Re: Okay....you are in relentless pursuit of stupidity, obviously."
Translation... the person refuses to give agree with Jenna, or the person refuses to "go away."
Jenna: I have explained and pointed out my POV, so why bother if you don't agree and you clearly cannot comprehend.
The other person clearly understood what you were saying. Other posters reached similar conclusions from reading posts from your side of the argument.
They've explained and pointed out their point of view. You didn't show any signs of agreeing with them. Don't mistake their disagreement with you as their "not" being able to "comprehend."
Jenna Banks: And as far as "backing out" goes: I could care less if you choose to agree or not. I was merely clarifying my statements that you so adamantly protested.
If you couldn't care less if he or she chose to agree with you or not, you wouldn't have kept replying. What you dismiss as his/her "protesting" your statements is actually him/her disagreeing with you.
You seem to get edgy over someone disagreeing with you.
Jenna Banks: Many Americans do not go by the text book definition of recession,
Many Americans don't go by the "it looks like a recession" definition of a recession either. But facts are facts. You said it:
"A recession actually requires a 2+ negative consecutive quarters darling, to be exact." -- Jenna Banks
So, how should people react to these facts?
"After providing clear FACTS and links from reliable, dependable sources, you still are unable to comprehend the truth." -- Jenna Banks
You just talked about "clear facts," with your recession definition.
You want people to accept your "facts" when you think you have them. Yet, you're not willing to accept your opposition's facts.
This shows that you're not carrying a discussion out. People exchange ideas during a discussion. People disagree with each other during a debate.
You're interested in "winning," and in the opposition abandoning this fight. You don't seem to care if you're right or wrong... especially if you're going to dismiss a fact with the, "most don't accept the textbook" explanation.
Jenna Banks: "so the fact that your even mentioning it is irrelevant and nitpicky.
Actually, it's a fact. It's very relevant to a debate where we're arguing whether we're in a recession or not. You want to dismiss that inconvenient fact, because it argues against your thesis for this thread.
Jenna Banks: And how was my explanation of stagnation " a failed attempt". It is very accurate and if you can read, you would notice that what is described in the definition of stagnation is occuring in our nation right now.
No, you weren't accurate. The definition of stagnation is slow economic growth over a long period of time. You need more than one quarter to make that conclusion. You tried to describe a stagnation as a slowdown:
"and our GDP is not growing, to the point of being almost being stagnant." -- Jenna Banks
That contradicts the definition of economic stagnation. The economy stagnates because it's nether drastically falling, or showing a reasonable sign of growth. If our economy contracts at a slow rate, and it does so for two quarters, we'd be in a recession.
We need more than two quarters of slow economic growth to describe it as a stagnation.
So yes, your stagnation explanation was a fail.
Also, as you said this, the economy grew at a slow rate.
Jenna Banks: Optimist or Pessimist this is REALITY. Deny the truth all you want.
Take it away Jenna Banks:
"BUT...Some friendly advice.... When speaking of "truth" and "fact" in your posts and discussions....remember that your opinion is just that, an opinion. It is neither truth nor fact. Sorry if I burst your bubble." -- Jenna Banks
I love rebutting people with their own words. It's like beating a man up with his own prosthetic limb.
That statement wasn't applicable to me, but it's definitely applicable to you.
Jenna Banks: "Babe, sorry if you have a problem with people who disagree with you. You are going to find that everywhere, and going in circles to find your ass isn't helping your situation."
You should direct that to yourself.
Every post you made, in response to the opposition, shows someone having problems with disagreement. You showed abrasiveness for a provider when someone disagreed with you. You were quick to show a different side of you when someone said something that you agreed with.
The only person going in cycles, trying to find their ass, is you.
Look at the different quotes I collected from your posts. They showed you shifting your position. When you do that, you come across as running around in circles chasing your tail.
Jenna Banks: I will continue to post on the politics board, regardless of what you think of my views.
So, if people disagree with you... if they have any issues with the way you handle yourself... then they should "get out of the political debate kitchen." But, if you have issues with the way someone debates... with how they handle themselves... or with what they say about you... you're going to continue posting in the politics forum?
Do you see the double standard here?
If I were allowed to continue fighting on that forum, I would've stayed there and made these posts back then.
Jenna Banks: The problem is that you argue for the sake of arguing, and fail to ever add anything new to the mix.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet Pot.
Your two links didn't add anything new to the mix. They didn't even support your argument.
Another problem is that you're doing precisely what you're accusing the other person of doing. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
You're like Robertson89. You're continuing a fight that you already lost.
Jenna Banks: You deny that we are headed into a recession. Awesome, and?
Which is it? We're in a recession? We're in a stagnation? We're headed toward a recession?
Jenna Banks: You don't like Hillary or Pelosi despite the fact that no one mentioned them. Good for you. Want a cookie?
Hillary and Pelosi were on the same side of the argument as you were. One of the things the opposition is saying is that they've seen your argument's thrust from those two women.
Jenna Banks: "You are repetitive to the point of being irrelevant."
Your posts are repetitive. Does that mean that you're also at the point of being irrelevant? Do you feel that the opposition is repetitive? If so, it's because you're repetitive.
No comments:
Post a Comment