rhaig 0 #51 December 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThey are just a a sick-n-twisted extreme of the R's, just what the country wants to avoid rather than further. wow... you really think that about the L? well it's clear you're not interested in learning anything in these forums, nor changing your viewpoint. So I won't bother to attempt to educate you. Enjoy your ignorance. Enjoy your ignorance Enjoy your Personal Attack. wow... you really think calling someone ignorant is a PA? Yes, in my opinion you are ignorant. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant Quote1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man. 2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics. 3. uninformed; unaware. 4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement. I chose a common word to describe what I perceive as your lack of knowledge. Rather than show me I'm wrong, you chose to declare a PA. Nice debate skills. Though clearly I struck a nerve.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d16842 0 #52 December 7, 2009 QuoteHypothetically, even if true, the end resultis teh GDP flippng by +10 points is 2 quarters, probably unprecedented. Now let's talk war and oil profiteers and the sector it helps and ultimate result to the economy, GDP, unemp. US GDP includes government spending. Even in a down economy, you can increase it virtually any amount you want just by writing enough government checks financed by borrowed money. I am trying to get non-government spending numbers with little success. Anyone have them?Tom B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #53 December 7, 2009 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #54 December 7, 2009 QuoteYour one warning. Cut it out. ignorance is lack of knowledge. it is not an insult. It's not as if I called him stupid. He's not stupid, if he was he couldn't put together the arguments that he does (however flawed some may believe they are). I just want to be sure why I'm being warned. because I don't see a PA in my post. Clearly you do, and I want your greenie opinion of what my PA was.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #55 December 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteHypothetically, even if true, the end resultis teh GDP flippng by +10 points is 2 quarters, probably unprecedented. Now let's talk war and oil profiteers and the sector it helps and ultimate result to the economy, GDP, unemp. US GDP includes government spending. Even in a down economy, you can increase it virtually any amount you want just by writing enough government checks financed by borrowed money.? Nothing wrong with that in a down economy, JUST AS LONG AS YOU PAY BACK WHEN TIMES ARE GOOD. Clinton did, Reagan and GWB didn't, they just kept on borrowing and borrowing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 0 #56 December 7, 2009 Quote For someone that is SO inconsequential (or so the Libs keep saying), you sure do waste a lot of time and energy trying to drag her down. Are you trying to convince yourself, or someone else? +1 but I don't know why you even bother responding to Lucky anymore..... all that is ever written by Lucky is hate speech and rhetoric. I have yet to read anything of substance. Others who I disagree with on this site at least make really valid points. Lucky really comes off to me as a talking head more left than Bill Mahr which is just .... wowLife is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,467 #57 December 7, 2009 >I just want to be sure why I'm being warned. because I don't see a >PA in my post. From the link in the post at the top of the page: ======= Personal attacks It is important to realize that a personal attack is any attack (slurs, insults, denigrations, implications about their mothers, etc) or threat against another poster. Any such attack is not permitted here. This is true even if you are absolutely, 100% sure that the poster is stupid, or ignorant, or childish, or an ass. It doesn't matter if you think it is true or not, or even if you can prove they are an ass. You can't post such messages here. If you feel it is important to post such things, unmoderated forums like rec.skydiving do not have any such restrictions. Clever insults that attempt to get around the above (i.e. "I like rabbits" "anyone who likes rabbits and posts here is an idiot") will result in the same sort of bans/locks/thread deletions that a personal attack will. Also note that personal attacks do NOT include attacks against political groups, prominent people who are not DZ.com posters, ideas, religions or theories. Since this board is intended for political discussions, more leeway is given to posters who (for example) attack the democratic party, or creationism. However, the prohibition against hate posts still applies (see here for a discussion of hate posts.) =========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #58 December 7, 2009 well since "ignorant" is specifically called out in the rules, I suppose it qualifies. don't agree with it explicitly, but by continuing to post here I suppose there is implicit agreement.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #59 December 7, 2009 You succeeded in getting me my warning. And it was pointed out that calling someone ignorant (no matter the actual state of that persons ignorance) is a PA according to the link at the top of the page. So let me re-phrase myself... I believe you are incorrect as to the intentions and beliefs of the Libertarian party. However I do not believe that you will listen to reason, nor to sensible argument on this matter, so I will not waste my time trying to correct you. If you are interested in my opinion on this matter I'm sure you will be able to contact me privately to discuss this away from this public forum. I don't expect to hear from you soon.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 December 7, 2009 QuoteYou succeeded in getting me my warning. And it was pointed out that calling someone ignorant (no matter the actual state of that persons ignorance) is a PA according to the link at the top of the page. So let me re-phrase myself... I believe you are incorrect as to the intentions and beliefs of the Libertarian party. However I do not believe that you will listen to reason, nor to sensible argument on this matter, so I will not waste my time trying to correct you. If you are interested in my opinion on this matter Of course, he's not. If you disagree with him, you're a neo-con. Or failing that, a Nazi. Or if you try for some foolish reason to point out obvious disagreements with either of those two entities, you're a Libertarian. Failing all that, he tries to play the PA attack angle. I am amused by the Perot vote, though. Talk about a wasted vote...no number of Cuban hit squads could have gotten him to the shrink he needed. It was amusing to watch, however. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d16842 0 #61 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteHypothetically, even if true, the end resultis teh GDP flippng by +10 points is 2 quarters, probably unprecedented. Now let's talk war and oil profiteers and the sector it helps and ultimate result to the economy, GDP, unemp. US GDP includes government spending. Even in a down economy, you can increase it virtually any amount you want just by writing enough government checks financed by borrowed money.? Nothing wrong with that in a down economy, JUST AS LONG AS YOU PAY BACK WHEN TIMES ARE GOOD. I didn't say there is anything wrong with infusing the economy with cash at times of need. The problem is using GDP as an indicator of economic recovery for the period in which you poured money into it. You can literally get any GDP you want, just by spending money. I still haven't found numbers sans government spending.Tom B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #62 December 8, 2009 Quote I still haven't found numbers sans government spending. How about as simple as GDP minus any deficit spending (excluding FICA). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
d16842 0 #63 December 8, 2009 QuoteQuote I still haven't found numbers sans government spending. How about as simple as GDP minus any deficit spending (excluding FICA). That would be great, and I tried that approach, but I can't determine how much they have actually spent. We may know what was authorized, but not what was actually put into the US economy. Foreign spending doesn't count, and I have no idea where much of the war stuff fits in the GDP calculation.Tom B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
