Everyone realizes that republicans PURPOSELY have created this massive debt, correct?

[MisterDeadeye 10+ year member]

I've not called you anything or hidden anything. I provided proof. You didn't read it. You're calling me radical and stupid yet you're saying we should be a totally socialist country and everyone should just want to help others and that's it... yet I'm the radical? Nope. I'm preaching we should get back to what has worked for us... and that is NOT socialism. It has failed and failed miserably.

You have called me a thief, poor, incompetent, a liar, and more. You're the liar now. We've also discussed the socialism/capitalism thing, and even though I told you that wasn't my view, you keep telling me it is.

I DID prove my point. You failed to comprehend... and we can't expect any more from you. I provided quotes, and a link. You are trying to discredit that link, and asking me for more links so you can attempt to discredit them. I knew you would so I called you on it before you did it. That has you mad because I beat you at your own game and so you're lashing out and calling me names with NO substance behind it. The people enduring to read this crap (you and me and proximity are it btw. Nobody else is going to read through this) KNOW that you have nothing.

There's no "we" in this situation. There's you, Proximity, and me. I haven't failed to comprehend anything. You're calling me stupid again. Quotes from people throughout time mean nothing. I'm not saying there's no credibility in one link from one college from two people. I'm saying it's not enough to call their ideas fact. I already gave you my ultimatum, and I've explained several different times why it is I want you to post more links. I'm not discrediting anything. If you give me five links from different colleges that say the same thing that this article says, I'll admit that Proximity was wrong. I'll call it fact and that will be it. You took the time to call me on it so that everyone reading would think of me as a crook instead of just providing the little bit of extra information I asked. I'm not mad, bro. I don't get mad over the internet. The only game I'm playing is, "Prove yourself right," and you're doing a poor job.

You jumped in defending him. You clearly just lied there. Anyone that has read this can see that.

You know what they say about assumptions. I jumped in to point out that you were in the wrong, not to defend Proximity. I called him a troll on the second page. You've just proven that your whole idea of me is flawed, so there's really no reason for you to analyze anything I say.

It did not validate his claim. GDP continued to dip even after fdr's stimulus. I showed that, and then gave proof of why it came back up. Had you read it, instead of looked for links to discredit, you would know that.

Again, I'm not arguing your point. I'm telling you that you haven't given any proof to show that he's wrong. I was looking for links because they're the only things I can credit when there are morons talking about how they read a graph differently.

There was MUCH MUCH more than that in my post. The article was but ONE thing. You did not read or did not comprehend. I proved my point. I'm asking you to give up this charade. It didn't work. There was MUCH more there than what you acknowledge.

You're right. The rest was fluff. Happy now? Regardless, you did something very similar to a post of mine in another topic.

 

[ahole-ic]

In 1936 he came close to balancing the budget, or at least came much closer than before. These are the ACTUAL DEFICITS, calculated from the REAL PUBLIC DEBT before and after the year. There are no smoke and mirrors. FDR reduced spending in 1936. He reduced his works programs. And then it resulted in a double dip depression. These are facts.

Here you go. This entirely proves what you just said horribly wrong.The Recovery from the Great Depression of the 1930s

They measured REAL unemployment during the great depression. The U-3 calculated rate, that excludes people not looking for work (ie lower than it should be), was NOT used 80 years ago. Your argument has failed. Take a look at this: http://www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/unemploymentratemint2.jpg

They estimated unemployment during the great depression. Unemployment During the Great Depression

Besides, you forget the entire other side of my argument that FDR's policies were working despite super high taxes (compared to now). The GDP. It was steadily increasing at one of the higher GDP growth rates we've ever seen.

Refer to link #1.

Of course during the war it was even higher because the Keynesian socialist stimulus government spending went even higher.

Can't and didn't work that way. Look at the boom prior to us entering the war. That was in our isolationist period where we were selling weapons to the allied war effort. I already stated this but you guys overlooked it.

Again, it's not true just because you say it. There is no evidence that suggest this. If it boomed the economy, how did Bush lead us into the worth economy since the Great Depression?

There is TONS of evidence to suggest this. Bush didn't. obama did. Debt was at 40% of gdp under Bush. It's now at 60%. That's all on this retard in office now using failed socialist policies. They are not working. We are still on the decline.

I'd love to see that. I really would. I take back the ***** thing. Feel free to prove me wrong.

It's easy enough. What's funny is, it's been done over and over again. I've got all the ammo I need.... but one thing at a time.

Also, I can't show that higher taxes improve the economy because they don't. However, they fund programs and policy that does.

The funny thing about liberals saying social programs help the economy is, the economy is based on the success of the private sector. The private sector is needed to fund the public sector. Without the private sector the public sector couldn't exist. So knowing that, how in the world could stealing money from the private sector, and then giving it back to the private sector help anyone? It can't and never has.

 

[Bettr n' Revrse 5,000+ posts]

Yep, me saying he made a good joke is me endorsing him, everything he says, and everything he does here. And I guess me agreeing with you means I promote you and everything you do here too.
If you are sensitive to trolls, you might want to rethink your sig pic.

Not at all just get sick of seeing BS like this everywhere cuz it's not gunna change so you mitt as well STFU and be useful American citizen volunteering or working hard or anything besides ***** on the internet

 

[ahole-ic]

You have called me a thief, poor, incompetent, a liar, and more. You're the liar now. We've also discussed the socialism/capitalism thing, and even though I told you that wasn't my view, you keep telling me it is.

Please quote these statements. ALL of them. If you can't show that I called you these, you certainly have lied. You DID say that was your view and I quoted it.

There's no "we" in this situation. There's you, Proximity, and me. I haven't failed to comprehend anything. You're calling me stupid again.

Where did I use that word?

Quotes from people throughout time mean nothing.

Sure. Quotes from FDR's treasury secretary completely disproving the liberal's case is obviously meaningless. Awesome call bro.

I'm not saying there's no credibility in one link from one college from two people. I'm saying it's not enough to call their ideas fact. I already gave you my ultimatum, and I've explained several different times why it is I want you to post more links.

You're not the referee and you have no authority here. YOu are attempting to control the discussion. YOu cannot give me an ultimatum. I've already proved you wrong and you cannot refute it.

I'm not discrediting anything. If you give me five links from different colleges that say the same thing that this article says, I'll admit that Proximity was wrong. I'll call it fact and that will be it.

I'll tell you what. When you get a petition signed by 500 members of this board saying that you have some authority to referee this discussion and determine who is right or wrong, I will get your 5 articles.

You took the time to call me on it so that everyone reading would think of me as a crook instead of just providing the little bit of extra information I asked. I'm not mad, bro. I don't get mad over the internet. The only game I'm playing is, "Prove yourself right," and you're doing a poor job.

I already did that. It's done and over with and you know your cause is defeated so you're making a hilarious attempt to play the referee and get me to play your game.

You know what they say about assumptions. I jumped in to point out that you were in the wrong, not to defend Proximity. I called him a troll on the second page. You've just proven that your whole idea of me is flawed, so there's really no reason for you to analyze anything I say.

So you trolling a troll takes away the fact that you're in here defending him after admitting that you are both liberals/socialsts? I'm just supposed to ignore the fact that you are uniting against a common enemy? Awesome bit of logic bro.

Again, I'm not arguing your point. I'm telling you that you haven't given any proof to show that he's wrong. I was looking for links because they're the only things I can credit when there are morons talking about how they read a graph differently.

Another ad-hominem. Awesome man! You're really giving me a tongue lashing! Do you feel better? I provided proof. It's proof that you can't refute, so you're looking for sources to try to refute instead. You can have them with a simple google search.... You will get them from left, right, and whatever sources that you cannot discredit. I provided the quotes and the truth. You can find sources anywhere.... the difference is if YOU find them... you can't discredit them all.

 

[Bohemian 10+ year member]

Not at all just get sick of seeing BS like this everywhere cuz it's not gunna change so you mitt as well STFU and be useful American citizen volunteering or working hard or anything besides ***** on the internet

When you figure out the irony you just created then we will take you seriously.

 

[MisterDeadeye 10+ year member]

You're trying to figure out a way to get your hand into someone's pocket instead of trying to earn for yourself.

Thief.

That makes you a crook. That is the definition of thievery. Until the liberals put the "tax" exception into the definition of thievery it was plainly obvious.

Crook. Don't pretend I took this out of context.

Only someone who is extremely unintelligent and uneducated would advocate such a collosal failure.

Unintelligent and uneducated.

You on the other hand have your hand out. You think those like me that make their own way owe people like you something. We don't and we will never stand for it. It's people like me that keep this country running. We will not be slaves to other people's laziness or incompetance.

Lazy or incompetent. You choose.

Calling me ignorant and greedy goes against everything I've said in this thread. I would contend that it is you who is greedy. You are wanting to steal the wealth from those that have earned it and give it to those that have not. THAT is greed. You see someone else has something and you want it.

Greedy. Thief.

You admitted you are a left wing lune

Crazy. And I didn't say I was a lune.

Had you read and been able to comprehend you would know that.

Stupid.

That's why you're lying. Just like a true liberal you will lie even when the proof is just a few posts back.... hoping that anyone else reading this will miss it.

Liar. The proof you speak of is you saying it's right. That's not proof.

You both ignored that and tried to lie

Liar.

You failed to comprehend... and we can't expect any more from you.

Stupid.

You clearly just lied there. Anyone that has read this can see that.

Liar.

we're the ones who are paying for you to live in that government housing and eat that free cheese.

Poor.

Please quote these statements. ALL of them. If you can't show that I called you these, you certainly have lied.

There. Multiple instances. I'd quote all of my posts since I started in about the graph and article to show you that in no way would someone logically think I'm defending anyone. I never said I agree with him. I just told you that you're wrong until you can provide some proof. Quotes are only useful if they're from a credible source which you are not, unless you're writing an English paper in high school. This isn't the type of situation where quoting people works. You know, I've now quoted several instances where you've put me down and called me names. If you want me to quote the times you've tried ad hominem on me, go ahead and ask. You'll see another post like this.

You DID say that was your view and I quoted it.

You put the word "just" in my mouth. I didn't say just. I said it's what should be focused on rather than being better than everyone else because that promotes greed.

Where did I use that word?

You didn't have to. Saying I didn't comprehend is saying that I didn't understand. Saying I didn't understand is saying that I was unable to understand. Saying I was unable to understand was saying I'm stupid. See the connection there?

Sure. Quotes from FDR's treasury secretary completely disproving the liberal's case is obviously meaningless. Awesome call bro.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "Bitches ain't shit." See what I did there?

You're not the referee and you have no authority here. YOu are attempting to control the discussion. YOu cannot give me an ultimatum. I've already proved you wrong and you cannot refute it.

I don't claim to be a referee of anything, and I don't need anyone to validate that I am. The only thing that matters is that people see that you can't provide what I've asked. I can't physically force you to do anything, but the fact that you don't want to just end our silly argument has to make everyone wonder whether or not what you've said can even be taken seriously.

What exactly have you proved wrong? That you have any kind of consensus between scholars(other than the two at UCLA) versed in economics and history that say that FDR, or rather a socialistic movement caused or prolonged the Great Depression.

I'll tell you what. When you get a petition signed by 500 members of this board saying that you have some authority to referee this discussion and determine who is right or wrong, I will get your 5 articles.

We both know that's not going to happen. Who said I wanted to be a referee? You need to get your words away from my mouth, bro.

I already did that. It's done and over with and you know your cause is defeated so you're making a hilarious attempt to play the referee and get me to play your game.

Again, you're claiming I'm doing something I'm not. It's not an attempt to play anything, it's an attempt to find out the truth and possibly prove you wrong while doing it.

So you trolling a troll takes away the fact that you're in here defending him after admitting that you are both liberals/socialsts? I'm just supposed to ignore the fact that you are uniting against a common enemy? Awesome bit of logic bro.

Find me one statement in which I defended him, and maybe you've got a valid claim. Like I said, I have no alliances with anyone. I'm just You're pretty paranoid, bro. Liberals and socialists have differing views. This isn't black and white, like I said earlier in the topic. There are bound to be other conservatives and advocates of capitalism in the topic, but you don't see me yelling at them for ganging up on me.

Do you feel better? I provided proof. It's proof that you can't refute, so you're looking for sources to try to refute instead. You can have them with a simple google search.... You will get them from left, right, and whatever sources that you cannot discredit. I provided the quotes and the truth. You can find sources anywhere.... the difference is if YOU find them... you can't discredit them all.

Like I've said in every single topic I've made about this, YOU HAVE NO PROOF. You have claims, and that's all you have. You can't call if proof because you believe it. Proof isn't something you can decide is there because you say it is. Proof comes from a reasonable acceptance of a truth or a fact. You know, I read through the article again and the very first sentence proves what I'm saying.

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Do you see where it says it's not a universal fact? You don't. I know. "Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years..." Throughout the article, there were quotes from other people. None of the quotes said, "You're right! FDR is the cause for the prolonged Depression!" They all applauded the economists for coming up with a new theory, and talked about the fact that it would be nice to understand what the actual cause was. They didn't say the economists were right, and they're all well known people in their field. What makes you think your opinion matters?

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Democrats must be rounded up and killed. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[ChevyRidinLow]

...

ill come back when you guys are off the rag.

 

[ahole-ic]

Thief.


Crook. Don't pretend I took this out of context.

Unintelligent and uneducated.

Lazy or incompetent. You choose.

Greedy. Thief.

Crazy. And I didn't say I was a lune.

Stupid.

Liar. The proof you speak of is you saying it's right. That's not proof.

Liar.

Stupid.

Liar.

Poor.

You said I called you those. I didn't. You proved yourself wrong. You couldn't quote where I actually called you those things. Thanks for proving my point.

There. Multiple instances. I'd quote all of my posts since I started in about the graph and article to show you that in no way would someone logically think I'm defending anyone.

Oh but you are. The graph shows something other than what proximity stated. I provided verifiable evidence to that but since I didn't provide a source for you to discredit and said "google it", it has you mad because you can't discredit my source and are unwilling to google it.

I never said I agree with him. I just told you that you're wrong until you can provide some proof.

.... and that logically doesn't make sense and it makes it clear that you're attempting to play referee.

Quotes are only useful if they're from a credible source which you are not, unless you're writing an English paper in high school.

And here we get to the crux of why you're posting here and it is EXACTLY what I predicted and why you're so mad. I won't provide a link that you can attempt to discredit. I told you to google it, which you are unwilling to do. Had you done that, you would have found MULTIPLE links to this from numerous sources and you wouldn't have to keep typing ridiculously long posts.

This isn't the type of situation where quoting people works. You know, I've now quoted several instances where you've put me down and called me names.

Lol no you didn't. You quoted things and then put a putdown next to them... spinning it to seem like a putdown.

If you want me to quote the times you've tried ad hominem on me, go ahead and ask. You'll see another post like this.

I bet I will. I'll get another post filled with fabricated falsehoods. Awesome bro.

You put the word "just" in my mouth. I didn't say just. I said it's what should be focused on rather than being better than everyone else because that promotes greed.

Define "greed". If wanting to better ones' self is greed then we should all be so ambitious.

You didn't have to. Saying I didn't comprehend is saying that I didn't understand. Saying I didn't understand is saying that I was unable to understand. Saying I was unable to understand was saying I'm stupid. See the connection there?

woah. nobody is going to follow this spin. It has too many steps to be believable. Wow.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "Bitches ain't shit." See what I did there?

Yep and I googled it and couldn't find a single source confirming this. You effectively proved yourself wrong.

I don't claim to be a referee of anything, and I don't need anyone to validate that I am. The only thing that matters is that people see that you can't provide what I've asked. I can't physically force you to do anything, but the fact that you don't want to just end our silly argument has to make everyone wonder whether or not what you've said can even be taken seriously.

They CAN see that I can provide what you asked by doing a simple google search. You lose... again bro.

What exactly have you proved wrong? That you have any kind of consensus between scholars(other than the two at UCLA) versed in economics and history that say that FDR, or rather a socialistic movement caused or prolonged the Great Depression.

Nah, they had some great evidence and math but that was only part of the case. The rest of that post sealed the case shut.

We both know that's not going to happen. Who said I wanted to be a referee? You need to get your words away from my mouth, bro.

Well let's see, you're telling me if I provide links I win. If I don't I lose. That's a ref bro. You said you're not on anyone's side and you set the rules on how I can win. That's a ref.

Again, you're claiming I'm doing something I'm not. It's not an attempt to play anything, it's an attempt to find out the truth and possibly prove you wrong while doing it.

But wait, you said you weren't on anyone's side. So, you couldn't possibly want to prove me wrong if that were true. Also, the truth is there with a simple google search that you are unwilling to do because you don't want to find out the truth.

Find me one statement in which I defended him, and maybe you've got a valid claim. Like I said, I have no alliances with anyone.

The entire reason for you posting here is you defending him. You weren't in this and all of a sudden you're like... oh oh... back that up back that up. no link no link. I mean, by your definition you're calling ME stupid with this one bro.

I'm just You're pretty paranoid, bro.

LOLWTF

Liberals and socialists have differing views. This isn't black and white, like I said earlier in the topic. There are bound to be other conservatives and advocates of capitalism in the topic, but you don't see me yelling at them for ganging up on me.

What?

Like I've said in every single topic I've made about this, YOU HAVE NO PROOF.

google it... it's there.

You have claims, and that's all you have. You can't call if proof because you believe it. Proof isn't something you can decide is there because you say it is. Proof comes from a reasonable acceptance of a truth or a fact. You know, I read through the article again and the very first sentence proves what I'm saying.

I have facts. You just refuse to go look at them. No it doesn't.

Do you see where it says it's not a universal fact? You don't. I know. "Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years..." Throughout the article, there were quotes from other people. None of the quotes said, "You're right! FDR is the cause for the prolonged Depression!" They all applauded the economists for coming up with a new theory, and talked about the fact that it would be nice to understand what the actual cause was. They didn't say the economists were right, and they're all well known people in their field. What makes you think your opinion matters?

What makes you think your opinion matters?

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

Democrats must die...let's start with Weiner. What a fucking douchebag. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/boink.gif.91933e72f927f2cefc79aff02573090c.gif

 

[MisterDeadeye 10+ year member]

You said I called you those. I didn't. You proved yourself wrong. You couldn't quote where I actually called you those things. Thanks for proving my point.

How does calling me a liar not call me a liar? How does calling me poor not call me poor? How does calling me incompetent not call me stupid? There are implications behind everything you say, and I'm just pointing them all out.

Oh but you are. The graph shows something other than what proximity stated. I provided verifiable evidence to that but since I didn't provide a source for you to discredit and said "google it", it has you mad because you can't discredit my source and are unwilling to google it.

Show me how I'm defending him. Quote a part of any one of my posts and show me. Prove me wrong. I'm unwilling to Google it because it's not my responsibility to prove your point. If you can't prove your point, then I win. And I'm still not mad. Calling me mad doesn't make it so. Regardless, the sentences following your claim don't support the claim.

.... and that logically doesn't make sense and it makes it clear that you're attempting to play referee.

You keep telling me my logic is flawed, but you aren't explaining how. Let me ask you this. If I made a claim, and didn't provide enough evidence to prove my claim correct, how can anyone call my claim correct?

And here we get to the crux of why you're posting here and it is EXACTLY what I predicted and why you're so mad. I won't provide a link that you can attempt to discredit. I told you to google it, which you are unwilling to do. Had you done that, you would have found MULTIPLE links to this from numerous sources and you wouldn't have to keep typing ridiculously long posts.

The fact remains that you haven't proven your claim to be correct. You keep telling me to do it for you. My post was ridiculously long because I had to quote all of the times you put me down. Anyway, I decided to do that simple Google search you told me to do. Thank you for making it easier to prove you wrong. JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

As you can see, this is the result of a survey given to economic historians; in part of the survey, Robert Whaples asked the historians to either agree, disagree, or agree with a stipulation with this statement: "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Would you like to know the results? 6% who worked in history agreed, while 27% of those who worked in economics agreed. 74% of those who worked in history disagreed, while 51% of the economists disagreed. I guess that ends this debacle.

Lol no you didn't. You quoted things and then put a putdown next to them... spinning it to seem like a putdown.
I quoted what you said, and what the implications of what you said were. I guess I'll let everyone else decide if you were putting me down or not. Why wouldn't you defend yourself at all costs?

I bet I will. I'll get another post filled with fabricated falsehoods. Awesome bro.

After this post, I'm going to make another one showing the use of ad hominem in your argument. Be ready. Thankfully, even a fifth grade would be able to decipher what you said. I can show how you've done it in other arguments with other people as well, if you'd like.

Define "greed". If wanting to better ones' self is greed then we should all be so ambitious.

In excess, yes, wanting to better one's self is greed. There's a difference between wanting to better one's self, and wanting to be better than everyone else.

woah. nobody is going to follow this spin. It has too many steps to be believable. Wow.

How was that a spin? Synonymous statements are synonymous. That's what makes them synonymous. When you use statements like, "You didn't comprehend", you're trying to hide the fact that you're calling someone stupid. Common sense allows me to make the connection between saying someone can't comprehend things and calling them stupid.

Yep and I googled it and couldn't find a single source confirming this. You effectively proved yourself wrong.

Here's a link I found where someone agreed with me. I'm right now, and you can't ever prove me wrong. Funny Jokes - '******* aint **** but hoes and tricks' -Abe Lincoln

They CAN see that I can provide what you asked by doing a simple google search. You lose... again bro.

Now that I've shown them the truth, they can see how wrong you are. Thank you again for pushing the Google search.

Nah, they had some great evidence and math but that was only part of the case. The rest of that post sealed the case shut.

You agree because you hate liberals and socialism.. Just because you agree doesn't mean it's correct.

Well let's see, you're telling me if I provide links I win. If I don't I lose. That's a ref bro. You said you're not on anyone's side and you set the rules on how I can win. That's a ref.

One of the perks of going to college is that students are exposed to classes like "Rhetorical Criticism: How to Analyze Arguments". They have some textbooks which are full of useful information, like how to point out shoddy arguments and how to create foolproof ones. I'm not a ref. I'm not trying to be a ref. I'm analyzing your argument and telling you how you're wrong.

But wait, you said you weren't on anyone's side. So, you couldn't possibly want to prove me wrong if that were true. Also, the truth is there with a simple google search that you are unwilling to do because you don't want to find out the truth.

In the context of your argument with Proximity, I'm unbiased. Again, you mentioned the Google search. It really blows for you that I decided to go ahead and do that.

The entire reason for you posting here is you defending him. You weren't in this and all of a sudden you're like... oh oh... back that up back that up. no link no link. I mean, by your definition you're calling ME stupid with this one bro.

Calling you wrong isn't calling you stupid. It's calling you wrong. Calling me incompetent, on the other hand, is calling me stupid. Again, I jumped in the conversation again because your argument is illogical. I'm just pointing it out.

LOLWTF

Now you're pointing out a grammatical error because you can't refute what I said. By the way, I used Notepad, and it's not my friend.

What?

I was telling you that just because I'm a liberal and I advocate socialistic views, doesn't mean I agree with Proximity. I also pointed out that there are other conservatives posting in this topic, but I'm not trying to tell them that they're defending you.

google it... it's there.

Very true, but at the same time, very false.

I have facts. You just refuse to go look at them. No it doesn't.

You have opinions, and they're not even good ones.

What makes you think your opinion matters?

I'm not posting opinions. I'm posting facts.

 

[MisterDeadeye 10+ year member]

I can't wait to see how you tell me that the general consensus among historical economists is wrong, while the very small minority is correct.

Also, for those who don't feel like reading through the long posts, this is the most important two paragraphs of the last two pages.

The fact remains that you haven't proven your claim to be correct. You keep telling me to do it for you. My post was ridiculously long because I had to quote all of the times you put me down. Anyway, I decided to do that simple Google search you told me to do. Thank you for making it easier to prove you wrong. JSTOR: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 55, No. 1

As you can see, this is the result of a survey given to economic historians; in part of the survey, Robert Whaples asked the historians to either agree, disagree, or agree with a stipulation with this statement: "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Would you like to know the results? 6% who worked in history agreed, while 27% of those who worked in economics agreed. 74% of those who worked in history disagreed, while 51% of the economists disagreed. I guess that ends this debacle.

If eCrack wants to learn a thing or two, he should read this: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/great_depression.pdf

Also, this. It explains why eCrack didn't give me other sources. http://rebello.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/did-fdrs-new-deal-policies-really-prolong-the-great-depression-will-obamas-policies-have-a-similar-effect/

 

[ahole-ic]

How does calling me a liar not call me a liar? How does calling me poor not call me poor? How does calling me incompetent not call me stupid? There are implications behind everything you say, and I'm just pointing them all out.

I pointed out that you lie, because you did. I never called you poor. I never called you incompetant. I said you lied because you did. You said something was true and it was not. You lied. Now you're lying upon lie to try and get out of it. Nobody is fooled. You tried to lie and spin what I said into a putdown. I didn't. Yours were direct putdowns.

Show me how I'm defending him. Quote a part of any one of my posts and show me.

I am. Right now. You're defending him. You're saying he wins if.... lol It's plainly obvious to anyone.

Prove me wrong. I'm unwilling to Google it because it's not my responsibility to prove your point. If you can't prove your point, then I win. And I'm still not mad. Calling me mad doesn't make it so. Regardless, the sentences following your claim don't support the claim.

If you weren't mad, you wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to go through my posts to look for something you could maybe spin into a putdown, then try to spin it. Clearly you're mad bro. You should be. You've lost and got caught in multiple lies that you are unable to see.

You keep telling me my logic is flawed, but you aren't explaining how. Let me ask you this. If I made a claim, and didn't provide enough evidence to prove my claim correct, how can anyone call my claim correct?

If someone makes a claim, and another proves it wrong but the person that made the claim refuses to accept it, does that make them less wrong?

The fact remains that you haven't proven your claim to be correct. You keep telling me to do it for you. My post was ridiculously long because I had to quote all of the times you put me down. Anyway, I decided to do that simple Google search you told me to do. Thank you for making it easier to prove you wrong. JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I cannot find that in the link provided. It wants me to pay 35.00 to join. It's not contained on the linked page.

As you can see, this is the result of a survey given to economic historians; in part of the survey, Robert Whaples asked the historians to either agree, disagree, or agree with a stipulation with this statement: "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Would you like to know the results? 6% who worked in history agreed, while 27% of those who worked in economics agreed. 74% of those who worked in history disagreed, while 51% of the economists disagreed. I guess that ends this debacle.

If that's really there.... since when did a consensus (the opinion of a group of people) make anything true or false? There was a consensus that oj didn't kill nicole.

I quoted what you said, and what the implications of what you said were. I guess I'll let everyone else decide if you were putting me down or not. Why wouldn't you defend yourself at all costs?

You made a statement about "assuming" yet that's exactly what you did there. LOL! "implications". I didn't imply anything. You are obviously sensitive and take things as putdowns, name call and lie. Why wouldn't you lie to defend yourself from looking silly after getting beat?

After this post, I'm going to make another one showing the use of ad hominem in your argument. Be ready. Thankfully, even a fifth grade would be able to decipher what you said.

quaking on my keyboard brah.

In excess, yes, wanting to better one's self is greed. There's a difference between wanting to better one's self, and wanting to be better than everyone else.

So you are assuming that everyone out there taking advantage of their God given right to prosper and make something for their self is trying to be better than everyone else?... not only that you're saying that people that work hard and succeed are not supposed to enjoy fruits of their labor that others who didn't work as hard or take those risks cannot enjoy? LOL.

How was that a spin? Synonymous statements are synonymous. That's what makes them synonymous.

Stupid statements are stupid. That's what makes them stupid. Deep thought bro.

When you use statements like, "You didn't comprehend", you're trying to hide the fact that you're calling someone stupid. Common sense allows me to make the connection between saying someone can't comprehend things and calling them stupid.

If you didn't comprehend something (you haven't comprehended MUCH of what I've said to you, it simply means you didnt' grasp it. I didn't delve into why you didn't grasp it... but what you just did was call every child in every classroom who didn't understand the less the first time STUPID. YOU DID.... not me. You just said if you don't comprehend something you're stupid. I never said it. That was you.

Here's a link I found where someone agreed with me. I'm right now, and you can't ever prove me wrong. Funny Jokes - '******* aint **** but hoes and tricks' -Abe Lincoln

You just disproved your whole "if you link to it, it's true" theory. You linked to a joke. It is obvious it's not true.

Now that I've shown them the truth, they can see how wrong you are. Thank you again for pushing the Google search.

Who are you showing? You didn't show anything and clearly I'm not wrong. If I were wrong, when obama just tried the same thing it would have led to a recovery. Instead we're in worse shape than when we began. You're getting a real-time demonstration of the failure that this is yet you're unable to see it. I'm not assuming why... I'm just saying you missed it.

You agree because you hate liberals and socialism.. Just because you agree doesn't mean it's correct.

I agree with what is correct. I have no other reason to agree with it. Unlike you who hates the United States because it thrives on Capitalism and you are a socialist ideologue. You see the world through a negative prism. You look at success and see greed. You look at the lazy and see needy. You look at failure and see success. Which is patently obvious because you think you have really shown me in this thread, when in fact you have lost horribly.

One of the perks of going to college is that students are exposed to classes like "Rhetorical Criticism: How to Analyze Arguments". They have some textbooks which are full of useful information, like how to point out shoddy arguments and how to create foolproof ones. I'm not a ref. I'm not trying to be a ref. I'm analyzing your argument and telling you how you're wrong.

Yet you have nothing to go on. I saw your tactic coming a mile away, avoided it and proved wrong everything you said. You said if you provide links..... I provided one to test you and you attempted to discredit it while the other points drove you mad. You then googled looking for ANYTHING to try and disprove my comments yet you didn't find anything, so you found a pay site that nobody can see, typed in what you want to be there, and posted it here.

In the context of your argument with Proximity, I'm unbiased. Again, you mentioned the Google search. It really blows for you that I decided to go ahead and do that.

Not at all. You said it didn't exist and that I had nothing. I told you it DID exist and to google it so you couldn't discredit MY links. Then you googled something different. You linked to something nobody can see. Then you typed in some crap that allegedly exists there. None of this ***** for me at all.

Calling you wrong isn't calling you stupid. It's calling you wrong. Calling me incompetent, on the other hand, is calling me stupid. Again, I jumped in the conversation again because your argument is illogical. I'm just pointing it out.

My argument is rooted in logic. I didn't call you incompetent and you failed to show where I did. You have failed to show how my logic is flawed or my argument is wrong. You have merely thrown putdowns and posted shoddy links. You have nothing other than blind hatred and it is showing through.

Now you're pointing out a grammatical error because you can't refute what I said. By the way, I used Notepad, and it's not my friend.

Refute what you said? I had no idea what you said.

I was telling you that just because I'm a liberal and I advocate socialistic views, doesn't mean I agree with Proximity. I also pointed out that there are other conservatives posting in this topic, but I'm not trying to tell them that they're defending you.

You both are liberals and advocate socialist views. That means you agree. You have agreed on everything thus far. Where are the other Conservatives? They can see I've won and aren't posting. There are some trolls trying to work you up but other than that nothing. There is no need for them to post. I have this covered and everyone can see that.

Very true, but at the same time, very false.

No proof of said falsehood.

You have opinions, and they're not even good ones.

Thanks for your opinion. Unfortunately.... it means nothing without 5 links from 5 different universities.

I'm not posting opinions. I'm posting facts.

Where are they?

 

[thevic24 5,000+ posts]

LOTS of pent up ****** frustration ITT.....

 

[Kangaroux 5,000+ posts]

Seeing as how long about 99% of the posts are in this thread, someone should take them all and compile them into a new edition of "Butthurt for Dummies"