Reign of Error
-
He is actually making a case that Bush is a liar. You, are the other hand were simply asserting that the NY Times is unreliable.
dennisd45 wrote:
You, are the other hand were simply asserting that the NY Times is unreliable.
Well given the track record from the last couple years, yes, the case that the NYT is unreliable can be easily made.
My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
dennisd45 wrote:
The author was talking about what people believe now, not what they believed in 2003. So your statement is irrelevant. We can have a separate debate about what the administration knew about the falseness of the intelligence.
Not irrelevant at all. I also believe (correctly, as Stan pointed out) that Saddam Hussein had WMD when we invaded. We sold him those weapons and even found stashes of it. If Krugman were actually digging for the truth, he would check to see how many people believe that Hussein had active WMD production programs (something sold to the American public before the invasion). I'm guessing few people believe that.
dennisd45 wrote:
Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
Everything economic is debatable, but the fact of government revenue[^] increases is not. You might argue that the increased government revenue (which is a result of increased production and therefore tax base) is not related to the tax cuts, but Alan greenspan[^] and the correlation disagree with you.
dennisd45 wrote:
What he was saying was the Bush claimed he had to invade because of non-compliance. But at the time of the invasion, there was movement to let the inspectors back in.
As I recall, Saddam Hussein changed his mind days before we went in. Too little, too late. Krugman quite clearly states "Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in*". The entire case for the invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that for 6 months, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the world in allowing inspections of what he had going on. Krugman flat out lied here...and not simply because he's a leftist, but because his statements contradict facts.
dennisd45 wrote:
On numerous threads both you and Stan have done this - dismiss by claiming leftist bias.
There
the first point is still irrelevant, he was talking about then he is talking about now. You can believe there were WMD's but there is no evidence. You're first link is to an unsupported graph, so it doesn't mean much. You're second link is to a 2001 article in which Greenspan supports tax cuts, but it doesn't support that tax cut's raised revenue(It couldn't - this was in 2001.).
espeir wrote:
There you go again...
I say it because you have.
espeir wrote:
I dismiss clearly biased articles as unreliable
What is clear is your belief of bias.
-
the first point is still irrelevant, he was talking about then he is talking about now. You can believe there were WMD's but there is no evidence. You're first link is to an unsupported graph, so it doesn't mean much. You're second link is to a 2001 article in which Greenspan supports tax cuts, but it doesn't support that tax cut's raised revenue(It couldn't - this was in 2001.).
espeir wrote:
There you go again...
I say it because you have.
espeir wrote:
I dismiss clearly biased articles as unreliable
What is clear is your belief of bias.
dennisd45 wrote:
the first point is still irrelevant, he was talking about then he is talking about now. You can believe there were WMD's but there is no evidence.
For the last time it IS relevant because numerous chemical weapons HAVE been found. The fact that you continue to deny this is proof that you need to diversify your news outlets.
dennisd45 wrote:
You're first link is to an unsupported graph, so it doesn't mean much. You're second link is to a 2001 article in which Greenspan supports tax cuts, but it doesn't support that tax cut's raised revenue(It couldn't - this was in 2001.).
The first link is based on government revenue, which you are apparently dismissing because of the source (hypocrite). The raw data is publicy available and if you want to dismiss the source, I suggest you first do some research (the department of Treasury website has this data) before making yourself look stupid. The second link illustrates our former chief economists opinion on the matter. Like I said, causality for something as complex as the US economy is impossible to determine, but all the evidence supports the fact that tax cuts did indeed increase government revenues. If you decide to deny the causality (and you would be in the small minority as economists go), you must accept as a minimum that government revenues increased regardless of tax cuts, thereby indicating that lower taxes are better.
dennisd45 wrote:
What is clear is your belief of bias.
I'm capable of thinking for myself. Even as I present clear evidece based on raw data that directly contradicts this author, you decide to believe his arbitrary claims. You are, like most leftists, a mindless follower.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Thank God for talk radio and FoxNews.
You'll do fine as Exhibit A of right wing delusional thinking.
John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
You'll do fine as Exhibit A of right wing delusional thinking.
and you'll do fine as a cool aid drinker.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
dennisd45 wrote:
the first point is still irrelevant, he was talking about then he is talking about now. You can believe there were WMD's but there is no evidence.
For the last time it IS relevant because numerous chemical weapons HAVE been found. The fact that you continue to deny this is proof that you need to diversify your news outlets.
dennisd45 wrote:
You're first link is to an unsupported graph, so it doesn't mean much. You're second link is to a 2001 article in which Greenspan supports tax cuts, but it doesn't support that tax cut's raised revenue(It couldn't - this was in 2001.).
The first link is based on government revenue, which you are apparently dismissing because of the source (hypocrite). The raw data is publicy available and if you want to dismiss the source, I suggest you first do some research (the department of Treasury website has this data) before making yourself look stupid. The second link illustrates our former chief economists opinion on the matter. Like I said, causality for something as complex as the US economy is impossible to determine, but all the evidence supports the fact that tax cuts did indeed increase government revenues. If you decide to deny the causality (and you would be in the small minority as economists go), you must accept as a minimum that government revenues increased regardless of tax cuts, thereby indicating that lower taxes are better.
dennisd45 wrote:
What is clear is your belief of bias.
I'm capable of thinking for myself. Even as I present clear evidece based on raw data that directly contradicts this author, you decide to believe his arbitrary claims. You are, like most leftists, a mindless follower.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
For the last time it IS relevant because numerous chemical weapons HAVE been found. The fact that you continue to deny this is proof that you need to diversify your news outlets.
Well, you can choose to believe that a few decade old shells are reason enough to go to war, Go ahead.
espeir wrote:
The first link is based on government revenue, which you are apparently dismissing because of the source (hypocrite).
I didn't dismiss it because of the source, I dismissed because you provided no source.
espeir wrote:
The second link illustrates our former chief economists opinion on the matter
.. in 2001. That is not proof that the tax cuts have increased revenue.
espeir wrote:
You are, like most leftists, a mindless follower
I'm impressed - you used "most" instead of "all". Congratulations on developing a nuanced view of "leftists".
-
espeir wrote:
For the last time it IS relevant because numerous chemical weapons HAVE been found. The fact that you continue to deny this is proof that you need to diversify your news outlets.
Well, you can choose to believe that a few decade old shells are reason enough to go to war, Go ahead.
espeir wrote:
The first link is based on government revenue, which you are apparently dismissing because of the source (hypocrite).
I didn't dismiss it because of the source, I dismissed because you provided no source.
espeir wrote:
The second link illustrates our former chief economists opinion on the matter
.. in 2001. That is not proof that the tax cuts have increased revenue.
espeir wrote:
You are, like most leftists, a mindless follower
I'm impressed - you used "most" instead of "all". Congratulations on developing a nuanced view of "leftists".
dennisd45 wrote:
Well, you can choose to believe that a few decade old shells are reason enough to go to war, Go ahead.
That's not the issue at hand. Krugman stated that half of the public believes a lie...That Iraq had WMD when we invaded. The US found WMD and Krugman is therefore lying. Your failure to concede that obvious point borders on ridiculous.
dennisd45 wrote:
I didn't dismiss it because of the source, I dismissed because you provided no source.
Yes I did. I gave you a link. It's right there in front of your face. See it? The purple little thingy??? The figure that says Krugman is a liar?
dennisd45 wrote:
.. in 2001. That is not proof that the tax cuts have increased revenue.
Duh. What did I just say? Do you have any concept of macroeconomics? Causality? I clearly said that causality cannot be determined. But because you fail to grasp basic points, you have digressed from the original point...Krugman's lies. He suggested that the economy was better under Clinton. This is demonstrably false and the link I provided demonstrated that clearly enough for any Jr. high school student. But since you obviously have lesser capabilities, I'll point you here: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/1[^] That's unbiased federal reserve economic data. Pay close attention to such graphs as this[^]. See how non-farm output is much higher than it was under Clinton? Or this[^]. See how manufacturing output is much higher than it was under Clinton? Also notice how that decline that the NYT attributed to Bush began under Clinton? Or this[^]. Krugman is an outright liar. His claims are intentionally false and succeed in misleading only people so incapable of thinking for thems
-
dennisd45 wrote:
The author was talking about what people believe now, not what they believed in 2003. So your statement is irrelevant. We can have a separate debate about what the administration knew about the falseness of the intelligence.
Not irrelevant at all. I also believe (correctly, as Stan pointed out) that Saddam Hussein had WMD when we invaded. We sold him those weapons and even found stashes of it. If Krugman were actually digging for the truth, he would check to see how many people believe that Hussein had active WMD production programs (something sold to the American public before the invasion). I'm guessing few people believe that.
dennisd45 wrote:
Your statements on the state of the economy are debateable, but if you want to demonstrate something, actually provide some numbers.
Everything economic is debatable, but the fact of government revenue[^] increases is not. You might argue that the increased government revenue (which is a result of increased production and therefore tax base) is not related to the tax cuts, but Alan greenspan[^] and the correlation disagree with you.
dennisd45 wrote:
What he was saying was the Bush claimed he had to invade because of non-compliance. But at the time of the invasion, there was movement to let the inspectors back in.
As I recall, Saddam Hussein changed his mind days before we went in. Too little, too late. Krugman quite clearly states "Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in*". The entire case for the invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that for 6 months, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the world in allowing inspections of what he had going on. Krugman flat out lied here...and not simply because he's a leftist, but because his statements contradict facts.
dennisd45 wrote:
On numerous threads both you and Stan have done this - dismiss by claiming leftist bias.
There
-
>>So one side's dead babies are more important No, I have never ever said that.. I consider the Hezzbollahs to be terrorists and should be destroyed. However by killing babies and civilians, I pretty much get the same opinion about Israel. In order to not appear as bad as the terrorists, Israel should give higest priority to not harm the civilians, even if it costs more Israeli soldiers lives when they cant use bomb raids. This is not how Israel currently handles the matter, they attack in blind rage. //Roger
Roger J wrote:
However by killing babies and civilians, I pretty much get the same opinion about Israel.
The difference between Israel and the Army of Allah (Hizballah) is that the Israeli Defense Forces are motivated by the protection of civilians, in particular, from kidnappings, rocket attacks on civilian towns, and suicide bombers blowing up in buses, hotels, pizza parlors. Contrast this with the Army of Allah which is motivated by their belief that Allah hates Jews and therefore Jews should be killed en masse, civilian and military populace alike. Their real goal is, of course, removing the Jewish race from the plot of land known to them as Palestine. I think the correct term for that is "genocide". Yes, ordinary people--civilians--die on both sides; it's a terrible side-effect of war. The difference lies in motivation and purpose; it is neither Israel's motivation or purpose to wipe out the Lebanese populace, whereas it is the motivation and purpose of the Army of Allah to wipe out the Jewish populace in Israel.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Messianic Instrumentals (with audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Well, you can choose to believe that a few decade old shells are reason enough to go to war, Go ahead.
That's not the issue at hand. Krugman stated that half of the public believes a lie...That Iraq had WMD when we invaded. The US found WMD and Krugman is therefore lying. Your failure to concede that obvious point borders on ridiculous.
dennisd45 wrote:
I didn't dismiss it because of the source, I dismissed because you provided no source.
Yes I did. I gave you a link. It's right there in front of your face. See it? The purple little thingy??? The figure that says Krugman is a liar?
dennisd45 wrote:
.. in 2001. That is not proof that the tax cuts have increased revenue.
Duh. What did I just say? Do you have any concept of macroeconomics? Causality? I clearly said that causality cannot be determined. But because you fail to grasp basic points, you have digressed from the original point...Krugman's lies. He suggested that the economy was better under Clinton. This is demonstrably false and the link I provided demonstrated that clearly enough for any Jr. high school student. But since you obviously have lesser capabilities, I'll point you here: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/1[^] That's unbiased federal reserve economic data. Pay close attention to such graphs as this[^]. See how non-farm output is much higher than it was under Clinton? Or this[^]. See how manufacturing output is much higher than it was under Clinton? Also notice how that decline that the NYT attributed to Bush began under Clinton? Or this[^]. Krugman is an outright liar. His claims are intentionally false and succeed in misleading only people so incapable of thinking for thems
espeir wrote:
That's not the issue at hand. Krugman stated that half of the public believes a lie...That Iraq had WMD when we invaded. The US found WMD and Krugman is therefore lying. Your failure to concede that obvious point borders on ridiculous.
WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction. Old shells with degraded gas do not constitute WMD. The belief is in the context of a reason to go to war. It is the issue at hand. From the article: "(Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)"
espeir wrote:
Yes I did. I gave you a link. It's right there in front of your face. See it? The purple little thingy???
That link is to a graph with no indication of where it came from. You could have been the author. No source. As far as you economic data goes, first you say it can't be proved then you cite evidence that you say proves it, and you call Kruger a liar on something you say can't be proven.
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: I'm impressed - you used "most" instead of "all". Congratulations on developing a nuanced view of "leftists". I always generalize correctly. All liberals are misguided in their thinking, but some do achieve that misguidance on their own.
Back to "all" again. You're safe now, no nuance. -- modified at 11:40 Friday 28th July, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
That's not the issue at hand. Krugman stated that half of the public believes a lie...That Iraq had WMD when we invaded. The US found WMD and Krugman is therefore lying. Your failure to concede that obvious point borders on ridiculous.
WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction. Old shells with degraded gas do not constitute WMD. The belief is in the context of a reason to go to war. It is the issue at hand. From the article: "(Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)"
espeir wrote:
Yes I did. I gave you a link. It's right there in front of your face. See it? The purple little thingy???
That link is to a graph with no indication of where it came from. You could have been the author. No source. As far as you economic data goes, first you say it can't be proved then you cite evidence that you say proves it, and you call Kruger a liar on something you say can't be proven.
espeir wrote:
dennisd45 wrote: I'm impressed - you used "most" instead of "all". Congratulations on developing a nuanced view of "leftists". I always generalize correctly. All liberals are misguided in their thinking, but some do achieve that misguidance on their own.
Back to "all" again. You're safe now, no nuance. -- modified at 11:40 Friday 28th July, 2006
dennisd45 wrote:
WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction. Old shells with degraded gas do not constitute WMD. The belief is in the context of a reason to go to war. It is the issue at hand. From the article: "(Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)"
Yes they do since much of the munitions, while old, are still usable...And those are just the ones they found. Think back before the NYT articles (a dfficult thing for you, I'm sure). The concern was that Saddamn Hussein would transfer such weaponry to terrorists, not that he would personally use them.
dennisd45 wrote:
As far as you economic data goes, first you say it can't be proved then you cite evidence that you say proves it, and you call Kruger a liar on something you say can't be proven.
Are you retarded? I said causality between tax cuts and increased government revenue cannot be absoutely determined. However, that was not the claim made by Krugman. He suggested that the economy was better under Clinton than it is today. I posted government revenue as illustration that his claim was false, but apparently that was too big a leap for you. Look at the unbiased economic data I posted and understand me as I say the following: "It is an indisputable fact that the economy today is better than it was under Clinton. Krugman lied when he stated otherwise". You have my permission to quote me whenever you want on that.
dennisd45 wrote:
Back to "all" again. You're safe now, no nuance.
Soooooooooooo stupid.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
digital man wrote:
There are 3 kinds of reality: yours, mine and the truth.
Or as I like to see it: There are three kinds of Truth: Yours, Mine and Reality. (Perhaps Reality is God, but thats another debate). And our perceptions filter that Reality,and give us our perceived Truth. As a non Jew, in fact, totally irreligious, I see the bahaviour of Israel towards Arabs as abusive. An example. The putting up of the wall a few years ago involved, in one section, running it straight through an Arab farmers field of olive trees. So the IDF get out the chain saws and cut a path through the middle. When the wall is built, he wont be able ot get to the other half of his land. Now, you might say, 'Oh, its just a few fucking trees man', but, for this farmer, it is his livelihood, all he has to feed his family. And this is the least of what the IDF has done to Arabs over the years. -- modified at 6:53 Friday 28th July, 2006
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
An example. The putting up of the wall a few years ago involved, in one section, running it straight through an Arab farmers field of olive trees.
There's a lot of confusion about the wall coming from people that don't understand the situation or all the details. Did you know the southern part of the wall bordering Sinai was built by Egypt, not Israel? Did you know the purpose of the Israeli-side wall was to keep out Palestinian suicide bombers that hit Israel on an almost weekly basis? And it's not as if people can't go to the other side of the wall; it just has to be done via guarded checkpoints, so we can make sure you're not packing explosives meant to kill our civilians. If what you say is true about the Palestinian farmer, yeah, that is sad. It's too bad they couldn't or didn't build around his farm. Even still, the fact that one man's farm is divided--sad as that may be--shouldn't lead one to believe that the whole wall is somehow indicative of widespread abuse on the part of Israel. On the contrary, Israel has given Arabs first class citizenship in Israel--we even have Arabs in our Knesset! We've offerred land to call their own, in addition to self-rule.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Messianic Instrumentals (with audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Roger J wrote:
However by killing babies and civilians, I pretty much get the same opinion about Israel.
The difference between Israel and the Army of Allah (Hizballah) is that the Israeli Defense Forces are motivated by the protection of civilians, in particular, from kidnappings, rocket attacks on civilian towns, and suicide bombers blowing up in buses, hotels, pizza parlors. Contrast this with the Army of Allah which is motivated by their belief that Allah hates Jews and therefore Jews should be killed en masse, civilian and military populace alike. Their real goal is, of course, removing the Jewish race from the plot of land known to them as Palestine. I think the correct term for that is "genocide". Yes, ordinary people--civilians--die on both sides; it's a terrible side-effect of war. The difference lies in motivation and purpose; it is neither Israel's motivation or purpose to wipe out the Lebanese populace, whereas it is the motivation and purpose of the Army of Allah to wipe out the Jewish populace in Israel.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Messianic Instrumentals (with audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
Army of Allah (Hizballah)
I realize your trying to go for a certain effect here, but Hizb means Party.
Recitation(not full prayer)in AlMasjid AlHaram Surah AlHaaqa(The Reality) Surah Qaf Eid Alfitr Turning Muslim in Texas?
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Army of Allah (Hizballah)
I realize your trying to go for a certain effect here, but Hizb means Party.
Recitation(not full prayer)in AlMasjid AlHaram Surah AlHaaqa(The Reality) Surah Qaf Eid Alfitr Turning Muslim in Texas?
You're right, Party of Allah, my fault.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Messianic Instrumentals (with audio) The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
dennisd45 wrote:
WMD - Weapons of Mass Destruction. Old shells with degraded gas do not constitute WMD. The belief is in the context of a reason to go to war. It is the issue at hand. From the article: "(Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.)"
Yes they do since much of the munitions, while old, are still usable...And those are just the ones they found. Think back before the NYT articles (a dfficult thing for you, I'm sure). The concern was that Saddamn Hussein would transfer such weaponry to terrorists, not that he would personally use them.
dennisd45 wrote:
As far as you economic data goes, first you say it can't be proved then you cite evidence that you say proves it, and you call Kruger a liar on something you say can't be proven.
Are you retarded? I said causality between tax cuts and increased government revenue cannot be absoutely determined. However, that was not the claim made by Krugman. He suggested that the economy was better under Clinton than it is today. I posted government revenue as illustration that his claim was false, but apparently that was too big a leap for you. Look at the unbiased economic data I posted and understand me as I say the following: "It is an indisputable fact that the economy today is better than it was under Clinton. Krugman lied when he stated otherwise". You have my permission to quote me whenever you want on that.
dennisd45 wrote:
Back to "all" again. You're safe now, no nuance.
Soooooooooooo stupid.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Like I said before, if you want to believe that a few degraded shells are reason enough to go to war, go ahead.
espeir wrote:
It is an indisputable fact that the economy today is better than it was under Clinton.
No, it's not. And if you think that either of us can prove it one way or the other on this board, you are mistaken.
espeir wrote:
Soooooooooooo stupid.
It amuses me to no end that you cannot resist descending into name calling. You have done it over and over.
-
Like I said before, if you want to believe that a few degraded shells are reason enough to go to war, go ahead.
espeir wrote:
It is an indisputable fact that the economy today is better than it was under Clinton.
No, it's not. And if you think that either of us can prove it one way or the other on this board, you are mistaken.
espeir wrote:
Soooooooooooo stupid.
It amuses me to no end that you cannot resist descending into name calling. You have done it over and over.
dennisd45 wrote:
Like I said before, if you want to believe that a few degraded shells are reason enough to go to war, go ahead.
That's not my personal belief why going to war was justified. However, you're continuing to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied by changing the subject.
dennisd45 wrote:
No, it's not. And if you think that either of us can prove it one way or the other on this board, you are mistaken.
Yes it is. A lot of work goes into aggregating those summed up figures I gave you. When the little line is higher on the graph, the economy is doing better. This is indisputable and the fact that you continue to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied is nothing less than disturbing.
dennisd45 wrote:
It amuses me to no end that you cannot resist descending into name calling. You have done it over and over.
It's actually extremely rare for me (unless I'm called names first, which my liberal counterparts frequently do). In this case, however, I am honestly astounded by your thick-headedness. I don't consider calling you "stupid" mere name calling, but a genuine observation.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
dennisd45 wrote:
Like I said before, if you want to believe that a few degraded shells are reason enough to go to war, go ahead.
That's not my personal belief why going to war was justified. However, you're continuing to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied by changing the subject.
dennisd45 wrote:
No, it's not. And if you think that either of us can prove it one way or the other on this board, you are mistaken.
Yes it is. A lot of work goes into aggregating those summed up figures I gave you. When the little line is higher on the graph, the economy is doing better. This is indisputable and the fact that you continue to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied is nothing less than disturbing.
dennisd45 wrote:
It amuses me to no end that you cannot resist descending into name calling. You have done it over and over.
It's actually extremely rare for me (unless I'm called names first, which my liberal counterparts frequently do). In this case, however, I am honestly astounded by your thick-headedness. I don't consider calling you "stupid" mere name calling, but a genuine observation.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
That's not my personal belief why going to war was justified. However, you're continuing to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied by changing the subject.
I haven't changed the subject. The subject has always been WMD's in the context of a justification for war.
espeir wrote:
When the little line is higher on the graph, the economy is doing better.
That is your core misunderstanding. You lump a few facts together and say it proves whatever you want it to prove. Unless you are a renowned economist, you are not in any position to declare your conclusions as "indisputable". If you really want to continue this 'he said - she said' routine, then cite some actual economists to support your conclusions. Just for fun here is a link that disagrees with you conclusions: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964[^]
espeir wrote:
It's actually extremely rare for me
Thank you, that's a good one.:laugh: -- modified at 12:25 Friday 28th July, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
That's not my personal belief why going to war was justified. However, you're continuing to disregard the fact that Krugman demonstrably lied by changing the subject.
I haven't changed the subject. The subject has always been WMD's in the context of a justification for war.
espeir wrote:
When the little line is higher on the graph, the economy is doing better.
That is your core misunderstanding. You lump a few facts together and say it proves whatever you want it to prove. Unless you are a renowned economist, you are not in any position to declare your conclusions as "indisputable". If you really want to continue this 'he said - she said' routine, then cite some actual economists to support your conclusions. Just for fun here is a link that disagrees with you conclusions: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964[^]
espeir wrote:
It's actually extremely rare for me
Thank you, that's a good one.:laugh: -- modified at 12:25 Friday 28th July, 2006
dennisd45 wrote:
I haven't changed the subject. The subject has always been WMD's in the context of a justification for war.
No...The entire point of this thread is Krugman's little op-ed piece. I pointed out the demonstrable lies and now you're trying to say that he didn't lie because you're clearly incapable of thinking for yourself. Here is what Krugman said:
"Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of
depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of
Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up
from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had
strong links with Al Qaeda."At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America
never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been
established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the
Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that
supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down
the memory hole.Those are obvious lies that you own statements confirm. And yet, quite puzzlingly, you refuse to admit that he lied. I can only assume that you do so because you would look rather silly expending such effort to defend the "truth" of the article without first thinking critically about it.
dennisd45 wrote:
That is your core misunderstanding. You lump a few facts together and say it proves whatever you want it to prove. Unless you are a renowned economist, you are not in any position to declare your conclusions as "indisputable". If you really want to continue this 'he said - she said' routine, then cite some actual economists to support your conclusions. Just for fun here is a link that disagrees with you conclusions: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi\_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964\[^\]
Dude...Seriously...Are you retarded? There is one economic indicator that economists use to determine economic strength and that is economic growth. Other indicators hint at the level future economic growth will be. The article you linked (ANOTHER left-wing source!) is using an irrelevant collection of factors in order to support an agenda. John Kerry tried this with his poverty index or whatever it was. I'll also point out the ob
-
dennisd45 wrote:
I haven't changed the subject. The subject has always been WMD's in the context of a justification for war.
No...The entire point of this thread is Krugman's little op-ed piece. I pointed out the demonstrable lies and now you're trying to say that he didn't lie because you're clearly incapable of thinking for yourself. Here is what Krugman said:
"Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of
depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of
Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up
from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had
strong links with Al Qaeda."At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America
never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been
established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the
Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that
supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down
the memory hole.Those are obvious lies that you own statements confirm. And yet, quite puzzlingly, you refuse to admit that he lied. I can only assume that you do so because you would look rather silly expending such effort to defend the "truth" of the article without first thinking critically about it.
dennisd45 wrote:
That is your core misunderstanding. You lump a few facts together and say it proves whatever you want it to prove. Unless you are a renowned economist, you are not in any position to declare your conclusions as "indisputable". If you really want to continue this 'he said - she said' routine, then cite some actual economists to support your conclusions. Just for fun here is a link that disagrees with you conclusions: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi\_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964\[^\]
Dude...Seriously...Are you retarded? There is one economic indicator that economists use to determine economic strength and that is economic growth. Other indicators hint at the level future economic growth will be. The article you linked (ANOTHER left-wing source!) is using an irrelevant collection of factors in order to support an agenda. John Kerry tried this with his poverty index or whatever it was. I'll also point out the ob
WMD's. The author mentions the shells, so it's clear he's not lying. Here is an article about the shells: Washington Times[^] Notice this quote:"When the office of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte conducted a phone-in briefing for reporters last month, the presenters downplayed the munitions finding, just like the Democrats. "The priority of the ISG [Iraq Survey Group, which headed the hunt for WMDs] was to look for post-Desert Storm [1991] munitions, newer stuff," an anonymous briefer told reporters. "It was not looking for older stuff. And so this doesn't really bear on the issue."
espeir wrote:
There is one economic indicator that economists use to determine economic strength and that is economic growth.
Another misunderstanding on your part. No one thing proves that things are better.
espeir wrote:
ANOTHER left-wing source!)
Typical. Anyway it is there to illustrate that your conclusions are not "indusputable".
espeir wrote:
retarded
espeir wrote:
Moron.
You do keep me entertained.
-
WMD's. The author mentions the shells, so it's clear he's not lying. Here is an article about the shells: Washington Times[^] Notice this quote:"When the office of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte conducted a phone-in briefing for reporters last month, the presenters downplayed the munitions finding, just like the Democrats. "The priority of the ISG [Iraq Survey Group, which headed the hunt for WMDs] was to look for post-Desert Storm [1991] munitions, newer stuff," an anonymous briefer told reporters. "It was not looking for older stuff. And so this doesn't really bear on the issue."
espeir wrote:
There is one economic indicator that economists use to determine economic strength and that is economic growth.
Another misunderstanding on your part. No one thing proves that things are better.
espeir wrote:
ANOTHER left-wing source!)
Typical. Anyway it is there to illustrate that your conclusions are not "indusputable".
espeir wrote:
retarded
espeir wrote:
Moron.
You do keep me entertained.
dennisd45 wrote:
The author mentions the shells, so it's clear he's not lying.
Where? I searched his article and found no mention of shells.
dennisd45 wrote:
Here is an article about the shells: Washington Times[^] Notice this quote:"When the office of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte conducted a phone-in briefing for reporters last month, the presenters downplayed the munitions finding, just like the Democrats. "The priority of the ISG [Iraq Survey Group, which headed the hunt for WMDs] was to look for post-Desert Storm [1991] munitions, newer stuff," an anonymous briefer told reporters. "It was not looking for older stuff. And so this doesn't really bear on the issue."
Again you're trying to defend Krugman's outward lies by changing the subject. It is comical at this point. Krugman was not talking about reasons for invading Iraq if you actually reread his article. He accused the administration of misinforming the public and causing 50% of us to believe that Iraq had WMD before we invaded. Guess what...You even admitted that! And yet your blatant bias cannot allow you to admit that Krugman lied in his article by saying there was an "absence of WMD in Iraq"! You're absolutely pathetic.
dennisd45 wrote:
Another misunderstanding on your part. No one thing proves that things are better.
I am absolutely flabergasted over the extents to which you will dilute your own perception of the world in order to conform to this guy simply because he shares your political views. This is seriously cult-like and at this point I'm beginning to think that you're just a crafty jokester. Even a lot the people at Jamestown resisted the Kool-Aid.
dennisd45 wrote:
Typical. Anyway it is there to illustrate that your conclusions are not "indusputable".
Besides the obvious fact that it was a left-wing article that jived with the Kerry campaign and came out during his presidential bid, it uses data three years old when the US economy was indeed performing poorly (and was recovering). So no, that article does not dispute the conclusions of the Federal Reserve (they weren't my conclusions...I just passed them on). You need something relevant to Krugman's claim...That the economy is weaker today than under Clinton.
dennisd45 wrote:
Yo
-
dennisd45 wrote:
The author mentions the shells, so it's clear he's not lying.
Where? I searched his article and found no mention of shells.
dennisd45 wrote:
Here is an article about the shells: Washington Times[^] Notice this quote:"When the office of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte conducted a phone-in briefing for reporters last month, the presenters downplayed the munitions finding, just like the Democrats. "The priority of the ISG [Iraq Survey Group, which headed the hunt for WMDs] was to look for post-Desert Storm [1991] munitions, newer stuff," an anonymous briefer told reporters. "It was not looking for older stuff. And so this doesn't really bear on the issue."
Again you're trying to defend Krugman's outward lies by changing the subject. It is comical at this point. Krugman was not talking about reasons for invading Iraq if you actually reread his article. He accused the administration of misinforming the public and causing 50% of us to believe that Iraq had WMD before we invaded. Guess what...You even admitted that! And yet your blatant bias cannot allow you to admit that Krugman lied in his article by saying there was an "absence of WMD in Iraq"! You're absolutely pathetic.
dennisd45 wrote:
Another misunderstanding on your part. No one thing proves that things are better.
I am absolutely flabergasted over the extents to which you will dilute your own perception of the world in order to conform to this guy simply because he shares your political views. This is seriously cult-like and at this point I'm beginning to think that you're just a crafty jokester. Even a lot the people at Jamestown resisted the Kool-Aid.
dennisd45 wrote:
Typical. Anyway it is there to illustrate that your conclusions are not "indusputable".
Besides the obvious fact that it was a left-wing article that jived with the Kerry campaign and came out during his presidential bid, it uses data three years old when the US economy was indeed performing poorly (and was recovering). So no, that article does not dispute the conclusions of the Federal Reserve (they weren't my conclusions...I just passed them on). You need something relevant to Krugman's claim...That the economy is weaker today than under Clinton.
dennisd45 wrote:
Yo
espeir wrote:
Where? I searched his article and found no mention of shells.
Here: "discovery of some decayed 1980’s-vintage chemical munitions vindicates everything the administration said about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. (Hyping of the munitions find may partly explain why public belief that Saddam had W.M.D. has made a comeback.) " On WMD's - I have not changed the subject at all. The subject of WMD's is in the context of a reason to go to war otherwise it is irrelevant. As for the rest of your post, nothing but meaningless name-calling. -- modified at 17:28 Friday 28th July, 2006
