Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 15 Apr 2025, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2025, 11:41 am

I gave a you correct, direct, and pithy answer....as is my wont. 

I even identified the elements no one would live long enough to make you understand. 

That's serious Level 16 ****....

How many orders of magnitude better than you is that?

Mary, let’s break down that “Level 16” performance, shall we? Because for all the puffed-up language, what you didn’t do is exactly why you're still on dodge #82.

Here’s what I asked you disgusting excuse for a human being:

Do you personally believe the fund managers’ bearish macro outlook is justified by actual economic indicators—or is it just another herd-driven panic?

 Here’s what you actually did instead, moron:

• Gave a vague general statement about fiduciaries and incentives (textbook deflection). VAGUE is your middle name and most comment deflection tactic.
• Tossed in an insult about how I “couldn’t understand it anyway” (classic preemptive shield). 
• Made no mention of whether YOU OR DISAGREE with the fund managers’ sentiment.
• Never addressed actual indicators like inflation, GDP, consumer spending, or earnings projections...that would require numbers  We both know how you are with anything that involves numeracy. 

That’s not answering a question—that’s spray-painting arrogance on the wall and running away. So no, Mary, you didn’t clear the level. You rage-quit the boss fight and declared yourself the winner. Again.