The lie that when wages go up,jobs go down

[dblack]

In New Jersey full-services gas stations are thriving!

Wow, must be a market for them. Is this weather driven?

Hmmm.... uh, not exactly...

I think I'm not getting the joke.....

The legislature of the great state of New Jersey, in their infinite wisdom, concluded that New Jersey citizens could not be trusted to pump their own gas. This is (somewhat) understandable to anyone who's ever been to New Jersey.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Kaz,

You have no intention of addressing the perfectly reasonable question about Labor Supply Elasticity, do you?

Why?

Reading isn't your thing, is it? If you want to discuss it, do it without the ad hominem. Obviously if you can't ask a question without ad hominem, your desire to actually discuss it is not genuine.

How do you possibly not grasp that?

Which brings us back to....

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?

Once again I ask "where is the ad hominem"?(entirely certain that you will persist in your Sniveling).

Um ... the first two sentences answer the question in the third, idiot.

I don't give a shit. The choice is yours. Discussion or insults. Pick. Either way is fine, gay boy, but stop crying

Simple exercise


Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


I guess I will need to specify that DEMONSTRATING involves much more than "repeatedly re-bleating"......you would want to identify the PARTICULAR WORD OR PHRASE which fits the definition.....

Savvy?

 

[kaz]

Kaz,

You have no intention of addressing the perfectly reasonable question about Labor Supply Elasticity, do you?

Why?

Reading isn't your thing, is it? If you want to discuss it, do it without the ad hominem. Obviously if you can't ask a question without ad hominem, your desire to actually discuss it is not genuine.

How do you possibly not grasp that?

Which brings us back to....

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?

Once again I ask "where is the ad hominem"?(entirely certain that you will persist in your Sniveling).

Um ... the first two sentences answer the question in the third, idiot.

I don't give a shit. The choice is yours. Discussion or insults. Pick. Either way is fine, gay boy, but stop crying

Simple exercise


Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


I guess I will need to specify that DEMONSTRATING involves much more than "repeatedly re-bleating"......you would want to identify the PARTICULAR WORD OR PHRASE which fits the definition.....

Savvy?

I'm not the one who doesn't know what an ad hominem argument is, you are. You just presented two ad hominem sentences and then asked where you went ad hominem. I'm not doing your work for you. Obviously you have no interest in a genuine discussion.

I offered you the choice. Discuss or insult. That you keep whining you want both isn't of interest to me. It never happens, anyway, the insults always dominate. It also shows you're disingenuous about wanting a discussion in the first place.

How many times do I need to explain the same thing to you? How stupid are you?

If you want to discuss the elasticity of labor, put aside the ad hominem and do it. Or don't. It's your choice. If you pick serious discussion, I won't insult you directly or indirectly and I will continue to not insult you until we finish or you start insulting me.

What about this do you fail to understand?

 

[hadit]

Rein it in, Speedy. Remember, we're not talking about making a career out of pumping someone's gas. We're talking about a teenager looking to make a little money and get some valuable job skills as well as a work history. If he can do that, he'll be ahead of his classmates when it comes time to get that career started, whatever that may be.

Fabulous...now get out there and really sell it!

Don't have to, it sells itself.

Apparently not so much.....I've been washing my own windshields for 35 years.

Of course, because it's cheaper to put a dozen self-serve pumps out than to hire somebody to do it for you. Congratulations, you've figured it out. Like I said, it sells itself.

Was there something ambiguous about my sarcasm?

You need to get to work, because judging by the available evidence, your notion is not being embraced.........

And here I thought you were starting to see the light. Not so much.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Kaz,

You have no intention of addressing the perfectly reasonable question about Labor Supply Elasticity, do you?

Why?

Reading isn't your thing, is it? If you want to discuss it, do it without the ad hominem. Obviously if you can't ask a question without ad hominem, your desire to actually discuss it is not genuine.

How do you possibly not grasp that?

Which brings us back to....

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?

Once again I ask "where is the ad hominem"?(entirely certain that you will persist in your Sniveling).

Um ... the first two sentences answer the question in the third, idiot.

I don't give a shit. The choice is yours. Discussion or insults. Pick. Either way is fine, gay boy, but stop crying

Simple exercise


Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


I guess I will need to specify that DEMONSTRATING involves much more than "repeatedly re-bleating"......you would want to identify the PARTICULAR WORD OR PHRASE which fits the definition.....

Savvy?

I'm not the one who doesn't know what an ad hominem argument is, you are. You just presented two ad hominem sentences and then asked where you went ad hominem. I'm not doing your work for you. Obviously you have no interest in a genuine discussion.

I offered you the choice. Discuss or insult. That you keep whining you want both isn't of interest to me. It never happens, anyway, the insults always dominate. It also shows you're disingenuous about wanting a discussion in the first place.

How many times do I need to explain the same thing to you? How stupid are you?

If you want to discuss the elasticity of labor, put aside the ad hominem and do it. Or don't. It's your choice. If you pick serious discussion, I won't insult you directly or indirectly and I will continue to not insult you until we finish or you start insulting me.

What about this do you fail to understand?

Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?



Man up, you whinging pussy!

 

[kaz]

Fabulous...now get out there and really sell it!

Don't have to, it sells itself.

Apparently not so much.....I've been washing my own windshields for 35 years.

Of course, because it's cheaper to put a dozen self-serve pumps out than to hire somebody to do it for you. Congratulations, you've figured it out. Like I said, it sells itself.

Was there something ambiguous about my sarcasm?

You need to get to work, because judging by the available evidence, your notion is not being embraced.........

And here I thought you were starting to see the light. Not so much.

Larry always imagines hundreds, maybe thousands of posters are hanging on his every word cheering with every insult and laughing with every joke. We're just tackling dummies for him. It's him they adore. We're like the team that plays the Harlem Globe Trotters ... in his mind ...

 

[IcebergSlim]

Fabulous...now get out there and really sell it!

Don't have to, it sells itself.

Apparently not so much.....I've been washing my own windshields for 35 years.

Of course, because it's cheaper to put a dozen self-serve pumps out than to hire somebody to do it for you. Congratulations, you've figured it out. Like I said, it sells itself.

Was there something ambiguous about my sarcasm?

You need to get to work, because judging by the available evidence, your notion is not being embraced.........

And here I thought you were starting to see the light. Not so much.

What I see is little or no evidence supporting your assertion...

Have you met Kaz?

No...wait.....that was unnecessarily cruel and inaccurate.....Kaz is a total pussy.......you're just mistaken....

My apologies...

 

[kaz]

Reading isn't your thing, is it? If you want to discuss it, do it without the ad hominem. Obviously if you can't ask a question without ad hominem, your desire to actually discuss it is not genuine.

How do you possibly not grasp that?

Which brings us back to....

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?

Once again I ask "where is the ad hominem"?(entirely certain that you will persist in your Sniveling).

Um ... the first two sentences answer the question in the third, idiot.

I don't give a shit. The choice is yours. Discussion or insults. Pick. Either way is fine, gay boy, but stop crying

Simple exercise


Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


I guess I will need to specify that DEMONSTRATING involves much more than "repeatedly re-bleating"......you would want to identify the PARTICULAR WORD OR PHRASE which fits the definition.....

Savvy?

I'm not the one who doesn't know what an ad hominem argument is, you are. You just presented two ad hominem sentences and then asked where you went ad hominem. I'm not doing your work for you. Obviously you have no interest in a genuine discussion.

I offered you the choice. Discuss or insult. That you keep whining you want both isn't of interest to me. It never happens, anyway, the insults always dominate. It also shows you're disingenuous about wanting a discussion in the first place.

How many times do I need to explain the same thing to you? How stupid are you?

If you want to discuss the elasticity of labor, put aside the ad hominem and do it. Or don't. It's your choice. If you pick serious discussion, I won't insult you directly or indirectly and I will continue to not insult you until we finish or you start insulting me.

What about this do you fail to understand?

Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?



Man up, you whinging pussy!

You're the one passing on having a conversation without insults. The pussy being you is pretty damned clear

 

[WillReadmore]

Can't figure out what 1) has to do with the availability of jobs

2) Between Feb 2001 and Feb 2009 private sector CONTRACTED by more than 1 million, while the labor force expanded by more than 8

3) Pretty much the story since 2011.....accelerating in 2014...

Why are you Communists so fucking dishonest?

No, the private sector did not contract between Feb 2001, and Feb 2009.

In fact, between Feb 2001, and Feb 2007, it vastly EXPANDED.

But you seek to paint this as if there was a recession all along. Sigh, the next time a Communist tells the truth will be the first time.

No, the private sector did not contract between Feb 2001, and Feb 2009.

In fact, between Feb 2001, and Feb 2007, it vastly EXPANDED.

The context was private sector employment....

All Employees: Total Private Industries

Post the numbers for Feb. 2001 and Feb 2009...

Just the numbers..... Leave the math to the Numerate.

Again, you're being dishonest. That the 2008 recession wiped out the employment growth from earlier is well known. Sadly, the housing collapse created a panic, which drove the economy FAR lower than it should have gone.

Normally I would have expected a rebound in 2009, from such a panic induced drop, But we had Obama, so it went on until 2014.....

No, you are trivializing as well as generalizing.

The crash made some permanent changes by wiping out life savings, giving people a different view on how they save, how they spend, etc.

Also, corporations were squeezed in a way that caused them to figure out how to be productive without hiring employees.

So, for example, manufacturing output recovered quite rapidly - a steep upward curve showing near total recovery by 2013 or so. On the other hand, manufacturing employment didn't even bottom out until 2010 or 2011, and it has shown weak growth in that same period of industry success.

The point is that the crash, possibly along with other changes within the same years, made changes in our habits of spending and saving and has left us with significantly less employment in some sectors.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Don't have to, it sells itself.

Apparently not so much.....I've been washing my own windshields for 35 years.

Of course, because it's cheaper to put a dozen self-serve pumps out than to hire somebody to do it for you. Congratulations, you've figured it out. Like I said, it sells itself.

Was there something ambiguous about my sarcasm?

You need to get to work, because judging by the available evidence, your notion is not being embraced.........

And here I thought you were starting to see the light. Not so much.

Larry always imagines hundreds, maybe thousands of posters are hanging on his every word cheering with every insult and laughing with every joke. We're just tackling dummies for him. It's him they adore. We're like the team that plays the Harlem Globe Trotters ... in his mind ...

Larry?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Which brings us back to....

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?

Once again I ask "where is the ad hominem"?(entirely certain that you will persist in your Sniveling).

Um ... the first two sentences answer the question in the third, idiot.

I don't give a shit. The choice is yours. Discussion or insults. Pick. Either way is fine, gay boy, but stop crying

Simple exercise


Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


I guess I will need to specify that DEMONSTRATING involves much more than "repeatedly re-bleating"......you would want to identify the PARTICULAR WORD OR PHRASE which fits the definition.....

Savvy?

I'm not the one who doesn't know what an ad hominem argument is, you are. You just presented two ad hominem sentences and then asked where you went ad hominem. I'm not doing your work for you. Obviously you have no interest in a genuine discussion.

I offered you the choice. Discuss or insult. That you keep whining you want both isn't of interest to me. It never happens, anyway, the insults always dominate. It also shows you're disingenuous about wanting a discussion in the first place.

How many times do I need to explain the same thing to you? How stupid are you?

If you want to discuss the elasticity of labor, put aside the ad hominem and do it. Or don't. It's your choice. If you pick serious discussion, I won't insult you directly or indirectly and I will continue to not insult you until we finish or you start insulting me.

What about this do you fail to understand?

Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?



Man up, you whinging pussy!

You're the one passing on having a conversation without insults. The pussy being you is pretty damned clear

You're so fragile your vapors are aggravated by IMAGINED ad hom...

here:

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


Just UNDERLINE the words which hurt you so.....

 

[kaz]

Apparently not so much.....I've been washing my own windshields for 35 years.

Of course, because it's cheaper to put a dozen self-serve pumps out than to hire somebody to do it for you. Congratulations, you've figured it out. Like I said, it sells itself.

Was there something ambiguous about my sarcasm?

You need to get to work, because judging by the available evidence, your notion is not being embraced.........

And here I thought you were starting to see the light. Not so much.

Larry always imagines hundreds, maybe thousands of posters are hanging on his every word cheering with every insult and laughing with every joke. We're just tackling dummies for him. It's him they adore. We're like the team that plays the Harlem Globe Trotters ... in his mind ...

Larry?

I already explained that one to you

 

[kaz]

Um ... the first two sentences answer the question in the third, idiot.

I don't give a shit. The choice is yours. Discussion or insults. Pick. Either way is fine, gay boy, but stop crying

Simple exercise


Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


I guess I will need to specify that DEMONSTRATING involves much more than "repeatedly re-bleating"......you would want to identify the PARTICULAR WORD OR PHRASE which fits the definition.....

Savvy?

I'm not the one who doesn't know what an ad hominem argument is, you are. You just presented two ad hominem sentences and then asked where you went ad hominem. I'm not doing your work for you. Obviously you have no interest in a genuine discussion.

I offered you the choice. Discuss or insult. That you keep whining you want both isn't of interest to me. It never happens, anyway, the insults always dominate. It also shows you're disingenuous about wanting a discussion in the first place.

How many times do I need to explain the same thing to you? How stupid are you?

If you want to discuss the elasticity of labor, put aside the ad hominem and do it. Or don't. It's your choice. If you pick serious discussion, I won't insult you directly or indirectly and I will continue to not insult you until we finish or you start insulting me.

What about this do you fail to understand?

Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?



Man up, you whinging pussy!

You're the one passing on having a conversation without insults. The pussy being you is pretty damned clear

You're so fragile your vapors are aggravated by IMAGINED ad hom...

here:

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


Just UNDERLINE the words which hurt you so.....

Ah, I see you came back in from banging your dick on trees to demonstrate your virility. Personally I think it makes you look like a moron banking your dick on a tree. But whatever

 

[IcebergSlim]

Can't figure out what 1) has to do with the availability of jobs

2) Between Feb 2001 and Feb 2009 private sector CONTRACTED by more than 1 million, while the labor force expanded by more than 8

3) Pretty much the story since 2011.....accelerating in 2014...

Why are you Communists so fucking dishonest?

No, the private sector did not contract between Feb 2001, and Feb 2009.

In fact, between Feb 2001, and Feb 2007, it vastly EXPANDED.

But you seek to paint this as if there was a recession all along. Sigh, the next time a Communist tells the truth will be the first time.

No, the private sector did not contract between Feb 2001, and Feb 2009.

In fact, between Feb 2001, and Feb 2007, it vastly EXPANDED.

The context was private sector employment....

All Employees: Total Private Industries

Post the numbers for Feb. 2001 and Feb 2009...

Just the numbers..... Leave the math to the Numerate.

Again, you're being dishonest. That the 2008 recession wiped out the employment growth from earlier is well known. Sadly, the housing collapse created a panic, which drove the economy FAR lower than it should have gone.

Normally I would have expected a rebound in 2009, from such a panic induced drop, But we had Obama, so it went on until 2014.....

No, you are trivializing as well as generalizing.

The crash made some permanent changes by wiping out life savings, giving people a different view on how they save, how they spend, etc.

Also, corporations were squeezed in a way that caused them to figure out how to be productive without hiring employees.

So, for example, manufacturing output recovered quite rapidly - a steep upward curve showing near total recovery by 2013 or so. On the other hand, manufacturing employment didn't even bottom out until 2010 or 2011, and it has shown weak growth in that same period of industry success.

The point is that the crash, possibly along with other changes within the same years, made changes in our habits of spending and saving and has left us with significantly less employment in some sectors.

Oh, it's so much better than that....

a) note how Scrub's record must be viewed EXCLUSIVE of the disastrous effects of his stewardship, while Obama must drag that burden.

b) No thought is given to the fact that to the extent that there WAS a "Scrub boom", it was pretty much ENTIRELY due to consumers borrowing against their homes - in short, Hadit, and his elk (relax, Kazzie......it's an inside joke) want the benefits on behalf of Scrub, but insist that the tab be handed to his successor.

and, anticipating the chorus of uninformed and unsupported umbrage..

Let's look at a graph I used two years ago, from work done by James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.

WAIT FOR THE MONEY SHOT!

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death

 

[IcebergSlim]

Of course, because it's cheaper to put a dozen self-serve pumps out than to hire somebody to do it for you. Congratulations, you've figured it out. Like I said, it sells itself.

Was there something ambiguous about my sarcasm?

You need to get to work, because judging by the available evidence, your notion is not being embraced.........

And here I thought you were starting to see the light. Not so much.

Larry always imagines hundreds, maybe thousands of posters are hanging on his every word cheering with every insult and laughing with every joke. We're just tackling dummies for him. It's him they adore. We're like the team that plays the Harlem Globe Trotters ... in his mind ...

Larry?

I already explained that one to you

Give me the short version again...

 

[Uncensored2008]

You might have a point if I was a national socialist but im not so. Its no surprise its obvious righties and lefties depend on the stupid and the weak to buy into your bullshit

I hope Dylann Roof suffers when they put him down like the rabid dog he is.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Simple exercise


Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


I guess I will need to specify that DEMONSTRATING involves much more than "repeatedly re-bleating"......you would want to identify the PARTICULAR WORD OR PHRASE which fits the definition.....

Savvy?

I'm not the one who doesn't know what an ad hominem argument is, you are. You just presented two ad hominem sentences and then asked where you went ad hominem. I'm not doing your work for you. Obviously you have no interest in a genuine discussion.

I offered you the choice. Discuss or insult. That you keep whining you want both isn't of interest to me. It never happens, anyway, the insults always dominate. It also shows you're disingenuous about wanting a discussion in the first place.

How many times do I need to explain the same thing to you? How stupid are you?

If you want to discuss the elasticity of labor, put aside the ad hominem and do it. Or don't. It's your choice. If you pick serious discussion, I won't insult you directly or indirectly and I will continue to not insult you until we finish or you start insulting me.

What about this do you fail to understand?

Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?



Man up, you whinging pussy!

You're the one passing on having a conversation without insults. The pussy being you is pretty damned clear

You're so fragile your vapors are aggravated by IMAGINED ad hom...

here:

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


Just UNDERLINE the words which hurt you so.....

Ah, I see you came back in from banging your dick on trees to demonstrate your virility. Personally I think it makes you look like a moron banking your dick on a tree. But whatever

So the ad hom is manifest, but you cannot speak its name?

Sounds like your hobby, Princess.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Can't figure out what 1) has to do with the availability of jobs

2) Between Feb 2001 and Feb 2009 private sector CONTRACTED by more than 1 million, while the labor force expanded by more than 8

3) Pretty much the story since 2011.....accelerating in 2014...

Why are you Communists so fucking dishonest?

No, the private sector did not contract between Feb 2001, and Feb 2009.

In fact, between Feb 2001, and Feb 2007, it vastly EXPANDED.

But you seek to paint this as if there was a recession all along. Sigh, the next time a Communist tells the truth will be the first time.

No, the private sector did not contract between Feb 2001, and Feb 2009.

In fact, between Feb 2001, and Feb 2007, it vastly EXPANDED.

The context was private sector employment....

All Employees: Total Private Industries

Post the numbers for Feb. 2001 and Feb 2009...

Just the numbers..... Leave the math to the Numerate.

Again, you're being dishonest. That the 2008 recession wiped out the employment growth from earlier is well known. Sadly, the housing collapse created a panic, which drove the economy FAR lower than it should have gone.

Normally I would have expected a rebound in 2009, from such a panic induced drop, But we had Obama, so it went on until 2014.....

What part of

2) Between Feb 2001 and Feb 2009 private sector CONTRACTED by more than 1 million, while the labor force expanded by more than 8

is "dishonest"?

I assume you must have checked the link I provided..

That the 2008 recession wiped out the employment growth from earlier is well known.


So how did that employment growth compare to the Recovery upon which you heap such contempt?

I'm seeing that red line quite consistently UNDERNEATH the blue line.....

You?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Simple exercise


Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


I guess I will need to specify that DEMONSTRATING involves much more than "repeatedly re-bleating"......you would want to identify the PARTICULAR WORD OR PHRASE which fits the definition.....

Savvy?

I'm not the one who doesn't know what an ad hominem argument is, you are. You just presented two ad hominem sentences and then asked where you went ad hominem. I'm not doing your work for you. Obviously you have no interest in a genuine discussion.

I offered you the choice. Discuss or insult. That you keep whining you want both isn't of interest to me. It never happens, anyway, the insults always dominate. It also shows you're disingenuous about wanting a discussion in the first place.

How many times do I need to explain the same thing to you? How stupid are you?

If you want to discuss the elasticity of labor, put aside the ad hominem and do it. Or don't. It's your choice. If you pick serious discussion, I won't insult you directly or indirectly and I will continue to not insult you until we finish or you start insulting me.

What about this do you fail to understand?

Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?



Man up, you whinging pussy!

You're the one passing on having a conversation without insults. The pussy being you is pretty damned clear

You're so fragile your vapors are aggravated by IMAGINED ad hom...

here:

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


Just UNDERLINE the words which hurt you so.....

Ah, I see you came back in from banging your dick on trees to demonstrate your virility. Personally I think it makes you look like a moron banking your dick on a tree. But whatever

Some of us have got enough to swing........

You find it easier to squat, right?

 

[kaz]

Was there something ambiguous about my sarcasm?

You need to get to work, because judging by the available evidence, your notion is not being embraced.........

And here I thought you were starting to see the light. Not so much.

Larry always imagines hundreds, maybe thousands of posters are hanging on his every word cheering with every insult and laughing with every joke. We're just tackling dummies for him. It's him they adore. We're like the team that plays the Harlem Globe Trotters ... in his mind ...

Larry?

I already explained that one to you

Give me the short version again...

What your avatar is wearing