Example of "Corporate Greed"

You shore fixed that one fer me, Slobbrin!

I don't got no chance now!

Please read my historic meltdown. MoonBat will provide the link. There, feel better now, MoonBat?

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You asked for it -- You got it! (Although it's still amusing to see a conspiracy-mongering 9/11 Truther address anyone as "Moonbat!")

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=740839

Be sure to consider the first post (#28) wherein you set the tone for the discussion, in which you said the following -- and I quote you directly: "I know you're not as stupid as you sound. Please learn something."

You served notice with that post that you were only interested in insulting me, and had no intention whatsoever of making even the slightest effort to actually learn anything about the issue. Note that I had couched my argument, to which you responded with that cheap attack, in a perfectly polite and reasoned way.

Hence, you then and there earned my utter contempt, and showed that you richly deserved any opprobrium that might be heaped upon you thereafter. And the discussion went from bad to worse for you. Time after time, you demonstrated an absolutely stupefying level of ignorance, hurling gratuitous insults all the while. Your performance proved beyond any reasonable doubt that you never taught economics. In fact, I doubt seriously that you ever so much as even took a single college economics course. If you did, you sure as hell forgot everything you had learned. So, you're a bald-faced liar and a rank fraud. That's not remotely arguable, and I called you out on it. Deal with it.

Of course, you're able to insult other people's intelligence with virtually unmatched prolificity. Your problem is that those who wish to behave like that always do well to avoid otherwise coming off as uneducated, ignorant jackwagons. Got that, Professor Dunning-Kruger?

You have an incredible penchant for letting your charming combination of ignorance, impetuousness, and obnoxiousness write checks that your low-wattage brain can't cash.

Provide the link again, MoonBat!

Provide the link again, MoonBat! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You must think there's something in there with enough comedic value to warrant one of those cutesy little ROFL emoticons.

Perhaps you enjoy a good laugh, as do I. So here's a suggestion for you. Why don't you go ahead and tell us that you're a Nobel laureate in economics? Aim high, professor!

But I suppose that wouldn't be any more laughable than your absurd claim that you taught the subject at the university level.

C'mon, MoonBat! I want everyone to see how much "smarter" you than me!

C'mon, MoonBat! I want everyone to see how much "smarter" you than me! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

A bit embarrassing to be exposed as a liar and a fraud, eh, Mr. Dunning-Kruger?

So all you can do in response is dodge, deflect, and post cutesy little "ROFL" emoticons.

Yeah! That's sure to convince everyone that you're not an uneducated, ignorant jackwagon!

A bit embarrassing to be exposed as a liar and a fraud, eh, Mr. Dunning-Kruger?

So all you can do in response is dodge, deflect, and post cutesy little "ROFL" emoticons.

Yeah! That's sure to convince everyone that you're not an uneducated, ignorant jackwagon! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

How is it a dodge to request you to provide evidence of your superiority? C'mon. Let everyone see. Otherwise, you simply sound stupid. Oops, sorry! I mean otherwise you aren't believable.

How is it a dodge to request you to provide evidence of your superiority? C'mon. Let everyone see. Otherwise, you simply sound stupid. Oops, sorry! I mean otherwise you aren't believable.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I did not claim "superiority," other than to note that economics and taxation are obviously subjects about which you have very limited knowledge. Therefore, your continual claims that I "sounded stupid," and your obvious lie about nonexistent credentials, should be quite embarrassing to you. Which of us is the one who falsely claimed to have taught economics at the university level? So tell me once again: Who was desperate to make it look like he was debating from a position of "superiority?" (It backfired, too, didn't it?)

So everyone who read that thread could easily see that you have a very flimsy foundation upon which to build an edifice of insults and "you're sounding stupid" screeches. But if you want to continually advertise the (inarguable) fact that your claim to have taught university-level economics was a bald-face lie, be my guest!

Go re-read post #58 -- I think it pretty well points up the difference between you and me. Here, I'll help you out:

...Just as with everything else, there are topics that I don't know as much about as I'd like. History, for instance. I'd like to learn a lot more about it, and have begun compiling a reading list. A number of people in this forum undoubtedly know history a great deal better than I do. When I'm skeptical of a statement on that subject, I might ask a specific question, or challenge the author to offer a reasoned argument supporting it -- or perhaps a link. But I sure as hell wouldn't just start peppering him with continuous posts saying how "stupid" he sounds, while continually demonstrating my own lack of knowledge. That would just make me look like an utter fool, wouldn't it?

So, when I discuss a subject with someone vastly more familiar with it than I am, I come to the table to read and learn. That's how you grow, in my opinion.

But I realize that some people are here just because they get a kick out of trollish behavior and insult-spewing. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Got it now?

But go ahead and continue the liberal use of all those cutesy emoticons. There's no doubt that they bolster your "arguments" very effectively!

I did not claim "superiority," other than to note that economics and taxation are obviously subjects about which you have very limited knowledge. Therefore, your continual claims that I "sounded stupid," and your obvious lie about nonexistent credentials, should be quite embarrassing to you. Which of us is the one who falsely claimed to have taught economics at the university level? So tell me once again: Who was desperate to make it look like he was debating from a position of "superiority?" (It backfired, too, didn't it?)

So everyone who read that thread could easily see that you have a very flimsy foundation upon which to build an edifice of insults and "you're sounding stupid" screeches. But if you want to continually advertise the (inarguable) fact that your claim to have taught university-level economics was a bald-face lie, be my guest!

Go re-read post #58 -- I think it pretty well points up the difference between you and me. Here, I'll help you out:



Got it now?

But go ahead and continue the liberal use of all those cutesy emoticons. There's no doubt that they bolster your "arguments" very effectively! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I wasn't arguing. You're sounding stu . . . Er, I mean, you are being unclear. Sorry, almost slipped there!

I wasn't arguing. OK, you have a point there. Nonstop insult hurling doesn't rise to the level of being reasonably classifiable as "arguing." (Especially in your case, since you never attempted to make any point other than "You're sounding stupid!") You're sounding stu . . . Er, I mean, you are being unclear. Everything I've posted is perfectly clear to anyone with reasonably normal levels of comprehension. Sorry, almost slipped there!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

After it cannot possibly have failed to become obvious to you that you were going down the tubes in that FairTax debate, all you were capable of was impetuously lashing out. You surely must realize that it's incredibly embarrassing to pop off with an obviously false claim about having taught a subject that you clearly know little about. Perhaps you can explain what motivated you to do something that ridiculous.

Insecure much?

I too am still in shock over how much of the bailout was used to pay bonuses

I would say she summed it up with the title and link. Her opinion was simple and obvious to me.


Lumping her in with the list of names you gave is wrong on many levels. She has just as much right to make a simple statement and post a link as anyone does. She made a comment and gave a link what else is required. All the political rants and name calling mixed in with a few lies does not benefit anyone. Originally Posted by slingblade

Hey, dude, thanks a lot for your support. We all need that, whether we admit it or not.

After it cannot possibly have failed to become obvious to you that you were going down the tubes in that FairTax debate, all you were capable of was impetuously lashing out. You surely must realize that it's incredibly embarrassing to pop off with an obviously false claim about having taught a subject that you clearly know little about. Perhaps you can explain what motivated you to do something that ridiculous.

Insecure much? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I wasn't going down the tubes. You were. Post the link. Asshole.

I wasn't going down Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

LOL

I wasn't going down the tubes. You were. LOL! Sure thing, Professor Dunning-Kruger. Just keep right on telling yourself that. Nobody else believes it! Post the link. Already did -- in post #77. Look again, and pay attention this time, dunce. Asshole. Ha! Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black!!? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

LOL Originally Posted by i'va biggen

My sentiments exactly!

This clown seems hell-bent on nailing down his spot as the forum's #1 laughingstock, doesn't he?

And in this place, THAT is quite an achievement!

MoonBat, our delusional Captain. Post the thread. The evidence is clear. Now STFU.