yk-
I ignored it because it was stupid. As are most of your responses.
you ignored it because you cannot respond to it, and becuase ive shown more than once, more than twice, that you lost your little wager, for MANY reasons.....the "and" issue being merely one of them, and the one you cannot throw a copout debate against, therefore making it the best one to utilize. calling a post "stupid" is the simplest way for a false prophet like yourself to detract its value......you are, as always, transparent.
Now you are squirming because I pointed out how silly the ridiculer's techniques are.
i love it when you accuse someone of "squirming". ive noticed you do it often when you are humiliated. this isnt the first time ive pointed out your lack of a grasp on sarcasm and humor, and that you debate the fact that i would use these tactics (sarcasm and humor) when addressing you, just makes your ignorance show through a little brighter. in reality though, whether or not you believe my intentions of refernecing a silly movie will not keep me up at night. as far-fetched as the movie was, it could actually be considered, i suppose, a nice depiction of the way some morons can go overboard with prophesies, like yourself. (**note to editor of sequel: add in scene where gibson predicts end of world at y2k, lol.)
Post a link for us why don't you? I'll read it. If that's true, that Clinton wanted to do away with the long bond because of the supposed budget surplus, it makes it all the more puzzling why Bush would pick up on Clinton's policy
i do not need to post links to clintons plan for debt retiring, as it is common knowledge to all who even faintly follow politics. the original reasoning for abolishing the 30s did revolve around the surplus, but the plan was always there, even after the policy change. your points on insider trading are simply delusional, therefore do not require a response.
*yawn*......once again you magnify side issues, while ignoring the real issue, your wager. lets address it again, shall we?
But, that is precisely why I stated in my little wager that the financial system would either be in a full-blown collapse or else a state of war would exist. Certainly no sane person would deny that the myth of America's economic invulnerability has been dissolved. So, while there was not a run on the dollar, the world is not the same as it was back on September 3rd when I first proposed the wager. America is at war. And that changes everything.
okay, ive already shown that the first part of your wager has not come to pass (upon admittance by you). the second part involved the fiancial system being in a state of collapse (which it by no stretch of the imagination is), or a state of war.
if you really want to address the "state of war" part, we can i guess. it will involve me going back through your posts, chronologically, showing how you teetered back and forth on what exactly you meant by that (it really is tiring and pointless, but if youd like, ill do it).
basically, a couple of us pointed out that you said the "financial system" would be in a state of war, and you laughed at this notion, noting how RIDICULOUS an idea this was, that the financial system could be in a state of war. then in a more recent post, you claimed that you NEVER said thats not what you meant, and really all along you did mean that the financial system would be in a state of war, and now youre claiming that the financial system IS in a state of war, due to the fact that the government and the financial system are invarialby "linked"..........whew, alot of circle talking, isnt it yk? of course it is, all false prophets, and more importantly all jws, talk in circles. it is to be expected, and we are all used to it.
aa
