[olePigeon]

You know what's going to be the result of the probe into gas price manipulation that most people have suspected since the 70s?

Nothing.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

LOL. Yes, Soros' picture is in the middle of the article, but if you had read the article, you would see that there is no investigation of Soros. Call me when you have some news.

The news is that apparently regulators think that funny business is going on, just as I suggested. Once you hear the news, you have to ask yourself why Soros was the biggest thing on the page.

You can try to derail the conversation, for sure, but the facts are clear. The question is, are you going to apply the same flawed logic that you do about Soros to Walmart and others?

How can pointing out the flaws in your argument, by explaining to you what your "evidence" actually claims, be derailing "the conversation"? I'll apply the same logic to equal things. When Wal-Mart makes it clear that they would like to overturn conservative economic policies and after failing to do so via paid propaganda makes it clear that they are engaging in activities which they themselves admit could lead to a recession, get back to me on treating the two entities in question as equals.

...as far as the investigation goes, I agree. It will go nowhere.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The news is that apparently regulators think that funny business is going on, just as I suggested. Once you hear the news, you have to ask yourself why Soros was the biggest thing on the page.

So you agree that there is nothing in the article to suggest that Soros is actually being accuse by regulators of anything? This is purely innuendo? Great.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How can pointing out the flaws in your argument, by explaining to you what your "evidence" actually claims, be derailing "the conversation"?

Because you've done no such thing. You have not addressed the issue that Walmart is legally required to try to damage the US economy. Why not? Because it shows how bankrupt your argument is.

Further more, you have not explained what the actual crime that has supposedly been committed here is 'going against right wing economics'? Good grief. If you're just going to ignore the facts, and pretend that you still have a case to be made, then do it somewhere else please. Arguing with someone who continually ignores the evidence presented to them is pointless.

[TheWOAT]

Disney profits from weaker dollar - CNN.com
Disney also seems to have a legal responsibility to damage the US economy. At least in theory.

[peeb]

We should fill the right wing blogosphere with conspiracy theories about them!

[TheWOAT]

Only if they got Arabs on their Board of Directors.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Only if they got Arabs on their Board of Directors.

Or people who look a bit brown and wear checkered headscarves?

[TheWOAT]

Rachel Ray?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So you agree that there is nothing in the article to suggest that Soros is actually being accuse by regulators of anything? This is purely innuendo? Great.

So you're accusing the mainstream media, who inserted him into the debate via their story, of "Innuendo" regarding the role Soros may or may not play in skyrocketing oil prices? Why do you think they are trying to link him via "innuendo"?

Because you've done no such thing. You have not addressed the issue that Walmart is legally required to try to damage the US economy. Why not? Because it shows how bankrupt your argument is.

It's not my job to address your imagination. I simply read one of your points of evidence, and supplied you with the reason it claims that Wal-Mart now has greater profits than they did before. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that your 'evidence' doesn't jive with your theory.

Further more, you have not explained what the actual crime that has supposedly been committed here is 'going against right wing economics'?

Actually, if Soros is acting to artificially manipulate the market in order to bring down the economy, I believe that IS illegal and that's what regulators are looking into now. People are put in jail everyday for illegally tampering with markets. I can't prove that he has done this, but based on his own words and deeds, I would not put it past him.

Good grief. If you're just going to ignore the facts, and pretend that you still have a case to be made, then do it somewhere else please. Arguing with someone who continually ignores the evidence presented to them is pointless.

Arguing with someone who doesn't apparently even read his own evidence is what is pointless. Sorry.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So you're accusing the mainstream media, who inserted him into the debate via their story, of "Innuendo" regarding the role Soros may or may not play in skyrocketing oil prices? Why do you think they are trying to link him via "innuendo"?

If they are simply trying to link him to the story without any actual investigation, yes.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I simply read one of your points of evidence, and supplied you with the reason it claims that Wal-Mart now has greater profits than they did before. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that your 'evidence' doesn't jive with your theory.

I agree that they have greater profits when the economy does worse. It's doing badly now, and their profits are up. We're in agreement. Nobody disputes that Walmart's profits go up when the US economy as a whole does less well.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, if Soros is acting to artificially manipulate the market in order to bring down the economy, I believe that IS illegal and that's what regulators are looking into now. People are put in jail everyday for illegally tampering with markets. I can't prove that he has done this, but based on his own words and deeds, I would not put it past him.

Summary. You've got nothing. Come back when you have more than innuendo.

Next.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

If they are simply trying to link him to the story without any actual investigation, yes.

Why do you think they are doing this? Could it be that even they think that he has something to do with it based on the same sort of rationale I've listed?

I agree that they have greater profits when the economy does worse.

Your evidence does not support this. Your evidence states that they have greater profits when they focus on price, and not expansion or other goals. That would be the case regardless of the economy. The first link you listed actually supports my point. I'm assuming you saw the title of the article, didn't read it all the way through, then listed it as a source since it doesn't support your theory.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why do you think they are doing this? Could it be that even they think that he has something to do with it based on the same sort of rationale I've listed?

I don't know - perhaps if I had seen anything more than innuendo in this case it would be clear. Do you have any evidence? No, I thought not.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Your evidence does not support this. Your evidence states that they have greater profits when they focus on price, and not expansion or other goals. That would be the case regardless of the economy.

Well now, this should be entertaining. Let me get this right - you are arguing that there is not a negative correlation between Walmart profits and the US economy? Want to argue that black is white and right is wrong while you're at it?
OK - give it your best shot - show me that Walmart does not do better when the US economy tanks.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I don't know - perhaps if I had seen anything more than innuendo in this case it would be clear. Do you have any evidence? No, I thought not.

Why do you ask questions and answer them yourself when it's clear that you don't have any correct answers? I've already shown the means, motive and opportunity. That's "evidence" that is presented in a case. What no one seems to have though is any kind of "smoking gun" needed to definitively prove anything, which I concede.

Well now, this should be entertaining. Let me get this right - you are arguing that there is not a negative correlation between Walmart profits and the US economy? Want to argue that black is white and right is wrong while you're at it?
OK - give it your best shot - show me that Walmart does not do better when the US economy tanks.

Wal-Mart isn't MY cause. It's yours. You supplied "data" that supposedly showed that Wal-Mart was profiting more now just BECAUSE the economy was bad. Your "data" instead stated:

"With America tipping towards recession, Wal-Mart is doing much better than in the past couple of years when the economy was booming. Sales increased by 8.3% compared with the same period last year, to a record $106.3 billion. Mr Scott concluded that in a volatile economy Wal-Mart was “well positioned to succeed”.

The secret of Wal-Mart's meteoric rise over the past five decades has been its obsession with low prices. It got into trouble in 2005-07 when it focused less on “always low prices” (its longstanding motto) and more on expansion. Sales growth, productivity and profits fell, while Target and other upmarket rivals snatched market share."

So you can see, there's a rational reason why Wal-Mart would be up OTHER than just because the economy was down. Wal-Mart focuses on the lowest prices. It's human nature to want to get the most for your resources. Therefore, Wal-Mart profits. When it stops focusing on low prices, EVEN IN A BOOMING ECONOMY, it's fortunes are hurt.

It's common sense, not a concerted effort to hurt the economy. On the other hand, Soros can probably only get what he wants if he hurts the economy and has the means, motive and opportunity to do so.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've already shown the means, motive and opportunity. That's "evidence" that is presented in a case. What no one seems to have though is any kind of "smoking gun" needed to definitively prove anything, which I concede.

You have not given any of those things, and there is no 'case'. You're blowing smoke.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wal-Mart isn't MY cause. It's yours. You supplied "data" that supposedly showed that Wal-Mart was profiting more now just BECAUSE the economy was bad. Your "data" instead stated:

No, the data clearly shows that there is a correlation. You are confusing the data with the interpretation.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's common sense, not a concerted effort to hurt the economy.

To use your standard, Walmart has the means, it is able to depress wages and put small businesses out of business because of its enormous size and influence in the economy. It clearly has had the opportunity, and as to motives, it is LEGALLY REQUIRED to harm the economy, since it does better in recessions. It is absolutely NOT a correlation with low prices.

The issue here is that you have picked up some dross from a right wing blog, and you're confused now that someone has explained to you what nonsense it is, and what would happen if you applied what passes for you 'logic' consistently.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You have not given any of those things, and there is no 'case'. You're blowing smoke.

Your opinion is noted.

No, the data clearly shows that there is a correlation. You are confusing the data with the interpretation.

Do you know what the "Confusing Cause and Effect" logical fallacy is? That's what you're providing with your interpretation of the "data". Just because one thing follows the other, it doesn't make that thing the cause. Especially when there are other rational explanations as your "evidence" you provided shows.

To use your standard, Walmart has the means, it is able to depress wages and put small businesses out of business because of its enormous size and influence in the economy.

Wal-Mart has done busines the way it has for about 20 years. Why ONLY NOW would it be the cause of recessionary forces? Doesn't add up. Sorry

It clearly has had the opportunity, and as to motives, it is LEGALLY REQUIRED to harm the economy..

Bullshit.

...since it does better in recessions. It is absolutely NOT a correlation with low prices.

Even your own sources refute you!

The issue here is that you have picked up some dross from a right wing blog, and you're confused now that someone has explained to you what nonsense it is, and what would happen if you applied what passes for you 'logic' consistently.

A. I didn't pick up my theory from ANYWHERE ELSE. In fact, I've always suspected Soros of eventually going this route. There's another thread I started months ago pointing out his efforts in devaluing the dollar, for example.

B. You've not shown any "logic" to be consistent with. You've shown me arguments supported with evidence that disagrees with you, and "apples to oranges" comparisons. I'm sorry that I can't apply any of that to anything that might make sense. Your fault, not mine.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do you know what the "Confusing Cause and Effect" logical fallacy is? That's what you're providing with your interpretation of the "data". Just because one thing follows the other, it doesn't make that thing the cause.

That you've figured that out is a good thing - now take the next step, and apply that logic to your own argument.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wal-Mart has done busines the way it has for about 20 years. Why ONLY NOW would it be the cause of recessionary forces?

It's not only now. Plot Walmart's profits against indicators of poverty or GDP for any period.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. I didn't pick up my theory from ANYWHERE ELSE. In fact, I've always suspected Soros of eventually going this route. There's another thread I started months ago pointing out his efforts in devaluing the dollar, for example.

That at least is slightly comforting - there is no one else who shares your delusions then?
You don't really seem to have a case - just wild and unsubstantiated accusations that no one shares. When it is pointed out to you that the same accusations can be leveled at other groups you just flail about and insist they can't. It seems we got to the bottom of this - no one shares your views on Soros, or on Walmart. Stop digging is my advice to you.

[stupendousman]

I guess all I can do to rebut your non-rebuttals is offer silence.


........


Thanks.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Sane people are legally required to ignore peeb's non-arguments.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sane people are legally required to ignore peeb's non-arguments.

LOL

[peeb]

I think on balance I was reassured when I thought you'd got this waco idea from a right wing blog. That you made it up yourself saddens me a little.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I think on balance I was reassured when I thought you'd got this waco idea from a right wing blog. That you made it up yourself saddens me a little.

TAKE HEART! Based on the noted inclusion of Soros into the newspaper article (which you call innuendo) regarding possible illegal market manipulation by oil speculators apparently there are several in the mainstream media who share my suspicions. No need to be sad for just little old me. You've got regular, non-right wing blogging newspaper reporters to worry about.

[peeb]

He was not 'in the article'. If you'd read it, rather than just looking at the pictures, you'd know that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

He was not 'in the article'. If you'd read it, rather than just looking at the pictures, you'd know that.

I read it. The fact is that his face was smack dab in the middle of the article on illegal oil market manipulation. You claimed it was due to dishonest innuendo. If they were engaging in innuendo, it's not very likely that it's NOT because they don't believe he is somehow involved even if they didn't mention him by name in the article, IMO.

[peeb]

Stop making yourself look foolish. If they had anything, they would have written it. That's the definition of innuendo.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Stop making yourself look foolish. If they had anything, they would have written it. That's the definition of innuendo.

Forget it. Your arguing in circles is making me dizzy.

[peeb]

I'm sorry that thinking this through logically makes you dizzy.