Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Onceler how come you never play werewolf? Is it because Superfreak is in it? (totally understandable)
I have answered. I see how things are interconnected in the real world; you see #'s on a spreadsheet.
Wall Street, lending, borrowing, credit - all of these things do not exist independently of the nation's fiscal health. In fact, they ebb & flow in direct relation to the nation's fiscal health. The wars, the tax cuts, the "deficit spending doesn't matter philosophy"? All of those were a big deal when it came to the nation's fiscal health.
Onceler how come you never play werewolf? Is it because Superfreak is in it? (totally understandable)
Yes, that's it.
I actually don't know anything about the game, though I have seen the main threads...
LMAO... no moron, you have not answered. You still haven't. Even your below response isn't an answer. It is incredibly vague. It is easy to say 'the world is all connected man, everything flows with everything else, it is all connected and interdependent man'
Saying they 'do not exist independently of the nations fiscal health' is your answer?
Tell us... HOW THE FUCK did the wars, tax cuts and GOVERNMENT help cause the banking collapse. Try to be specific. Because right now you aren't even giving the 30k foot view, you are somewhere around Mars looking down.
No - that's not correct. My answer was not the hippy-dippy vaguery that you're indicating.
Fiscal irresponsibility leads to bad fiscal health, period. That's how it is in a household, company or country. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that Wall Street, borrowing or lending would have basically been the same independent of how the gov't handled its money.
What a frigging idiot you are. Really.
LMAO... so moron... tell us... if that was the case, why didn't the banks blow up before? We have had DECADES of fiscal irresponsibility from DC. Why did they not blow up before? Why aren't they blowing up again now despite continued reckless spending? I mean if Bush's $400b deficit was so bad that it caused it... why are the multi year trillion dollar+ deficits of Obama not tanking the entire banking industry?
Yes, you answer WAS the hippy-dippy vagueness that I described. You still run around chanting 'they are all connected man' and yet continue to cower away from answering HOW. HOW DID THEY CAUSE THE BANKS TO IMPLODE. Simply saying 'because they are connected man' is not a fucking answer. They have ALWAYS had some degree of connection. So WHAT is it that you think caused it? As I stated, quite being a coward and be specific.
LOL
Why didn't it blow up before? Gee, I dunno, SF - ever hear of a tipping point?
Were you aware of the housing bubble during the past decade or so?
Funny stuff, MAN.
Why don't you just admit you have these stupid scenarios the left has instilled in you to blame someone other than them and their policy for this economy and you can't explain when your asked to explain....
Its not funny at all,....its rather sad an adult can be so ignorant of the very history he has lived thorough and witnessed first hand with such
a foreign perspective to reality......
Your view of reality is just so perfectly the view written by the liberal leaning msm.....the lies still intact and the spin still gospel to you.....
LMAO... so moron... tell us... if that was the case, why didn't the banks blow up before? We have had DECADES of fiscal irresponsibility from DC. Why did they not blow up before? Why aren't they blowing up again now despite continued reckless spending? I mean if Bush's $400b deficit was so bad that it caused it... why are the multi year trillion dollar+ deficits of Obama not tanking the entire banking industry?
Yes, you answer WAS the hippy-dippy vagueness that I described. You still run around chanting 'they are all connected man' and yet continue to cower away from answering HOW. HOW DID THEY CAUSE THE BANKS TO IMPLODE. Simply saying 'because they are connected man' is not a fucking answer. They have ALWAYS had some degree of connection. So WHAT is it that you think caused it? As I stated, quite being a coward and be specific.
What you are in essence saying is that it doesn't matter how fiscally irresponsible the government is, or how many extra trillions they spend. It is completely, 100% independent of the rest of the economy, and by extension, the health of the banking system.
That is not a strawman. That is what you are saying.
correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you actually arguing that it doesn't matter how fiscally irresponsible the government is or how many extra trillions they spend now, because somebody else was fiscally irresponsible and spent many extra trillions of dollars before.........and you think that isn't fucked?........
LOL
Why didn't it blow up before? Gee, I dunno, SF - ever hear of a tipping point?
Were you aware of the housing bubble during the past decade or so?
Who the fuck are you? Bush's 400B deficit? Really? Try 6 trillion you fucking hack liar.
As to why, why don't you explain the difference between shipping tractor-trailer loads of cash and losing it (?) in Irag, and Obama's deficit spending, you retard shill.
I was referring to his single year 'unprecedented record' which was about $400-500B. Compared to the $1 Trillion plus PER YEAR that Obama has run. Sorry, I forget sometimes that there are complete idiots on this board that need every detail spelled out for them.
The difference is billions vs. TRILLIONS. There are three extra zeroes in trillions.
No, shit for brains, the difference is that the money spent in Iraq is wasted, to a penny, whereas money spent in this country is invested, but don't let the truth stop you, you are on a roll.
I was referring to his single year 'unprecedented record' which was about $400-500B. Compared to the $1 Trillion plus PER YEAR that Obama has run. Sorry, I forget sometimes that there are complete idiots on this board that need every detail spelled out for them.
The difference is billions vs. TRILLIONS. There are three extra zeroes in trillions.
Do you seriously believe that it wouldn't have been much much more if the financial crisis had happened whilst Bush was still in power?
LMAO... wow, you really drank the kool-aid didn't you? The money was 'invested'??? Here's a cracker for the good little parrot...
LMAO... so moron... tell us... if that was the case, why didn't the banks blow up before? We have had DECADES of fiscal irresponsibility from DC. Why did they not blow up before? Why aren't they blowing up again now despite continued reckless spending? I mean if Bush's $400b deficit was so bad that it caused it... why are the multi year trillion dollar+ deficits of Obama not tanking the entire banking industry?
Yes, you answer WAS the hippy-dippy vagueness that I described. You still run around chanting 'they are all connected man' and yet continue to cower away from answering HOW. HOW DID THEY CAUSE THE BANKS TO IMPLODE. Simply saying 'because they are connected man' is not a fucking answer. They have ALWAYS had some degree of connection. So WHAT is it that you think caused it? As I stated, quite being a coward and be specific.