Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

I need some impartial person to come read this thread.Follow

#1 May 28 2004 at 9:43 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
https://everquest.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=28&mid=1084557108662481426&page=1

Read mine and Gbaji's posts from today and tell me if I'm just not perceiving this correctly or if he has some sort of mental disorder about admitting he was wrong about something.

Seriously. I'm not lookinng to bash him, but before I give up on him as a hopeless nutjob I need an outside oppinion.

There's a lot of economic stuff where he says "Clinton had the highest tax rate ever" and I post a link showing that he didn't. That sort of thing. It's kind of dense, so be patient.

Edited, Fri May 28 22:44:36 2004 by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#2 May 28 2004 at 11:00 PM Rating: Decent
**
970 posts
Shouldn't it be:

I need some impartial people to come read this thread?

or

I need an impartial person to come read this thread?


And honestly man, is there anyone left that would be impartial?
#3 May 28 2004 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I'd be happy with an impartial person taking a gander as well.

I am amused by the way you present this though. The fact is that I stated that Clinton had the highest tax rates ever, and I posted a link to the CBO hisorical records that showed that Clinton's 2000 government took in 20.9% of the GDP, which is the highest rate on the chart.

I've looked and looked, and I can't find a single link in that thread by you that shows overall tax rates at all. Picking a couple taxes isn't what we are talkin about, unless you're trying to be really weasily.

It's like me saying that Joe's market has the higest prices in town, and then presenting a audit that averages the prices of all his goods in relation to all other stores and shows his to be the highest, and you refute that by picking up a can of pears and saying that this one item is lower then one other store. Then calling me crazy for making the statement in the first place! Ludicrous...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#4 May 28 2004 at 11:26 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Im biased but here is my take on it, commence *** kissing:

Smash your a better man than me for trying. Time after time you come out with facts and even source your facts. My English professor for first year university would have turned even "gayer" (not saying thats a bad thing) and fall in love with you if he read some of stuff you write. Its well thought out, sourced, factual, and great rhetoric.

Now that im done sucking your ***,

All that Gbaji and others write back is conjecture and hearsay. It is never backed up, sourced or proven in anyway. Then you come back with more facts and proven truth to disclaim what they say, then they use conjecture and half truths and you come back with facts and we have a nice viscious circle.

Frankly i dont have the stamina that you do, a long time ago i took the easy way out and said **** it, "they are gonna believe what they are gonna believe" no matter how well i argue my case, no matter how much fact and truth i show. I decided not to waste the time of day on them, i have better things to do.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#5 May 29 2004 at 12:11 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
That's ok, someday I'll argue the merits of arcane UNIX stuff with him say "I dunno man, works fine on my x-box rig I don't think you understand how Unix works. It's a netwrok operational systemizer you know"

And my spelling would have made that guy celibate I'm sure.

Edited, Sat May 29 01:13:07 2004 by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 May 29 2004 at 12:27 AM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
bhodisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
All that Gbaji and others write back is conjecture and hearsay. It is never backed up, sourced or proven in anyway. Then you come back with more facts and proven truth to disclaim what they say, then they use conjecture and half truths and you come back with facts and we have a nice viscious circle.


Well, at least you admit you are biased. I can kinda respect that. I am, however, totally blown away by saying I write just conjecture and hearsay.

I said that Clinton had the highest tax rate since 1962 (oldest figures that CBO has online). Smash said I was wrong.

Here's the link: CBO

Here's the numbers:

Clinton's federal revenue in 2000 was 20.9% of the GDP. The next highest was 19.7% in 1969. Clearly, Clinton's is the "highest" rate.

Total federal revenue as a percentage of GDP is the *best* indicator of overall taxation. It's literally how much of the money changing hands in your economy ended up in the government's hands. That's what a tax is btw.

Please explain to me how my statement can possibly be wrong. My source is the Congressional Budget Office. How is this "conjecture and hearsay"?

I understand that people don't like to have their beliefs refuted. No one likes to discover that what they've thought was right is actually incorrect. But the vehemence with which some people will absolutely refuse to accept fact when it's put right in front of their faces never ceases to amaze me.

Edited, Sat May 29 01:29:21 2004 by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 May 29 2004 at 12:30 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Quote:
I decided not to waste the time of day on them, i have better things to do.


Thats bout all i have to say, if you wanna argue go talk to Smash.





Edited, Sat May 29 01:31:12 2004 by bhodisattva
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#8 May 29 2004 at 12:39 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
I said that Clinton had the highest tax rate since 1962 (oldest figures that CBO has online). Smash said I was wrong.

Sorry but your link does not show any tax rate figures it gives comparisons of revenue compared to the GDP. There are factors that can effect this comparison that are not part of the tax rate. Please provide tax rate information if you are going to make such a claim.
#9 May 29 2004 at 2:11 AM Rating: Decent
Gbaji(whatever the **** that is) is always wrong.

Thus, you are always right.

Happy?

Eb

Smash, you are literate, well-spoken...bah I have a girlfriend...but you still rule...Preach on!
#10 May 29 2004 at 3:05 AM Rating: Decent
I may be biased ( lol) ok I am way biased ,but did a little research on the bill as I remember it being mainstream news for a couple of weeks because the accountant who came up with the numbers claimed he was forced to lie about the numbers by the current administration. Something about him not having a job if he told congressmen the real numbers. Most mainstream media covered this including CNN, ABC,NBC,CBS, notably absent in there coverage was FNC and Fox regular news, they clearly didnt want to support a rift in the Republican party. I guess we can now confirm what we all suspected Gbaji doesnt pay attention to the regular news and prefers to only see/read the news that is slanted to his own oppinon.

Just in case your still curious about the outcome several Republican congressmen were pissed about being lied to about how much this bill would cost, but quickly came back to the partyline as they knew they would need it to get re-elected and that Bush while wrong in their estimate about this and deficit spending in their oppinon was right about enough else to still merit their support.

Some odd little tidbits about Gbaji, earlier on in the life of the board he claimed to be worth about 3 million when trying to measure his **** up against Smash's. Smash countered with himself being worth about 3.5 million. Who knows if this information is true. But the point is that Gbaji continually states that he doesnt "make enough" by Smash's numbers to be considered one of the people who should and will always vote Republican based on his income, yet this information clearly states that he is one of these people. I myself have argued with Gbaji and he said he earned almost 75k a year. He lives in an expensive city San Diego, so lets say that he has a really nice house by San Diego standards and it is worth 1 million, that means that he has 2 million in savings/bonds/mutual funds/stock market. Gbaji always claims he is a financial guru, so a modest return on his earnings from 2 million would easily be 10% :even in todays economy which as he will have you perpetually believe is not struggling. That means his intrest/return is about 200,000 a year so taking that number and adding his income he is making about 275,000 a year and well above the number of 200,000 that Smash usually gives for people that should vote Republican.

Gbaji, will also always state that Clinton spent more money then Bush. Even though Clinton was running at a surplus, something he is quick to discount. He will also state that, the surplus money belonged to us. Well again here is where I beg to differ, if we didnt borrow the money then our parents or grandparents did but when you owe money on a loan and instead of paying it borrow more then you are foolish. We in my generation may not have caused this deficit, but that still doesnt change the fact that we or our descendents will eventually need to pay it back. To say that we are taking back "our money" from what the government provides or the trillions that we owe in debt is ludicrious.

Clinton in the course of his tenure in the whitehouse started more programs and increased federal aid to things like, policemen, firemen, teachers and did so while bringing in a surplus. Gbaji will have you believe that Clinton overspent while bringing in a surplus. Bush on the other hand has spent way more then he has brought in. Gbaji will have you believe that he is investing in long term goals that will eventually fix everything. It is really that simple Gbaji who makes more then 200,000 a year will tell you that he is not really served by the current administration, yet vote for them anyways and try and persuade others who would be better served to vote for them.

What we currently have in the whitehouse is someone who will ensure that anyone making over 200k will keep more of that money then someone making less then that. If you make less then that and are not a Christian fanatic you are a fool to vote Republican, fyi 99% of all Americans make less then that. Is there really any doubt how the "independent, free minded" Gbaji will feel about that?
#11 May 29 2004 at 3:27 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
As impartially as possible, I'd just like to say...




You guys are still arguing this ****? This was an old grudge when I first came to these boards.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#12 May 29 2004 at 3:31 AM Rating: Decent
Ah yes an oldie but a goodie specially in an election year =)
#13 May 29 2004 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
If you took all the text from all the gbaji vs. smash posts, and put the letters end to end at size 12 font, you could reach 196th of the way to the moon.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#14 May 29 2004 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Im extremely biased but here is my take on it, commence *** kissing:

Smash your a better man than me for trying. Time after time you come out with quasi-facts and even source your facts with sites that have nothing to do with the argument. My English professor for first year university would have turned even "gayer" (not saying thats a bad thing) and fall in love with you just like I have if he read some of stuff you write. Its well thought out, randomly sourced, semi-factual, badly spelled, and great rhetoric, err, demogogory.

Now that im done sucking your ***, it's time for me to insert my pet gerbil.

I believe all that Gbaji and others write back is conjecture and hearsay. It is never backed up with spurious arguments, sourced or proven in anyway with unrelated sites like yours. Then you come back with more garbled facts and unproven truth in an attempt to disclaim what they say, then they use what I believe is conjecture and half truths and you come back with those same quasi-facts and we have a nice viscious circle exacerbated by suck-ups like me.

Frankly i dont have the stamina that you do, but am willing to take it up the a$$ endlessly from you for a long long time. Some time ago i took the easy way out and said @#%^ it, "they are gonna believe what they are gonna believe" no matter how well i argue my case, no matter how much fact and truth i show that I am ostensibly a heterosexual despite all evidence to the contrary. I decided not to waste the time of day on them, i have better things to do." --Botswana

FTFY.

Totem
#15 May 29 2004 at 3:37 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
I'm 90% sure that Smash and Gbaji are the same person and they are both Thundra...............
#16 May 29 2004 at 3:50 PM Rating: Decent
*
168 posts
Personally I think that with the diversity of the Internet today it's possible to put just about any spin you want on any argument by linking to various sites. Arguing against Bush by sending me to the "Kerry for President" website, for instance, isn't likely to make me take anything I read there at face value.

If you must argue politics, surely there are fact-only sites where legislation is listed in full, all facets of the budget are listed without "helpful" embellishment, etc. It would be nice if you could find a simple listing of how each politician stands on each issue but to hear their doubletalk it sounds like they don't even know what they stand for half the time, or at least aren't willing to let any of us in on it.

The question is, who is actually willing to read all that crap? Let's face it, we vote according to the PR of the various candidates (or, like Smash, according to party lines regardless of candidate). With this in mind, political debate is essentially meaningless on this level except for the debaters' personal aggrandizement, but I'd find it all a lot more credible if all the sites referenced didn't reek of donkey and elephant poo. Smiley: twocents
#17 May 29 2004 at 4:17 PM Rating: Decent
ValkyrieBuffinstuff wrote:
Personally I think that with the diversity of the Internet today it's possible to put just about any spin you want on any argument by linking to various sites. Arguing against Bush by sending me to the "Kerry for President" website, for instance, isn't likely to make me take anything I read there at face value.

If you must argue politics, surely there are fact-only sites where legislation is listed in full, all facets of the budget are listed without "helpful" embellishment, etc. It would be nice if you could find a simple listing of how each politician stands on each issue but to hear their doubletalk it sounds like they don't even know what they stand for half the time, or at least aren't willing to let any of us in on it.

The question is, who is actually willing to read all that crap? Let's face it, we vote according to the PR of the various candidates (or, like Smash, according to party lines regardless of candidate). With this in mind, political debate is essentially meaningless on this level except for the debaters' personal aggrandizement, but I'd find it all a lot more credible if all the sites referenced didn't reek of donkey and elephant poo. Smiley: twocents

To me that would be like trying to learn about Islam without reading the Koran.

I say read both sides putting there best feet forward then decide I mean really even your most impartial person will have some preconcieved notions. But, your normal way too many people in our generation, use this same excuse to say that they really dont give a ****.
#18 May 29 2004 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

Sorry but your link does not show any tax rate figures it gives comparisons of revenue compared to the GDP. There are factors that can effect this comparison that are not part of the tax rate. Please provide tax rate information if you are going to make such a claim

My point exactly.

It boggles the mind that someone arguing economics wouldn't understand what "Tax Rate" means.

Stunning.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 May 29 2004 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

I am amused by the way you present this though. The fact is that I stated that Clinton had the highest tax rates ever, and I posted a link to the CBO hisorical records that showed that Clinton's 2000 government took in 20.9% of the GDP, which is the highest rate on the chart.

Sure. Of course that has nothing to do with tax rate. If I say I have more money saved than you and I have $1 saved but I'm unemployed and you have $100000000 saved, but have a job are you goinng to see my statement as correct because I have more saved as a percentage of my income?

You should if you're holding with your assanine argument that you didn't fuc[b][/b]k up when you said "tax rates". You misused a simple economic term. It's to be expected. You thought Keynsian economics and Supply Side economics were the same thing a while ago, remember.

You should just be able to say "Ok, I didn't mean tax rate, I mispoke".

Edited, Sat May 29 17:31:29 2004 by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#20 May 29 2004 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I mean, let's look at some statements you've made:

Clinton ran record high tax rates. Bush has run record *low* tax rates. That "surplus" that Clinton had was *our* money that he overtaxed in the first place. The "deficit" that Bush is runing is *our* money as well. If he taxes 600B less in 2003, and runs a 600B deficit, it's we who have 600B more dollars in our economy to generate jobs and new products as a result. Yes, we have to pay it back at some point, but borrowing money to invest in the economy when we're in a recession and interest rates are low is a pretty solid economic move.

This is what you actually said.

It's important to note you didn't link anything relative to GPD untill AFTER I pointed out that a four year old could see that your statement was false. Which it was.

Now, if you made the above statement, then SOMEWHERE IN THE SAME POST linked GDP numbers, MAYBE, MAYBE someone could have inferred that you made some sort of mistake.

You didn't though. You posted a patently false political argument which I instantly proved wrong with the actual facts and then you MAGICALLY changed the argument not to be about tax rates, but to be about revenue relative to GDP which has never, ever,
not one single time
ever
in the history of man
been mistaken for tax rates.

Yay, I win!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 May 29 2004 at 4:32 PM Rating: Decent
*
168 posts
Quote:
But, your normal way too many people in our generation, use this same excuse to say that they really dont give a sh*t.


I ask people to cite impartial sources and therefore I don't give a ****? Eh?

I was referring to forum-level political debate. I don't like reading propaganda. I get enough of that on the radio, in the news, and in what little TV I actually watch. If I am reading a political debate here involving two or more (presumably intelligent) persons, I don't think it's too much to ask to have them cite sources other than those which are clearly biased toward some political party. The information must exist elsewhere, right? I would think for credibility's sake that you'd WANT to use an impartial source.


Quote:
To me that would be like trying to learn about Islam without reading the Koran.


Actually in this case the legislation and the numbers would be the Koran, while the political sites would be all the clerics preaching it (all differently of course).

EDIT: added an afterthought



Edited, Sat May 29 17:35:58 2004 by ValkyrieBuffinstuff
#22 May 29 2004 at 4:47 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
The "both sides are full of ****" argument is a huge cop out. It's essentially saying "I'm too lazy to take the time to see who believes in things I do".

I would say decribe your stance on issues and let people argue over which candidate or party would represent you the best.

There aren't two equal sides to every issue. Manytimes one side is just factually wrong. Might be my side, might be the other side, but EXCEPTIONALLY RARELY are both sides equal.

It's a common pheneomen to feel that way, however fostered by a simple PR theory:

If you make a completely false argument that's signifigantly complex enough that most people won't have the ability to discern the falseness it will be accepted as equally valid to an argument made solely from factual data.

That is, if you nkow nothing about physics and I tell you the sun is powered by DiLithium crystals and sommeone else tells you it's powered by Hydrogen Fusion you'll think both theories are equally likely. If the person making the diLithium crystal argument seems more like a person you'd like to have a beer with, you'll probably be MORE inclined to think that argument is true.

This is the fundemental theorom of the Republican party. They make an argument that is clearly and patently false. Many people who understand the concepts being discussed will point out that it's patently false. They will just ignore this and continue to repeat the argument, ussually attacking the "character" of the person pointing out the complete falshood of their argument and the lazy populace, and indeed the press most times will decide:

"Both arguments are qually valid, it's a matter of oppinion."

All you need is an argument of sufficent complexity that most people won't bother to reasearch it. You couldn't argue that the World was flat sucessfully, because the research to disprove it is too simple.

You COULD ARGUE, though, that global warming didn't exist even though it clearly factually does. The research is difficult enough that most people will say:

"Maybe global warming exists, maybe it doesn't, there's arguments on both sides, it's a matter of oppinion."

You could even, were you carefull, argue that Saddam was connected to 9-11.

"No one knnows if Saddam was behind 9-11. He could be, so there's some chance he cause Americans to die. Do you really want to take that chance again? Removing him from power eliminates that chance and makes the nation safer."

Sufficently complex that most people won't bother to research it.

Democrats occasionally do the same thing, but not even vaguely close to on the same scale as Republicans. Democrats instead tey to obfuscate the fact that to provide services to people there will have to be taxes because Republicans have made the argument that you can lower taxes and increases services for so long that it's of sufficent complexity that people think it might be true. It's hard to argue against that with the truth when people can't discern that one's true and one isn't.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#23 May 29 2004 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
*
133 posts
I'm gonna say that Smash won that debate, due to the number of supporting facts he provided.

Quote:
I'm against religious instruction in schools
I'm pro choice
I'm pro-"right to bear arms"
I'm pro-legalization
I'm against big government and entitlement
I'm for supply side economic plans


You should relly consider joining the Libertarian Party. I think you've already said that you are Republican, but Gary Nolan provides all you need in a nutshell. A tasty nutshell at that, too. Now all we need if for O'reilly books to step in and write "Libertarians in a Nutshell".

Mmmmmmm... Nutshell.
#24 May 29 2004 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
ValkyrieBuffinstuff wrote:

I ask people to cite impartial sources and therefore I don't give a ****? Eh?


Yup you said it. What would you call impartial? Who without an agenda would take the time to assemble the information you are requesting? I believe it is because you are too lazy to actually try and formulate your own oppinion by reading both sides of the argument and then deciding for yourself.




[quote}Actually in this case the legislation and the numbers would be the Koran, while the political sites would be all the clerics preaching it (all differently of course).[/quote]

Very likely but you would still be too lazy to read it, or if you did understand Arabic would come up with your own Arab to English version much like all those clerics, and then you would have to actually <gasp> make a decision who or what was more right.
#25 May 29 2004 at 7:37 PM Rating: Decent
*
168 posts
Quote:
What would you call impartial?


Oh I dunno, how about this?

US Senate Legislation and Records Home

or maybe these

House Budget Committee Home

OMB Home

Quote:
Who without an agenda would take the time to assemble the information you are requesting? I believe it is because you are too lazy to actually try and formulate your own oppinion by reading both sides of the argument and then deciding for yourself.


Have you actually read my post? Who the hell said anything about people without an agenda? We're talking about ARGUING POLITICS here for the love of bob, what would you argue for if you didn't have an agenda? I'm saying that if you're arguing a political position and are going to cite sources to support your AGENDA, you could do a lot better than second hand information from people who are also arguing the same agenda.

Let me give you an example. A scientist writes a paper arguing against evolution. His bibliography cites sources which are all well-known to be directly related to religious institutions. Regardless of the strengths of his argument, how credible would this person appear to the scientific community?

On the other hand, let's say the same scientist wrote the same paper and cited only documented studies and sources which have all undergone peer review in their respective fields. I for one would be much more inclined to trust the validity of precisely the same argument when I can see some facts that I know are not tainted by any agenda backing it up.

Furthermore, you are correct that I will not be going to the respective political party sites (or any partisan sites) to read their propaganda. I find the arguments presented here and on a few other sites I visit to be much more interesting and frankly I don't have any interest in politics as a whole, so reading either or both party sites would be an exercise in overkill for me. If that makes me an lazy person in your eyes, so be it. I assure you I won't lose any sleep over it. Suffice it to say that when I "decide for myself" I prefer to be doing it with more information than the spin doctors care to provide.

Quote:
Very likely but you would still be too lazy to read it, or if you did understand Arabic would come up with your own Arab to English version much like all those clerics, and then you would have to actually <gasp> make a decision who or what was more right.


This would be a good analogy if I ever said I was interested in politics (your "Islam") in the first place. I'm not. But you don't have to be a political analyst to enjoy a good political debate any more than you have to be a student of Tolkein to enjoy Lord of the Rings. There are degrees to everything. I don't argue politics because I don't know enough about it to argue a position, but this has nothing to do with wanting to see reputable, unbiased sources cited when others do.

Some people get caught up in the fervor and accept something as the truth "because Limbaugh/Moyer said so." I am not one of those people. Maybe you are.

EDIT can't spell

Edited, Sat May 29 20:39:12 2004 by ValkyrieBuffinstuff
#26 May 29 2004 at 7:50 PM Rating: Decent
Ah yes but then you will still have to interpret those numbers, or have someone interpret them for you, thus like it or not its be uninformed or find your information skewed. Cause I am sure that all congressional budget committees will have some partisian intrest =)

Edit, cause I wanted to ask if you even looked at the linked sources, Kerry and Clinton sites both use many references to things like the CBO in supporting there claims (much like your scientist with the paper) or did you automatically assume it would be nothing more then rhetoric? Ya I thought not. How about the CBO site they have a search engine there too you can look up information that you might find valuable? Nah, though not again.

Edited, Sat May 29 20:54:58 2004 by flishtaco
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 224 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (224)