lenar's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 72 - 111 of 111     Last »

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 8, 11:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

You can't read.

I've said that relationship steaks vs. hamburgers in CPI changed over years in favor of hamburgers. I never said anything about rules of substitution in defining CPI. Those are two orthogonal concepts - popular/unpopular products and their respective weights vs. similar products that may be substituted.

You never addressed this observation. Instead, you chose to attack my imaginary critique of rules of substitution. That critique - it's not real, it's in your head.

Either you can't read, or you shouldn't be talking about straw man.

In either case, I respectfully decline your invitation to join your hallucination.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 8, 2:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

david1 says

To summarize: 1. I addressed your relationship change with doubt;

david1 says

You haven't talked about my momma yet so I guess that's still in the bag. I'll set it up for you - she is about 5'7" 160 lbs.

First you talk about my relationship changes. Then about your momma. Thanks for the honors, but this is too close for my comfort - I'm happily involved.

FYI. Your understanding of oh-so-frequently-used-term Ad Hominem approximates your understanding of inflation.

FYI. Statement above is not an example of Ad Hominem.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 10, 3:57am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Ah, PolitiFacts. It seems that they lost all credibility in post-Pulitzer life. Using different combs on different people.


They analyze and classify as false "this country is bankrupt" statement by Ron Paul.

And fail as much as mention "every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs" Nancy Pelosi.


  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 10, 8:33am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I've decided to take their advice and write a short (100 page) self-published book

You should, imho.
You may consider going for a bigger picture and cover mechanics of bubble formation using housing as an example. "The Club of Greater Fools"?

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 10, 11:11am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

You are not getting the point. It's not about whether the bankruptcy statement it's true or not. It's about standards that they should set for themselves and adhere to - regarding which facts to check, and which to let go.

Like him or not, Ron Paul is a very bright guy. He know definition of bankruptcy and respects his audience enough to not feed them an obvious lie. His statement was not tied to technical definition of bankruptcy, everybody with half a brain would understand that.

We say things every day – about going to hell and back, about jumping a gun, about putting out fires. Those things are technically lies, yet no one would bother to call us on them.

Nevertheless. Suppose, that's the standard by which PolitiFact operate. Fine. But in this case, where is their field day with "57 states", "positive impacts at Solyndra", "we will win this election" (2010) Obama?

You'd be the first one to call it nitpicking. Nitpicking is fine, however, if it's Ron Paul. That's why "different comb" analogy is quite appropriate.

As for lack of 500 million jobs per month reference - need I say more.


iwog says

Other organizations like Snopes and Factcheck confirm what PolitiFact says is true. Republicans lie far more than Democrats. "Conservatives" lie far more than liberals. It's absolutely 100% true.

You just mixed strawman's argument with product of your (perhaps misguided) imagination following that strawman's argument. To make it look credible, I assume.

I call bull. Even PolitiFact could've caught that.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 11, 9:55am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Nice work but you've shown us the fatal flaw in your reasoning......

This is simply not so. There is "moral bankruptcy", "legal bankruptcy", "intellectual bankruptcy". There is type of bankruptcy when you are fine, legally, yet you are as good as bankrupt - you have no money and you can't get a loan.
Ron Paul explained exactly what he meant. His statement was - "US government is bankrupt, default will come through inflation"
That second part got conveniently omitted. Instead, PolitiFact tore out the first part and chose to stick to legal definition of bankruptcy, misrepresenting the intent. Why? And why do they not set same standards to others? Why does Obama by the same token not get called on - quote - "failed Presidency of George W. Bush"? (last I heard, Bush wasn't impeached - that would unambiguously define failure)

But back to Nancy Pelosi. It wasn't a slip, she was quite persistent with that line. It's a lie big enough to make Dr. Goebbels proud and envious at the same time. And it's not on her resume. Why, again?

iwog says

Lies about Obama: 80 (only counting red balls)
Lies about George Bush: 18

So let me get this straight. You prove that A lies more than B by showing that there are more lies about subset of B than about subset of A.

Try harder.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 11, 12:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

tatupu70 says

No--he proves that Republicans lie more than Democrats by showing how many lies Reps spread about Obama vs. how many Dem spread about Bush.

Inventing apples, inventing oranges, and then comparing the two.
I won't be wasting my time on you, tatupu70

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 13, 5:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Bap33 says

If not license, then how-a-bout drug testing to ensure sober voting? WOuld you agree to drug testing for illegal drugs and drunks before they can vote?

Heh.. legality of a substance is a subject to change (ex.: alcohol in prohibition days) Voters should have a say on this, including substance users - imho.

Weeding out non-contributors, indeed, is an entirely different story.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 13, 6:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

eastbay19 says

hoping to find a mid-range fixer in a half-decent Oakland neighborhood for 375 - 425. Right now that doesn't look like that's gonna pan out.

It's like that in most brackets. All anecdotal evidence suggests growing prices, high activity, and reduced bang per buck.

At least it was that way until recently. Perhaps things are changing, we'll see.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 2:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

I'm looking at this thread in disbelief.
Obama administration spends more than any other president. MORE than ANY.
But because he doesn't spend that-much-more - Forbes now calls him "the smallest government spender since Eisenhower"???

You want to build the case that spendings are not his fault because of deadlocks? Do that. You may succeed, at least for some audiences. But that's not what forbes does. Instead, they feed the readers a blatant lie, all under "would you believe" sause. It's disgusting.

Who do they think the readers are? Ok, it's been determined that porn stars overwhelmingly support Obama, being f$#ed in the head is their job hazard. What about the others, those with college degrees? Can't they see through this?

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 3:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Interesting. I didn't think that building new wood stoves is legal in CA - something about carbon black. At least, that's the story my builder gave me when I requested a wood fireplace. Perhaps it's only a permit issue for new houses, perhaps it's a local regulation, or possibly he was wrong.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 3:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Loyalty to the professional clan over the profession? This is a very dangerous trend. In case of police, it's also a characteristic of third world countries.

Very disturbing, indeed.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 3:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Unions and "No Child Left Behind". Two things that killed public education in US.

There is exactly ZERO motivation for a teacher to make his students best they can be. All motivation is misdirected into "not leaving behind".

Those two things make teaching profession very predictable, guided and guarded - in other words, a magnet for mediocracy. Teachers who excel have a choice - they can go to private sector and forfeit taxpayer-sponsored backing, or they can fight the current. They have it hard.

Edit: this probably belongs in the other thread, "what's wrong with public education" thread. Oh well.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 4:56am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Here is an obvious prediction of what would happen to a board that operates like this - combines three strikes rule with an easy path to becoming a decision make (i.e. a moderator)

A multi-partisan core will be unstable and will gravitate towards stability - a highly partisan core. All alternative points of view will be suppressed, their carriers - banned. Very quickly, such a board will turn into a circle jerk.

"But I'm not like that. I would not ban people for their views" Don't worry, someone else will.

Today, forum on is just left-leaning. With those rules, it will very quickly become a full scale liberal circle jerk.

Having said that. Dan8267, what posts specifically disturb you enough to raise this as an issue?

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 5:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Homeboy says

ALL the presidents on that chart spent more than any other president before him, genius. MORE than ANY

Therefore it's acceptable to lie, misrepresent facts, and redefine concepts. Is that what you are saying? WTF are you saying?

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 5:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

ame a single lie in that article. Be specific.

The header. Ah, the question mark. Aren't they full of shit with that question mark? (pun intended)
Ok then. "our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower"

He spends more - and he is tighter with a buck. I call bull.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 5:42am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

The amount of NEW spending that happened under Obama's watch is tiny.

Not even to question this statement alone. Why is it the NEW spending that matters? Does new debt erase old debt?

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 5:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

You are blind and I believe there is little hope of you ever seeing the truth. You are helping take this country down.

I could say the very same thing about you. Except the taking down part. In grand scheme of things, none of our opinions matter as long as we have a de facto two party system, both with their lobbyists and agendas.

What's worse, you don't ever seem to challenge your believes.

But we are here not to discuss characters, are we?

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 6:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Because Obama cannot stop old spending unless he's willing to break the law. Why don't you understand this?

When did I say that he should've? Example, please. When did I as much as imply that he should've? Example, please.

He spends more. It's a fact. How he got there is not the point. The point is a blatant lie based on twisting terms and misrepresenting facts. Decrease in growth is not the same as decrease in value.

So, which facts I contradict? Example, please.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 6:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Homeboy says

ALL the presidents on the chart increased spending. Obama did that LESS than the other presidents.

Do you know the difference between decrease in growth and decrease in value?

I blame publiK education.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 6:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Obama is NOT responsible for federal obligations passed under the Bush administration.

He inherited them. He also inherited benefits (questionable or not is a different topic) that came along with them.

He inherited a package; good one or not, but it's a package. You fail to see the other side of this package - stuff that came along with this money.

And then he felt the need to add on to that package.

You don't by a car if you can't pay for you house. He did.

And then he is called prudent. By the likes of you. As if the mortgage (and the house) don't exist.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 6:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog, just a test. There is a popular opinion that Obama is bought and paid for by Wall Street. What do you think about it?

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 16, 7:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Patrick, what forum engine do you use? Doesn't look like any of the popular picks (vbulletin, phpBB, etc)

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 17, 2:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      


Son, you are thick as molasses......Which part of that are you having trouble understanding?

Brief summary:
You defend a false statement that Obama spends less than predecessors. You get caught. Your pants are on fire. You think about how to make that lie credible. You appeal to the chart - the one that shows how every president spends more than predecessor. By that chart, Obama spends more than others. Then you try to pass growth in spendings for absolute value of spendings (and Obama does well compare to others on the chart) You get caught again. The fire on the pants gets bigger. You resort to personal pleasantries. Do you also cry quietly?

Which part I have trouble understanding? I have trouble understanding how someone with your mental capacity can type.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 17, 2:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

I think it's hogwash.

AIG bonuses, paid by bailout money. Yes, Obama criticized them post-factum. Pay no attention to what they say, pay attention to what they do.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 17, 2:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

It started out as Wordpress, but not much of the original code is left now.


  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 17, 5:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Homeboy says

That's an excellent work of fiction, son.

That's twice. You are persistent with that "son" line, you little bugger. Are you a priest? Liberal priest - that would explain illiteracy and lack of respect for trivial math.

Consider reading up on it, when you are not busy getting close and personal with altar boys.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 17, 6:19am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

lenar says

That's twice. You are persistent with that "son" line, you little bugger. Are you a priest? Liberal priest - that would explain illiteracy and lack of respect for trivial math.

Consider reading up on it, when you are not busy getting close and personal with altar boys.

Paragraph 1: Whining about someone being derogatory.

Paragraph 2: Derogatory personal insult.

Lovin the Pubes today.

Where do you see me whine? Example. One. Be specific.
I make an observation, an accurate one at that, and develop it further.

Another observation - you are gravely mistaken thinking that I'm Republican (I assume that's what you mean by Pub)
You, on the other hand, are an obvious Tard (oops) This puzzles me somewhat.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 17, 7:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Obama is the fiscal conservative president. That's obvious on the chart. Romney will likely fuck up the budget even more since that's what Republicans always do.

Hehe... I thought you don't like them fiscal conservatives:

iwog says

Do you want to know why the economy is so fucked up? It's because during a time in which the federal government SHOULD be spending money, Obama was prevented from doing so.

I'm not looking for an answer to this one. I think I understand your modus operandi: spending is good, inflation is good, it helps the economy, economy is a zero-sum game, inflation destroys passive savings, destroying of passive savings is good. Obama is good, he is a spender in his heart, but blocked by Congress, he may have more freedom during his second term, yet so far he looks prudent, let's throw it in "their" faces. In so many words. Feel free to correct.

Disagreeing wholeheartedly, but it's not the point.

You may have read that article about The Forgotten Depression of 1920 on - The depression of 1920 came with severe symptoms, yet it's forgotten. President Harding (R) cut government spendings, let market work things out, and the whole thing was over in couple of years.

There are no examples of government involvement killing a depression this large so fast. None. Zero. Zilch.

You must admit - the conclusion that depression must be dealt with by government interventions is illogical, from historical perspective. Yet it seems that you swear by it. Why?

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 17, 11:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Whatever you think about the 1920 depression, government involvement in the economy was practically non-existent before and non-existent after so I don't consider it a legitimate example.

Wait there. By what metric was government involvement in the economy non-existent in 1921? What, according to that metric, changed between 1921 and 1929?

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 18, 2:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Homeboy says

So here's where we are so far:

First imaginary conversations, then imaginary friends come. It's a dangerous path.
When you hear or read "go, Homeboy!" - it really is "go home, boy".
Go away. Adults are talking.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 19, 2:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Homeboy says

lenar says

First imaginary conversations, then imaginary friends come. It's a dangerous path.

When you hear or read "go, Homeboy!" - it really is "go home, boy".

Go away. Adults are talking.

Riiiight.... now you're gonna pretend your big trump card wasn't to call me a homosexual child molester. Unfortunately for you, your words are already out there. One only needs to scroll back up the page.

You're all class, Lenar.

We all saw that type on the playground. The ones that poke you and then run screaming "wolf". Couldn't stand them as a kid, don't tolerate them much better as an adult.

Homeboy, you were the one who _started_ communication with me by making a personal derogatory comment, and then continued in the same manner. Anybody can scroll up, going back to the first page, and see for themselves. I was quite patient with you at first.

You are one of those sleazy bully types - the whining type. You may think that if you whine long enough it will all go away. It won't.

Go, Homeboy.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 19, 8:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

If you apologize - don't do it in a weasel form.
If you don't - don't make it seem like you do.
I don't care either way, frankly.

Obama is singled out for a simple reason - that the article is about Obama. If the article were about Bush (either one), and it said that Bush (either one) spends less than the predecessor, I'd call bull on that as well.

As soon as you add a single dollar to already bloated budget - you spend more. Bottom line. Let's take a loan on a Kirby vacuum and add it to underwater home mortgage! It's only a vacuum, and the mortgage was taken long ago!

On the other hand, I can't help but notice that those big shots at Wall Street deserved their bailout-paid bonuses. Good for Obama to have sided with them. They meant well.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 19, 9:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Homeboy says

O.K., fuck you then.

I wouldn't let anyone like you anywhere near my privates, boy. Not even if you can suck tennis ball through a garden hose.

Here, ladies and gentlemen of the left, is a prime example of who keeps you company.

It's not you, it's me, boy. You are not my type. Don't call.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 20, 2:28pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says

Nothing changed, that's the point.

You can't make any conclusions about the 1920 recession regarding government intervention because government intervention in the economy was a foreign concept and didn't really exist in any form.

FDR was considered radical for suggesting that government had a role in helping the economy recover and he's considered the pioneer for such efforts.

Hoover was the original pioneer - new tariffs, public projects, Hoover Dam, tax increase up to 63% in the top bracket. FDR was a devoted follower and successor, despite the cross-party differences, but not a pioneer.

In many regards comparing 1920 and 1929 is as close to apple-to-apple as it gets in inherently non-repetitive world. Same place, same culture, similar level of government involvement at the get-go. Different strategies and different results - one is "Forgotten Depression", the other one is "Great Depression", bump on the road vs. chasm. Plus, the legacy - government intervention is now considered a norm.

Ignoring lessons of 1920 is like studying effects of heroin and removing non-user from control group.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 21, 5:15am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

leoj707 says

Not really, more like replacing masturbation.

Headaches, mood swings, other built-in features may help to humanize it. Then, it may be programmed to different levels for different levels of players – from sex-starved Samantha of Sex and the City to a frigid beauty queen in Silicon Valley.

We the humans crave for challenge, artificially created or not. Success of Tamagotchi shows that.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 21, 10:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Nothing new about fear of the machine. One word: Luddites.

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 21, 4:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

You might answer this question: Why did depressions happen on a regular basis before FDR but not afterwards?

Are you referring to this list - ?

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 22, 6:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says


Look at that list. Just look at it. Does it make sense that, according to it, 1933-1937 there was no recession? Or that there was no recession 1938-1945?

Or that recession of 2007 apparently ended in 2009 and apparently things were rosy ever since?

Or it makes more sense that whatever metric of recession they use has no relevance to health of economy, as it's felt by common folks?

I already discussed this particular list. It's is either inaccurate or useless. I'd vote for later. It's likely a list of local minimums. List of local minimums give almost no idea about form of a graph. It could grow, it could decline, or it could plato - there is zilch info. Put inflation on top of that (which became much bigger issue in post New World Order world) - and you don't even know what it is that you are measuring.

Do you really believe that 2009 was the last year of 2007 recession?

  lenar   ignore (0)   2012 Aug 22, 7:35am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

You have yet to make a logical argument why.

I did. See above about local minimums. Did you miss it?

If this is correct (sounds like it is), that list give no idea about form of a graph. I can draw 2 graphs, one growing, the other declining, first one having many more cyclical local minimums. Do I really need to go through the trouble?

iwog says

With respect to GDP yes it was.

I'm tempted to rest my case. Some recovery, eh? Yet in terms of some technical parameters you are correct. What's the merit of judging health of economy by those parameters, again? Not much. By the way, that GDP... was it adjusted for inflation? And if so, how was the inflation calculated?

iwog says

You didn't answer my question. Why are there no depressions after FDR and numerous depressions prior?

Sit on it. Let me first make sure you understand the part about local minimums (not patronizing, just bringing to the same page).