[quote]Yes, if you had clicked on the 52 hyperlink, No, it sourced itself. I guess the clown anxious to prove a point forgot to edit his links.[/quote] I just clicked the link, in the original post. It takes you to the footnotes of an article, footnote #52. That in itself is a link to the article so cited, of which I provided you explicitly in my post to save you the trouble. I hope this is clear now.
[quote]I did not say just the democrats.[/quote] Fair enough. I misread your intention then. My apologies. And yes, that means we still agree 100% on that.
[quote]And, for the record, holding seances is EQUALLY IGNORANT as consulting astrology. Period. YOu dont know the meaning of the word.[/quote] This is not a religious debate. That's another thread. As for me, all seances, speaking with the dead, astrology, etc. have been shown to be un-proven and un-scientific at the least, hokum and confidence games at the worst. There is not a single shred of evidence whatsoever that either of these are real in
[quote]Breakdown of debt incurred between 2001 and 2006.[52] Dont you just love a source that sources itself! Can we have a more accurate source of your contention? One that sources the raw data and not itself?[/quote] Yes, if you had clicked on the 52 hyperlink, it would have taken you to the footnotes of an article, pre-highlighting the footnoted source's name. Clicking on THAT link takes you to that source. To save confusion, this is the document cite
[quote]All feelings & beliefs, not facts or critical analysis. [/quote] Yes, I posted this one as just my opinion and used words like "I've read" and "apparently" to make it clear it was just that. I also did not cite specific documents etc. because I was just indeed stating my opinion.
[quote]Unfortunately, buying out almost the entire financial sector appears now to be only the beginning. The bailout of the auto industry will be pushed through by the dems and I for one can't imagine that the airlines are far behind and of course the ever expanding insurance industry. It seems so sad to me on behalf of both parties that we have heard for years how impossible it was to adequarelty fund social security and yet they can spend what will surely be trillions after a one week deba
[quote] I mean really, talk about hypocricy. I said our health care plan is good, you weren't willing to take my word for it, you wanted me to identify the plan. [/quote] And then, just last night, I agreed to take your word on it once I had pressed the point for detail. [quote] you're going to need to back up your partisan assertions with proof.[/quote] I'm one of the only people here providing debatable citations and links to public and verifiable inf
[quote]A very selected choice of charts and figures. During any war in the US history the debt as gone up considerably as the attached charts from the same source shows. Just look at the figures during the WW2 years. [/quote] I'm not debating the issue you bring up, and of course, I agree with your facts. But I was asked to show HOW Bush's policies have affected the debt and the economy, etc. so I did. And these issues - the preemptive and needless invasion of Iraq, and
[quote]That particular report was quoting the NY Times and others if you read it and I would imagine that you find them somewhat more to your liking.[/quote] Oh okay. I just saw that it was on Drudge and, like many people with huffpo, I just dismissed it as tabloid drivel. I'll give it a read then, thanks!
Resistance is Patriotic.
[quote]And that is an epic oversimplification[/quote] That may be an oversimplification, but this is just an online forum, not a doctoral dissertation (despite my posts to the contrary, hehe). :) Yet, his point is very common right now. I've read numerous pieces recently wherein the current economic collapse is seen as a full repudiation of Reagan's "trickle down economics" as well as the laissez fair capitalism of Ayn Rand. In the same links I provided earli
[quote]Which got passed by a congress controlled by Democrats, so what exactly is your point?[/quote] Only the House had a clear majority of Democrats from the 2006 election. So, again, Bush has had the senate to set the legislative agenda and veto power. Though with the House under Democratic control, they've been able to stop or at least modify some things Bush. And as I've concurred with previously, ALL members of congress can take blame for being in the pockets
[quote]That would seem to be at odds with Article 1, Sections 7 & 9, not to mention rather misleading.[/quote] My reference was to the chart. Regardless, over the past 12 years one cannot separate Bush's party from his congressional control. He's had carte blanche to enact whatever he wanted. And we've all paid the price.
Regarding how the policies (specifically the tax cut) of Bush's administration have affected US debt, which of course, directly impacts the value of the US dollar, the price of oil (since it is priced in US dollars), and the current state of our economy. Notice in the following chart how over 1/2 of all of the public debt we've accumulated under Bush has been to cover the loss of income to the federal treasury due to Bush's tax cuts. That's money we've BORROWED
On a new topic, same idea, what does everything think should be done about possibly bailing out the big three automakers here in the US. I won't state my position at the outset this time.
[quote]Jafo ..."Someone is being an arsehole on Wincustomize."[/quote] [quote]I can think of a couple I caused myself.[/quote] Apparently, ditto! [e digicons]*_*[/e]
[quote]Moreover, since you don't identify any of these "household" name companies you founded and ran, it seems pretty inappropriate for you to use yourself as a source when you don't back up it up with any evidence.[/quote] Then just treat my positions as one man's educated opinion. It's just a forum thread, amigo. I've been handling flame wars like this since we did this on 300 baud modems on BBSs. In my opinion, you are taking this MUCH too seriously. I'm ju
[quote]You are saying it would be a good idea to give more money on the argument that it's good when the government spends our money rather than individuals. You have even gone so far as to say that giving the government money shows ones compassion.[/quote] Again, I've said nothing of the kind in either case. I think you are selectively interpreting what I have to say to serve some internal agenda/agument you are having. Because I have said neither of these things. <
[quote]Otherwise, you'll just need to take my word that our costs have gone down, the employees end up with better quality service, and that the health savings account setup we have isn't a scam.[/quote] Fair enough. The ones I've seen are just a shell game. I'm glad yours isn't and I'm glad to hear that your employees are getting equivalent cost/care to what they did 10,20,30 years ago, before Kaiser and Nixon created the HMOs.
[quote]I'll happily publicly provide the health care plan URL as soon as you put up your official resume. [/quote] A) what does one have to do with the other? B ) I said you can send the health care link to me via private message and we can continue this offline and C) You already know who am I. And if you know how to use google you've already read my 12 page public resume. But, more importantly, how you got that information could be of great concern to
[quote]You can't use the "I'm smarter than everyone" with your proof of this being yourself.[/quote] I have never said that. Period. You can keep putting words in my mouth but that's not fooling anyone.
[quote]Dont flatter yourself, 5 of those were pity points from me.[/quote] I know...thanks! [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
[quote]I asked you how Bush made the economy tank.[/quote] And I've already posted this during this thread. Why am I stuck repeating something that is common knowledge, over and over again, just to save you from reading?
[quote]The issue is, how exactly is thinking it a good thing that "the man" is taking the apples make you a compassionate person whereas the guy who thinks that the people who pick the apples should decide how those apples are used make them selfish?[/quote] I addressed the COMPASSIONATE issue later in the post. No need to repeat it. Again, you keep trying to turn the argument into something that I am not.
[quote]Didn't you just use the "everyone thinks" as proof that Bush caused the economy to "tank"? So "everyone thinks" is only invalid if it applies to you but it's perfectly valid to use on those you oppose?[/quote] Hehe, you ARE reading what I post. :) But you know the difference is that vstyler is using it as justification for his assertion that I am on losing end of public opinion here, and I used to to point out that there is no debate about the economy tanking.&nb
You're about to visit an external site:
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates, and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.
WinCustomize Forums