Too easy, too obvious.
Rule #1: Know your audience.
Too easy, too obvious.
Rule #1: Know your audience.
The only reason we had budget surpluses "then" is that the administration in the 90s 1) was wise enough to let the programs instituted by Reagan "ride" unimpeded, and 2) was unwise enough to allow terrorists to gain strength and confidence, leaving it up to someone else to clean up.
The economy is being driven by cooked statistics. No one seems to be concerned over the inherent conflict of interest in the situation of one entity controlling the collection of economic statistics and then using the information developed from those statistics to set economic policy. For instance the federales collects statistics on inflation then has to respond to laws mandating welfare payments based on those same inflation figures. So it pays the federales to understate inflation. Pick a statistic: inflation, GDP, unemployment, employment, payroll, etc. All are used to describe our "prosperity" yet everyone seems to miss the built in conflict of interest. Amazing!We had surpluses because of accounting decisions within the federal gov't that created surpluses, but would have landed accountants in private practice in prison for decades. In short, the books were cooked.
We had surpluses because of accounting decisions within the federal gov't that created surpluses, but would have landed accountants in private practice in prison for decades. In short, the books were cooked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemapplesanity said:By polite, do you mean... weak?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populumapplesanity said:Bench warmers have lots of opinions - but they can't play the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemapplesanity said:My sister, who doesn't care jack ___ for politics, saw that video. That was the first time she's ever heard of RP. She said, "He looks like that friendly old teacher back in highschool that everyone pulled pranks on."
Your original post was just as full of fallacies as mine one, and constantly pointing out every single fallacy someone makes is an extremely lame way to argue your point. There is a reason you dont see people yelling "Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem!" when debating on TV, because its lame.
Applesanity = a combination of
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/profundusmaximus.htm
and
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/lamer.htm
And I am done "debating" you as its pointless and I dont want to take the chance of getting myself banned.
I will take that as a concession that I am right.
Fred Thompson seems closest so far.