What's Causing The Deficit
-
sausage link? I can post a map to your local Bob Evans or Cracker Barrel.
You had no comment on three links I already posted. Why a fourth?
So you can diss some syllable in the link?
I usual do post them - I forgot.
I realize you don't understand how statistics work, you've made that very clear. Try to follow this, thaydata was presented in a way that makes me question its validity. How can I double check it? By viewing the source where you found it. That's why I want a link. If you can't even provide the link, I don't see how I can take that graph seriously.
I realize you don't understand how statistics work, you've made that very clear. Try to follow this, thaydata was presented in a way that makes me question its validity. How can I double check it? By viewing the source where you found it. That's why I want a link. If you can't even provide the link, I don't see how I can take that graph seriously.
Why would you think those numbers were incorrect?
And what do you think they should be?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
I realize you don't understand how statistics work, you've made that very clear. Try to follow this, thaydata was presented in a way that makes me question its validity. How can I double check it? By viewing the source where you found it. That's why I want a link. If you can't even provide the link, I don't see how I can take that graph seriously.
Why would you think those numbers were incorrect?
And what do you think they should be?
WSS
Why would you think those numbers were incorrect?
Because they were posted by cal.
-
I realize you don't understand how statistics work, you've made that very clear. Try to follow this, thaydata was presented in a way that makes me question its validity. How can I double check it? By viewing the source where you found it. That's why I want a link. If you can't even provide the link, I don't see how I can take that graph seriously.
Why would you think those numbers were incorrect?
And what do you think they should be?
WSS
Why would you think those numbers were incorrect?
And what do you think they should be?
WSS
I understand you like to just ask questions for no reason in an attempt to "trap" people or something like that but come on, both of these questions are ridiculous.
I explained why I thought these numbers mightily be correct, and Cal not posting a source isn't helping.
I don't know what the numbers should be. Or, they should be whatever is correct. I know it's crazy but I'm not looking for numbersthat agree with my view of reality, like so many posters on here. I just want nonbiased facts. If it's pro obama or anti obama I don't care.
-
I have don't have a problem with most of that, but I think what Frum's post is more about is the relentless and careful duplicity of Mitt Romney. The way he forms a sentence is enough to make the sleaziest mall lawyer take pride.
And yet we still agree that Romney was by far the best choice of the bunch. I would have prefer Daniels to Romney as well, though that was never in the cards.
As for the recession, I think we'd probably agree that while this may not be the new normal, it's certainly where we're going to be for a while, and no matter who is elected. You can't paper over our problems anymore.
Okay, what's next? You going to stick around for a while?
How about your belief that gay people should sit on their hands and not act on their attraction, or their love for another person? Have your libertarian leanings weaned you off that awkwardly squared circle yet?
Yours and Frum's criticism of Romney sounds an awful lot like criticisms of Obama 2008. He was all things to all people - telling you exactly what you wanted to hear while rarely ever actually saying anything. To critics, it's sleazy. To supporters, it's great politics. To me, it's all the same.
Yes, the economy has long-term problems. My point is that they aren't an excuse anymore. Surprise downturns are an excuse for bad budgets. Slow growth that is projected 5-10 years in advance is not. Reality needs to be dealt with, not used as an excuse.
I'll be in and out. Work doesnt make stopping by easy, but there are enough slow spots that I'll be around.
My political beliefs havent changed my religious ones. Every person on the planet is born with the natural inclination to sin. Every single day every one of us has to choose whether or not to follow those instincts. I dont envy those who are constantly tempted to sinful sexuality, but as hard as I try (and I've tried hard), I can't find a way to read the Bible to approve of homosexual sex. As for the politics of it, I lean slightly towards gay marriage, but only slightly and only because I dont think the government should discriminate. I don't think policy should be designed to enforce religious views, but I am pretty confident that government support of homosexuality will increase the number of people who engage in homosexual sex, and I'm sympathetic to people opposed to proactive government policies that will increase sinful behavior. Ideally, government would get out of the marriage business. But that's not happening, so the discrimination card pushes me just left of center on the issue.
Yours and Frum's criticism of Romney sounds an awful lot like criticisms of Obama 2008. He was all things to all people - telling you exactly what you wanted to hear while rarely ever actually saying anything. To critics, it's sleazy. To supporters, it's great politics. To me, it's all the same.
Yes, the economy has long-term problems. My point is that they aren't an excuse anymore. Surprise downturns are an excuse for bad budgets. Slow growth that is projected 5-10 years in advance is not. Reality needs to be dealt with, not used as an excuse.
I'll be in and out. Work doesnt make stopping by easy, but there are enough slow spots that I'll be around.
My political beliefs havent changed my religious ones. Every person on the planet is born with the natural inclination to sin. Every single day every one of us has to choose whether or not to follow those instincts. I dont envy those who are constantly tempted to sinful sexuality, but as hard as I try (and I've tried hard), I can't find a way to read the Bible to approve of homosexual sex. As for the politics of it, I lean slightly towards gay marriage, but only slightly and only because I dont think the government should discriminate. I don't think policy should be designed to enforce religious views, but I am pretty confident that government support of homosexuality will increase the number of people who engage in homosexual sex, and I'm sympathetic to people opposed to proactive government policies that will increase sinful behavior. Ideally, government would get out of the marriage business. But that's not happening, so the discrimination card pushes me just left of center on the issue.
On the Romney front ...really? I tend to think this is more of your go-to trick that I can remember after all of these years. (Which I happen to love and enjoy myself, mind you.) When your side is caught acting ridiculous or sleazy or both, you throw your hands up and say, "Hey, it's politics. What do you expect? Everyone does it." Or some variant. It's an easy way to call it a wash and move on rather than delving in to the gradients of dishonesty or sleaze or misinformation, which is what the task always entails. Because it's politics and everyone does it, right? What do you expect?
I've been following Romney since the early 90s. He's a special case. He really is. I don't think there's anyone quite like him.
And that's one of the more unique takes on gay marriage from an opponent of gay marriage I've ever read. I'm not quite sure whether to argue with it or marvel at it.
-
You're right Heck, that was some interesting reasoning haha
-
Oh, I don't have any problems with his reasoning. I'm just not ever sure I've ever heard anyone try that line of it.
-
Why would you think those numbers were incorrect?
And what do you think they should be?
WSS
I understand you like to just ask questions for no reason in an attempt to "trap" people or something like that but come on, both of these questions are ridiculous.
I explained why I thought these numbers mightily be correct, and Cal not posting a source isn't helping.
I don't know what the numbers should be. Or, they should be whatever is correct. I know it's crazy but I'm not looking for numbersthat agree with my view of reality, like so many posters on here. I just want nonbiased facts. If it's pro obama or anti obama I don't care.
I understand you like to just ask questions for no reason in an attempt to "trap" people or something like that but come on, both of these questions are ridiculous.
I explained why I thought these numbers mightily be correct, and Cal not posting a source isn't helping.
I don't know what the numbers should be. Or, they should be whatever is correct. I know it's crazy but I'm not looking for numbersthat agree with my view of reality, like so many posters on here. I just want nonbiased facts. If it's pro obama or anti obama I don't care.
What I like to do is have you explain your problem with something other than just saying because cal posted it.
If you plan to smirk at some sort of post or figure or whatever it seems you should have some sort of idea why it's incorrect.
It doesn't seem crazy at all to me to say that the debt has risen faster then wages.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
I understand you like to just ask questions for no reason in an attempt to "trap" people or something like that but come on, both of these questions are ridiculous.
I explained why I thought these numbers mightily be correct, and Cal not posting a source isn't helping.
I don't know what the numbers should be. Or, they should be whatever is correct. I know it's crazy but I'm not looking for numbersthat agree with my view of reality, like so many posters on here. I just want nonbiased facts. If it's pro obama or anti obama I don't care.
What I like to do is have you explain your problem with something other than just saying because cal posted it.
If you plan to smirk at some sort of post or figure or whatever it seems you should have some sort of idea why it's incorrect.
It doesn't seem crazy at all to me to say that the debt has risen faster then wages.
WSS
What I like to do is have you explain your problem with something other than just saying because cal posted it.
If you plan to smirk at some sort of post or figure or whatever it seems you should have some sort of idea why it's incorrect.
It doesn't seem crazy at all to me to say that the debt has risen faster then wages.
WSS
My reasoning was never "cuz cal posted it"
I've explained my reasoning a few times and I don't feel like doing it again.
-
I understand you like to just ask questions for no reason in an attempt to "trap" people or something like that but come on, both of these questions are ridiculous.
I explained why I thought these numbers mightily be correct, and Cal not posting a source isn't helping.
I don't know what the numbers should be. Or, they should be whatever is correct. I know it's crazy but I'm not looking for numbersthat agree with my view of reality, like so many posters on here. I just want nonbiased facts. If it's pro obama or anti obama I don't care.
What I like to do is have you explain your problem with something other than just saying because cal posted it.
If you plan to smirk at some sort of post or figure or whatever it seems you should have some sort of idea why it's incorrect.
It doesn't seem crazy at all to me to say that the debt has risen faster then wages.
WSS
What I like to do is have you explain your problem with something other than just saying because cal posted it.
If you plan to smirk at some sort of post or figure or whatever it seems you should have some sort of idea why it's incorrect.
It doesn't seem crazy at all to me to say that the debt has risen faster then wages.
WSS
Oh, come on, Steve. I think "because Cal posted it" would probably suffice in about 98% of circumstances. After all of these years you really need to ask why Cal's posts should be skipped over entirely? He has literally nothing to add short of tips on farming. He's as lost as lost can get. Everyone knows it.
Just because your main scourge in life is smart liberals acting all smart this doesn't change the fact that Cal compares Obama to Mao in every other post.
Or as Tupa once said when asked about Cal's lunacy, "I don't read Cal's posts."
We'd all do better to follow his advice.
-
Yours and Frum's criticism of Romney sounds an awful lot like criticisms of Obama 2008. He was all things to all people - telling you exactly what you wanted to hear while rarely ever actually saying anything. To critics, it's sleazy. To supporters, it's great politics. To me, it's all the same.
Yes, the economy has long-term problems. My point is that they aren't an excuse anymore. Surprise downturns are an excuse for bad budgets. Slow growth that is projected 5-10 years in advance is not. Reality needs to be dealt with, not used as an excuse.
I'll be in and out. Work doesnt make stopping by easy, but there are enough slow spots that I'll be around.
My political beliefs havent changed my religious ones. Every person on the planet is born with the natural inclination to sin. Every single day every one of us has to choose whether or not to follow those instincts. I dont envy those who are constantly tempted to sinful sexuality, but as hard as I try (and I've tried hard), I can't find a way to read the Bible to approve of homosexual sex. As for the politics of it, I lean slightly towards gay marriage, but only slightly and only because I dont think the government should discriminate. I don't think policy should be designed to enforce religious views, but I am pretty confident that government support of homosexuality will increase the number of people who engage in homosexual sex, and I'm sympathetic to people opposed to proactive government policies that will increase sinful behavior. Ideally, government would get out of the marriage business. But that's not happening, so the discrimination card pushes me just left of center on the issue.
On the Romney front ...really? I tend to think this is more of your go-to trick that I can remember after all of these years. (Which I happen to love and enjoy myself, mind you.) When your side is caught acting ridiculous or sleazy or both, you throw your hands up and say, "Hey, it's politics. What do you expect? Everyone does it." Or some variant. It's an easy way to call it a wash and move on rather than delving in to the gradients of dishonesty or sleaze or misinformation, which is what the task always entails. Because it's politics and everyone does it, right? What do you expect?
I've been following Romney since the early 90s. He's a special case. He really is. I don't think there's anyone quite like him.
And that's one of the more unique takes on gay marriage from an opponent of gay marriage I've ever read. I'm not quite sure whether to argue with it or marvel at it.
On the Romney front ...really? I tend to think this is more of your go-to trick that I can remember after all of these years. (Which I happen to love and enjoy myself, mind you.) When your side is caught acting ridiculous or sleazy or both, you throw your hands up and say, "Hey, it's politics. What do you expect? Everyone does it." Or some variant. It's an easy way to call it a wash and move on rather than delving in to the gradients of dishonesty or sleaze or misinformation, which is what the task always entails. Because it's politics and everyone does it, right? What do you expect?
I've been following Romney since the early 90s. He's a special case. He really is. I don't think there's anyone quite like him.
And that's one of the more unique takes on gay marriage from an opponent of gay marriage I've ever read. I'm not quite sure whether to argue with it or marvel at it.
To be fair, it really is politics, and everyone really does do it.
Using Obama, religion is a good example. If you were a Christian and a supporter of Obama, it was very easy to point to things he had said that would convince you he was passionate about his faith and that it would be constantly guiding his decision making. If you were atheist and an Obama supporter, you were positive that he just showed up to church occassionally for the optics of it, but didnt actually believe any of that bs. Gay marriage is another. To gay marriage supporters, he was their savior. To opponents, he was indistinguishable from McCain. Single payer supporters were sure he was a Trojan Horse! Moderates saw him as right of Hillary. Romney will legitimately flip flop from one position to another more often than most, but the stuff Frum was picking at was just politispeak.
Of course the second half of my well-played response to these issues is this: who cares? It doesnt matter. The only way I could see this mattering is if this bull actually drove elections, but presidential elections would barely change if you swapped out the candidates with cardboard cutouts of the same political affiliation. Sure, voters are stupid enough to fall for this crap, but that doesnt really change much of anything. Results are what matter, not campaign integrity.
I honestly think most of the opposition to gay marriage (other than disgust) is based on a belief that legal recognition of gay marriage will result in more gay sex. Silencing that argument is what gay rights advocates won with their "born that way" argument. But yeah, I guess I have to admit that I dont get a lot of "me too!"s when I explain my position.
-
What I like to do is have you explain your problem with something other than just saying because cal posted it.
If you plan to smirk at some sort of post or figure or whatever it seems you should have some sort of idea why it's incorrect.
It doesn't seem crazy at all to me to say that the debt has risen faster then wages.
WSS
Oh, come on, Steve. I think "because Cal posted it" would probably suffice in about 98% of circumstances. After all of these years you really need to ask why Cal's posts should be skipped over entirely? He has literally nothing to add short of tips on farming. He's as lost as lost can get. Everyone knows it.
Just because your main scourge in life is smart liberals acting all smart this doesn't change the fact that Cal compares Obama to Mao in every other post.
Or as Tupa once said when asked about Cal's lunacy, "I don't read Cal's posts."
We'd all do better to follow his advice.
Oh, come on, Steve. I think "because Cal posted it" would probably suffice in about 98% of circumstances. After all of these years you really need to ask why Cal's posts should be skipped over entirely? He has literally nothing to add short of tips on farming. He's as lost as lost can get. Everyone knows it.
Just because your main scourge in life is smart liberals acting all smart this doesn't change the fact that Cal compares Obama to Mao in every other post.
Or as Tupa once said when asked about Cal's lunacy, "I don't read Cal's posts."
We'd all do better to follow his advice.
And as you know that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about woody and a simple graph.
Any moron can see the trajectory of the national debt right?
And anyone can place the date of the obama inauguration on that graph right?
So I can understand someone like you sharing well it's not all his fault.
On the other hand just carping about the graph is pretty meaningless.
And face it bud, you wouldn't love woody nearly as much if you didn't regularly attack cal.
And you know I don't particularly love obama but I don't ride the obamao train.
But I do expect woody to explain why he thinks something is wrong the same as anyone else here.
how about this next time you post a blog oh answer woody style.
"Frum? LOLOLOL
HEY I'M GOING TO BE AN ENGINEER!"
WSS
-
On the Romney front ...really? I tend to think this is more of your go-to trick that I can remember after all of these years. (Which I happen to love and enjoy myself, mind you.) When your side is caught acting ridiculous or sleazy or both, you throw your hands up and say, "Hey, it's politics. What do you expect? Everyone does it." Or some variant. It's an easy way to call it a wash and move on rather than delving in to the gradients of dishonesty or sleaze or misinformation, which is what the task always entails. Because it's politics and everyone does it, right? What do you expect?
I've been following Romney since the early 90s. He's a special case. He really is. I don't think there's anyone quite like him.
And that's one of the more unique takes on gay marriage from an opponent of gay marriage I've ever read. I'm not quite sure whether to argue with it or marvel at it.
To be fair, it really is politics, and everyone really does do it.
Using Obama, religion is a good example. If you were a Christian and a supporter of Obama, it was very easy to point to things he had said that would convince you he was passionate about his faith and that it would be constantly guiding his decision making. If you were atheist and an Obama supporter, you were positive that he just showed up to church occassionally for the optics of it, but didnt actually believe any of that bs. Gay marriage is another. To gay marriage supporters, he was their savior. To opponents, he was indistinguishable from McCain. Single payer supporters were sure he was a Trojan Horse! Moderates saw him as right of Hillary. Romney will legitimately flip flop from one position to another more often than most, but the stuff Frum was picking at was just politispeak.
Of course the second half of my well-played response to these issues is this: who cares? It doesnt matter. The only way I could see this mattering is if this bull actually drove elections, but presidential elections would barely change if you swapped out the candidates with cardboard cutouts of the same political affiliation. Sure, voters are stupid enough to fall for this crap, but that doesnt really change much of anything. Results are what matter, not campaign integrity.
I honestly think most of the opposition to gay marriage (other than disgust) is based on a belief that legal recognition of gay marriage will result in more gay sex. Silencing that argument is what gay rights advocates won with their "born that way" argument. But yeah, I guess I have to admit that I dont get a lot of "me too!"s when I explain my position.
To be fair, it really is politics, and everyone really does do it.
Using Obama, religion is a good example. If you were a Christian and a supporter of Obama, it was very easy to point to things he had said that would convince you he was passionate about his faith and that it would be constantly guiding his decision making. If you were atheist and an Obama supporter, you were positive that he just showed up to church occassionally for the optics of it, but didnt actually believe any of that bs. Gay marriage is another. To gay marriage supporters, he was their savior. To opponents, he was indistinguishable from McCain. Single payer supporters were sure he was a Trojan Horse! Moderates saw him as right of Hillary. Romney will legitimately flip flop from one position to another more often than most, but the stuff Frum was picking at was just politispeak.
Of course the second half of my well-played response to these issues is this: who cares? It doesnt matter. The only way I could see this mattering is if this bull actually drove elections, but presidential elections would barely change if you swapped out the candidates with cardboard cutouts of the same political affiliation. Sure, voters are stupid enough to fall for this crap, but that doesnt really change much of anything. Results are what matter, not campaign integrity.
I honestly think most of the opposition to gay marriage (other than disgust) is based on a belief that legal recognition of gay marriage will result in more gay sex. Silencing that argument is what gay rights advocates won with their "born that way" argument. But yeah, I guess I have to admit that I dont get a lot of "me too!"s when I explain my position.
Ooh, boy. Let me respond to this after my deadline.
One point of agreement: in the end, results are all that matter. The rest of it? I'm not so sure.
-
And I take that back. Results are not the only thing that matters. They just matter more.
-
-
So Cal, I take it a link was too much then?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Bunker said:
too bad obama is the man in power, and any and all leaders must take the blame or they are weakend cowards when they blame everyone else
Unless it's the guy your party supports... Right?
-
Good to see you Sev.
How's it going?
WSS!!
Swamped with work and family thanks for asking.
-
-
So Cal, I take it a link was too much then?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login