead and say it.

Or you know, just let this die already. But you don't get to flame back and forth, that stops now.

Lock whatever you want, fascist. Oh by the way...whoever is TORing my songs down...I still have the most popular song of the week! And you can't stop people from downloading, so you're doing nothing to decrease my viewership. 327 downloads on my latest song in a week! LOL

Another instance of people trying to gang up on folks they can't put down. Sorry, you trolls get no dice! LMAO

At 6/18/13 06:44 PM, Poniiboi wrote: Lock whatever you want.

I'm just saying if all you and the others still posting in this thread are going to do is get off topic and shred each other personally, no point in keeping this open. If you still have something to add about the original topic and/or someone else does, by all means I'll keep it open. But we do have a courtesy rule around here where if the OP wants the topic locked and it's not terribly active or it's degenerated in a way they don't appreciate, we lock it. That something you'd like to have happen now?