The Forum > General Discussion > Bushrangers, democracy and economics
Bushrangers, democracy and economics
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Page 12
-
- All
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 31 March 2014 2:37:46 PM
| |
FOR SOME REASON..I KEEP HEARING THE WORDS ''Credit Suisse ''
SO I ADD IN A KEY WORD SCANDEL TWO choices 2008/2012 http://www.google.com.au/search?q=credit+suisse+scandal& sometimes those paid to spin dont as such point away..but to so the 2008..RESULTED IN A MERE TRILLION FINES THANK GOD GOVTS BEEN BAILING OUT BUT GOVT HASNT BEEN BAILING THE FED RESERVE HAS WELL THE FED NOW IS haVING A LOT OF TROUBLE BUT HECK YA KNEW THAT http://whatreallyhappened.com/ http://www.voltairenet.org/article159686.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC8zGrOVq7w http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/29/beyond-a-doubt-our-media-war-propaganda-and-the-film-that-you-almost-didnt-see/ Posted by one under god, Monday, 31 March 2014 2:53:00 PM
| |
Dear spindoc,
Now, now son that's jumping the gun a bit don't you think? All these things can be raised when we get to your question and I look forward to doing so, but there were other matters that preceded it and this will make it your 10th attempt not to address them. On Wednesday, 26 March 2014 5:35:56 PM you posted the following this charge; “Hi Steelie, Likewise, so good to hear from you, or at least via you. (Channeling the opinion of others). I’m curious as to why you don’t have an opinion of your own? Huffington Post? Davos? When are you going to formulate or express your OWN opinion?” On Thursday, 27 March 2014 3:16:33 PM after a detailed explanation from me you chose to further reinforced the point; “You can insist as long as you like that this is all your own opinion however, this is not true is it?” And on Friday, 28 March 2014 7:55:57 AM you had another crack with; “Since it was non of the above you are now left with trying to defend the opinion of Eric Zueese” All delivered before you put your question to me. I have repeatedly asked you to address your charge but it has been 10 posts from you of obfuscation culminating in a faux apology. I wasn't after an apology, just an acknowledgement that you were incorrect in your charge against me. All your bleating does not change this chronology and as previously stated the only logical way forward is to address these matters in the order they were put. If you feel this simple thing is too onerous then so be it but I'm not the one who should be wearing the blame for it. Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 31 March 2014 3:06:52 PM
| |
Hi Steelie,
Relax, you no longer need to answer the question, I just did it for you! Perhaps you should do more “reading” of posts and less “feeling” then you might have noticed. I guess we just got tired of getting jerked around. Thanks anyway. Posted by spindoc, Monday, 31 March 2014 8:09:52 PM
| |
Dear spindoc,
You wrote; “I guess we just got tired of getting jerked around.” Indeed. Yet I do feel we achieved a small measure of reasonable debate and gave each other the courtesy of allowing the other to fully elucidate their point of contention. In closing I will just raise a small point of clarification. You wrote; “Relax, you no longer need to answer the question, I just did it for you!” Well not the original one you didn't. You had put to me; “explain your perspective on the “difference” between private, institutional and corporate wealth.” and “you must address the outstanding points related to your perspective on the “difference” between private, institutional and corporate wealth”. You do not know my perspective you have just given yours and assumed it to be the answer just like you assumed the opinion I posted was not mine. Be that as it may I was pleased to see the epitaphs disappear from the conversation. 'Slippery' to 'Mug' to 'Idiot' to 'Al Bundy' plus I acknowledge I do have to ease up on tit for tat exchanges. Likewise always meeting belligerence with belligerence is a bit like forever eating McDonalds, enjoyable at the time but hardly substantial fare. Finally my thanks to your good self as well. Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 31 March 2014 10:49:45 PM
|
What you also failed to mention in your “not too subtle” change of motive and purpose, was that the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook was focused on “households” and not on the type of “private wealth” you so despise and want to see re-distributed. It might have been wise if you had actually read it rather than just the associated article.
Typically you chose to ignore all other forms of private, institutional or corporate wealth in order to make room for your case against the likes of “Gina, Twiggy and Prince Clive”.
The Wealth Report has this to say;
“The aim of the Credit Suisse Global Wealth project is to provide the best available estimates of the wealth holdings of households around the world for the period”.
You just “bent” this by the omission of “households” to suit your ideological needs.
Your modus operandi is both interesting and informative. Your use of motive questioning, thought numbing clichés, inducing guilt, providing over simplistic answers to the confusion you create, absolutism, blind acceptance of your orthodoxy, rejection of logic through complex responses (11 posts?) with incomprehensible doctrines, just to mention a few.
In your case we can also add omission, obfuscation, hypocrisy, diversion and a level of desperation to be right that goes way beyond the boundary defined by honor.
All because you refused to entertain any questioning of your proposition or to acknowledge the basis for not providing any answer, won’t or can’t.
(This comes under Cult Attribute No 1, “Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged”).
Just how does a person justify 11 lengthy, convoluted and diversionary posts, just to avoid one question?
We may never know the answer to this because you exist in a closed doctrinaire bubble that is self referential. Since no critical questions are seen as legitimate I guess we will see either more of the same from you, or you will shift to the mantra that being criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".