Does that mean you're too smart to learn from Friedman? You really do have a self-inflated opinion of yourself. Yet, you're still stuck here in backing up the claim you made.
No, but it does mean that you're barking up the wrong tree. You’re so painfully dumb that I have repeated what I’ve already said three times: my argument here is that we have bigger issues than what BT has brought up.
Get it now?
Keep waiting
I know the meaning of wherewithal. If that is something you consider noteworthy then you have very low standards. Are your kids in special-ed?
No, that’s one of the things that a snot-nosed kid like you needs to learn before attempting to debate. My “kids” aren’t in special-ed, but you apparently needed to be.
Friedman was an economist, which means he was regularly involved in looking at facts and stats to ascertain some trend and meaning. It means he wasn't always present at the locale. He made lots of comparisons with USA to other countries like Sweden and Hong Kong.
So, tell me Einstein, did he just shoot off his mouth like some know-nothing kid from Tasmania or did he use scholarly methods to arrive at his conclusions?
So you just continously make yourself look like a dumbass. Especially since Australia's economic system, laws and even its history align greatly with Americas.
The only person who not only makes himself look like an ass but apparently is one is you. There’s a reason you don’t get to vote, hell even enter the US without a visa, and I do. It’s called citizenship. Learn the meaning and then come put your stupidity on public display.
Can you imagine some moron coming and telling him he couldn't because he didn't live there?
No, but I can imagine telling
you that.
Furthermore, I already gave you Friedman's thoughts on the subject. He was asked in that video if he was ever poor - the discussion was responsibility to the poor - and he said that although he was, it was irrelevant; you wouldn't ask your doctor if they had cancer to be able to treat yours.
Good for you and Friedman. Now, if you’re done citing him for things like taking a dump, go and educate yourself about what modern economists like Krugman and Reich have to say.
You wrote some halfassed comment you thought no one would pick on. Now that you've been called on it you're squirming to avoid it. And everyone can see it. Haha. Normally I'd not care, but you brought me into it.
No, dumb
ass )), what I wrote
are in fact the methodologies for formal research. Of course, that’s for people with half a brain, you can stick to he-said-she-said bullshit you learned in your daddy’s restaurant. From what I gather, you’ve jumped head first into spreading crap all your life, all without my help.
You went on some stupid rant about methodologies, the flaws and inconclusiveness of certain studies. Ok fine, anyone who has had higher education knows that; but why don't you actually read some of the studies and counter them? You then went to talk about the handouts to the rich. In essence, you did everything you could to change the subject or focus so your political persuasions didn't have to suffer for them.
Go learn a few things before making yourself look like the fool that you are. Like I said, those are the accepted methodologies of the field. If that doesn’t sit well with you, I suggest taking over the chef at your family restaurant and leaving these matters to people with half a brain.
The irony is, I know a great argument to counter the use of some of these studies - despite the fact that there is a damn near consensus on single-parent families being more likely to yield a child of deviant behaviour. You don't have to search very hard to find them. Yet you can't, which says a lot about your knowledge on this subject. It should be very easy to mention why a lot of these studies leave room for doubt, even though they concede that the numbers aren't encouraging.
Again, learn a thing or two before showing your sheer lack of smarts. The
president of these United States, you know, the guy who’s causing you and your patron saint of hypocrisy to foam at the mouth, comes from a single-parent household. And yet, I was addressing BT, not you, and my argument was that there are formal methodologies out there to enable someone to claim things like women don’t take men seriously any more, they don’t because the ‘left’ has taken over the world; therefore single parent households lead to children with “deviant behavior.” There is no such consensus on the actual reasons, only circumstantial causality and, well, plain human common sense.
Now, what else do you have to muddy the waters with?
You can post, and I can make you look like an idiot for avoiding the issue. It's easy for me, but embarrassing for you. Especially since you love to tout your education.
LOL! You looked like an idiot the minute you shot off your mouth about having seen “the light,” all without my help. I love putting snot-nosed kids like you in their places.
It shows that in the thread where I agreed with him that you were marginalising the right, I was right. You came in and said "no no no, we're talking about something else" and yet you gave yourself away here. What a genius.
It’s called criticizing. That’s the difference that neither the “fanged one” nor you, his “nocheh,” seem to be able to grasp.
Now, herrry. Back to the keyboard with your next harangue about crap you’re utterly ill-equipped to debate. Just don’t bang your head against the screen in the process. Breathe deeply!
