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


MisterDeadeye

Bannned
10+ year member
May 30, 2009
3,055
44
Nebraska
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

Streaming consciousness
10+ year member
May 7, 2009
12,918
233
Domie Homie
Democrats must be rounded up and killed. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

ahole-ic

Banned
Jan 20, 2010
3,034
152
Ivory Tower
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

Streaming consciousness
10+ year member
May 7, 2009
12,918
233
Domie Homie
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

Bannned
10+ year member
May 30, 2009
3,055
44
Nebraska
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.

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.

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

Bannned
10+ year member
May 30, 2009
3,055
44
Nebraska
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

Banned
Jan 20, 2010
3,034
152
Ivory Tower
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?

 

Kangaroux

I put on
Dec 26, 2010
10,170
236
Maine
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"

 

ahole-ic

Banned
Jan 20, 2010
3,034
152
Ivory Tower
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.
I already proved how this is a fail.

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

Fiscal policy played a relatively small role in stimulating recovery in the United States.

Indeed, the Revenue Act of 1932 increased American tax rates greatly in an attempt to balance

the federal budget, and by doing so dealt another contractionary blow to the economy by further

discouraging spending. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, initiated in early 1933, did include a

number of new federal programs aimed at generating recovery. For example, the Works Progress

Administration (WPA) hired the unemployed to work on government building projects, and the

Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) gave large payments to farmers. However, the

actual increases in government spending and the government budget deficit were small relative

to the size of the economy. This is especially apparent when state government budget deficits are

included, because those deficits actually declined at the same time that the federal deficit rose.

As a result, the new spending programs initiated by the New Deal had little direct expansionary

effect on the economy. Whether they may nevertheless have had positive effects on consumer

and business sentiment remains an open question. United States military spending related to

World War II was not large enough to appreciably affect total spending and output until 1941.
lol thanks for that.
Lol. That was someone's blog. They cited no sources and just made a website. I can go make a similar website saying the opposite. Also, he admitted at the end they made a strong case but it was only about 1 portion of the new deal. That is in fact not true. If you read the article I posted it talks about MUCH more than just that. Then your article refers to yet again... another consensus because that's all liberals have. No facts, just a group of people's opinions.

 

thevic24

my silence is deadly...
10+ year member
Apr 29, 2007
6,042
103
right behind you
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"
lol.

This thread dose seem to contain some of the longest post ever on this site....

 

MisterDeadeye

Bannned
10+ year member
May 30, 2009
3,055
44
Nebraska
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.
Direct or indirect, putdowns are putdowns. I never said I didn't put you down because I did. You're a fucking moron. No smoke and mirrors, bro. I'm not lying. Show me the lies. I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm the one making direct statements. I don't have to hide behind my words.

I am. Right now. You're defending him. You're saying he wins if.... lol It's plainly obvious to anyone.
Stating rules does not make someone defensive.

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.
I looked through your posts again because you told me to. That clearly means I'm mad. You keep saying I spun things. You've called me a liar multiple times in the post I'm quoting right now. You keep talking about all of the lies I'm shouting, but there are none.

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?
I don't even know where you're coming from with this, unless you're talking about your wrong claims. If so, no. It doesn't make them less wrong. You didn't answer my question.

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.
I provided that link because there's no way to give you a copy of the actual text.

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'm laughing now. "If that's really there..." If you want the truth, find it. What did you go to college for? I'd love to know. Have you based all of your life decisions on historical economics? Are you a professor at a university? All of these people are/were. All of these people really know what they're talking about. This isn't a public consensus. It's an academic consensus. The majority of historical economists believe what FDR did did not prolong the Depression, even if what he did wasn't completely successful.

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?
Again you call me a liar. "You are obviously sensitive and take things as putdowns, name call and lie." LOL WTF THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLL! I don't give a fuck about looking silly. I know this whole argument is stupid as fuck, because you don't have the intelligence to understand that you're wrong. ()

quaking on my keyboard brah.
I didn't think you'd actually sign your own death warrant. I'll look through the arguments you've had and show you now, I guess. To be honest though, I'm getting bored. I don't think I'll keep going on for much longer.

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.
Nope. I said there's a difference between wanting to better yourself and wanting to be better than everyone else. You still don't understand. I'm not saying that the people who work hard aren't supposed to enjoy themselves. I'm saying that people who lie and cheat to succeed shouldn't enjoy the fruits of their labor. I'll break this down for you.

There are people that work hard and make money. These people are good, and I applaud them for their integrity.

There are other people that cheat others out of money to better themselves. These people are bad, and should be punished. Do you comprehend yet? (Calling you stupid again)

Stupid statements are stupid. That's what makes them stupid. Deep thought bro.
You're deflecting. Incompetent is synonymous with stupid, is it not?

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.
My comprehension is just fine. Children are ignorant until they learn. There's no learning to be done here. Comprehension is the capability to understand. If someone is incapable of understanding something, then they're stupid. That's the dictionary definition of stupid.

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.
Your reasoning skills are impeccable.

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.
I've shown everyone(the few people who have come into the topic and made a post or have read our posts) that you're a moron, and that you're willing to keep posting in hopes to not look like such a moron, but it's not working. We all know you're a moron. Obama has nothing to do with FDR. You need to remember what you and I are arguing about, as you seem to have gotten off-track. We're arguing whether or not what you posted was proof that FDR prolonged the Depression. Like I've said multiple times throughout this topic, I don't care either way. In my short time of researching, I've found that you are wrong. I'm sorry that you're wrong.

 

MisterDeadeye

Bannned
10+ year member
May 30, 2009
3,055
44
Nebraska
There was too much text for one post, literally.

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.
You agree with what you think is correct. That doesn't make it correct. You keep telling me I hate the United States. Like I said, I don't hate the United States. I do hate the corruption Capitalism has brought to the country. That's not a secret. I see the world through two eyes, just like everyone else. I look at corruption and see greed. I look at the poor and homeless and see the needy. You're the one saying I think laziness is comparable to neediness. You're the one saying I think success and greed are comparable. You're changing the argument again, because I've proved you wrong. I'm done arguing with you after this post. Anyone reading the topic with any kind of logic and common sense know that I'm right. You need to learn the English language, by the way. You're not looking for the word patently. You're looking for blatantly. I've seen you use the word in another topic but chose not to say anything. I don't think I've "shown you" in the topic. I think I've proved you completely wrong. And I have.

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.
These aren't tactics. I'm analyzing every one of your posts and explaining to you how you're wrong. You provided the link before I even posted. My first post on this subject was telling you that the one link you posted wasn't good enough. You didn't "bait" me with anything. You're not intuitive, and you had no idea I was going to post. I didn't ask for "a link." I asked for "credible sources". I googled, "fdr prolonged depression". The first and second hits were the article you posted, and an article discussing the article you posted, respectively. The third hit was Wikipedia's New Deal page, in which it discussed how historians and economists see FDR's policies in regards to the Great Depression. You can say I "googled for anything", but I googled the most unbiased combination of those words I could. If anything, one could argue that it was biased FOR your argument.

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.
I didn't say the article didn't exist. I said you had no proof that the article was right. You told me that going to Google would prove me wrong. I wasn't trying to discredit any of your links. I think I'm getting deja vu. This is your argument over and over and over again. I didn't Google something different. I linked to a publication that is not free, then I linked to two things you CAN see. Why aren't you talking about those?

Here you go again with this "allegedly" bullshit. If you don't believe me, Google it. You'll find it somewhere.

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.
Your argument is rooted in the interpretation of one policy's effect on a nationwide depression. I've posted several links discussing the Great Depression at length. I've put you down because you need to be put down. You're stupid. You really are.

Refute what you said? I had no idea what you said.
My point was that I was not defending Proximity. What you quoted was one sentence in one paragraph of one post. You knew what I was saying other than that sentence, so instead of quoting the rest of the paragraph and telling me I'm wrong, you chose to make fun of a mistake.

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.
Honestly, this is pathetic. We agree on the fact that freedom is a good thing. We agree that goods and services should be publicly owned.

No proof of said falsehood.
I gave you the proof in the form of three links.

Thanks for your opinion. Unfortunately.... it means nothing without 5 links from 5 different universities.
Fortunately, I don't have to post 5 links from 5 different universities. I posted a survey that contained the opinion of almost 200 historical economists. I asked you for credible sources, and assumed the only way to do that was with links from different universities. I found a way to validate everything I've said with one link.

Where are they?
They're littered throughout my posts. They're there. I don't have the time to read through everything I've said to tell you what you already know and are too stubborn to accept.

I already proved how this is a fail.
No, you've decided to believe I'm lying rather than believe that Wikipedia has any real facts.

lol thanks for that.
Are you sure you want to thank me just yet?

Fiscal policy played a relatively small role in stimulating recovery in the United States.Indeed, the Revenue Act of 1932 increased American tax rates greatly in an attempt to balance

the federal budget, and by doing so dealt another contractionary blow to the economy by further

discouraging spending. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, initiated in early 1933, did include a

number of new federal programs aimed at generating recovery. For example, the Works Progress

Administration (WPA) hired the unemployed to work on government building projects, and the

Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) gave large payments to farmers. However, the

actual increases in government spending and the government budget deficit were small relative

to the size of the economy. This is especially apparent when state government budget deficits are

included, because those deficits actually declined at the same time that the federal deficit rose.

As a result, the new spending programs initiated by the New Deal had little direct expansionary

effect on the economy. Whether they may nevertheless have had positive effects on consumer

and business sentiment remains an open question. United States military spending related to

World War II was not large enough to appreciably affect total spending and output until 1941.
This doesn't prove you right. It says that FDR's policies weren't abundantly helpful like he would have liked them to be. Regardless, it also says that the policies in the quote had a relatively small effect on the economy. It proves neither you nor anyone else right.

Lol. That was someone's blog. They cited no sources and just made a website. I can go make a similar website saying the opposite. Also, he admitted at the end they made a strong case but it was only about 1 portion of the new deal. That is in fact not true. If you read the article I posted it talks about MUCH more than just that. Then your article refers to yet again... another consensus because that's all liberals have. No facts, just a group of people's opinions.
He wrote an article on a website. He didn't make the website. He also referred to something from the Boston Globe: The New Deal and right-wing revisionism - The Boston Globe

And he referred to the same thing you did from UCLA, so that everyone reading his article can see what he's talking about.

Then he referred to the actual research memo from the two economists, so the readers can formulate their own opinion.

He refers to the consensus because it's a fact that has been validated for decades by thousands of economists and historians. The only reason the New Deal is being discussed again at all is because of these two economists who went against the grain in a right-wing attempt to confuse people.

You shouldn't think that just because they wrote complex formulas that those formulas are fact. Math can be very deceiving(I should know; I'm a chemical engineering major).

 

Buck

Premium Member
10+ year member
May 19, 2008
19,442
178
FL
There was too much text for one post, literally.





You agree with what you think is correct. That doesn't make it correct. You keep telling me I hate the United States. Like I said, I don't hate the United States. I do hate the corruption Capitalism has brought to the country. That's not a secret. I see the world through two eyes, just like everyone else. I look at corruption and see greed. I look at the poor and homeless and see the needy. You're the one saying I think laziness is comparable to neediness. You're the one saying I think success and greed are comparable. You're changing the argument again, because I've proved you wrong. I'm done arguing with you after this post. Anyone reading the topic with any kind of logic and common sense know that I'm right. You need to learn the English language, by the way. You're not looking for the word patently. You're looking for blatantly. I've seen you use the word in another topic but chose not to say anything. I don't think I've "shown you" in the topic. I think I've proved you completely wrong. And I have.

These aren't tactics. I'm analyzing every one of your posts and explaining to you how you're wrong. You provided the link before I even posted. My first post on this subject was telling you that the one link you posted wasn't good enough. You didn't "bait" me with anything. You're not intuitive, and you had no idea I was going to post. I didn't ask for "a link." I asked for "credible sources". I googled, "fdr prolonged depression". The first and second hits were the article you posted, and an article discussing the article you posted, respectively. The third hit was Wikipedia's New Deal page, in which it discussed how historians and economists see FDR's policies in regards to the Great Depression. You can say I "googled for anything", but I googled the most unbiased combination of those words I could. If anything, one could argue that it was biased FOR your argument.

I didn't say the article didn't exist. I said you had no proof that the article was right. You told me that going to Google would prove me wrong. I wasn't trying to discredit any of your links. I think I'm getting deja vu. This is your argument over and over and over again. I didn't Google something different. I linked to a publication that is not free, then I linked to two things you CAN see. Why aren't you talking about those?

Here you go again with this "allegedly" bullshit. If you don't believe me, Google it. You'll find it somewhere.

Your argument is rooted in the interpretation of one policy's effect on a nationwide depression. I've posted several links discussing the Great Depression at length. I've put you down because you need to be put down. You're stupid. You really are.

My point was that I was not defending Proximity. What you quoted was one sentence in one paragraph of one post. You knew what I was saying other than that sentence, so instead of quoting the rest of the paragraph and telling me I'm wrong, you chose to make fun of a mistake.

Honestly, this is pathetic. We agree on the fact that freedom is a good thing. We agree that goods and services should be publicly owned.

I gave you the proof in the form of three links.

Fortunately, I don't have to post 5 links from 5 different universities. I posted a survey that contained the opinion of almost 200 historical economists. I asked you for credible sources, and assumed the only way to do that was with links from different universities. I found a way to validate everything I've said with one link.

They're littered throughout my posts. They're there. I don't have the time to read through everything I've said to tell you what you already know and are too stubborn to accept.

No, you've decided to believe I'm lying rather than believe that Wikipedia has any real facts.

Are you sure you want to thank me just yet?

This doesn't prove you right. It says that FDR's policies weren't abundantly helpful like he would have liked them to be. Regardless, it also says that the policies in the quote had a relatively small effect on the economy. It proves neither you nor anyone else right.

He wrote an article on a website. He didn't make the website. He also referred to something from the Boston Globe: The New Deal and right-wing revisionism - The Boston Globe

And he referred to the same thing you did from UCLA, so that everyone reading his article can see what he's talking about.

Then he referred to the actual research memo from the two economists, so the readers can formulate their own opinion.

He refers to the consensus because it's a fact that has been validated for decades by thousands of economists and historians. The only reason the New Deal is being discussed again at all is because of these two economists who went against the grain in a right-wing attempt to confuse people.

You shouldn't think that just because they wrote complex formulas that those formulas are fact. Math can be very deceiving(I should know; I'm a chemical engineering major).
That's might be the longest post I've ever had.

 

ahole-ic

Banned
Jan 20, 2010
3,034
152
Ivory Tower
You simply cursed at me and called me stupid yet proved nothing. I'm not in here calling you names because I'm not mad. You clearly are because you got proved wrong with your own articles. You couldn't prove me wrong and you lost... plain and simple. It's plainly obvious that the person coming in just saying "you're stupid you're stupid" has lost. This is the definition of a loss. Sorry kid. This discussion won't continue. I've proved you wrong and you're just slinging names. There's nothing left to talk about.

 

MisterDeadeye

Bannned
10+ year member
May 30, 2009
3,055
44
Nebraska
That's might be the longest post I've ever had.
It's got to be. There's a 10,000 character limit, and with those two combined, I was right around 16k.

eCrack: I don't care anymore. I'm done with this ish. You're a conservative and I'm a liberal. You love capitalism and I hate it. You gave Proximity a link trying to prove him wrong, but it was just one person. To you, that's the proof. The one person agreed with you. 49% of the economists who participated in the survey I linked to agreed with you in one way or another. 51% disagree, and the gap for historians was larger. We're arguing views and ideals, and no one will win. You can keep going, but I'm not.

You simply cursed at me and called me stupid yet proved nothing. I'm not in here calling you names because I'm not mad. You clearly are because you got proved wrong with your own articles. You couldn't prove me wrong and you lost... plain and simple. It's plainly obvious that the person coming in just saying "you're stupid you're stupid" has lost. This is the definition of a loss. Sorry kid. This discussion won't continue. I've proved you wrong and you're just slinging names. There's nothing left to talk about.
Lulz. Out of 16,000 characters you chose to disregard all of them other than the 15-20 I used to say fuck. K.

 

AlterEgo99

Streaming consciousness
10+ year member
May 7, 2009
12,918
233
Domie Homie
Mitch Daniels here in Indiana cut off all federal aid to planned parenthood which help teen girls with birth control and such things. score another one for them.
Publicly funded abortion should be done away with...hooray for Mr. Daniels! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/woot.gif.aaa6090e619a97b6090d16dd863c5a69.gif

 

AlterEgo99

Streaming consciousness
10+ year member
May 7, 2009
12,918
233
Domie Homie
OP has no life. He comes to a car audio forum SPECIFICALLY to spew his political bullshit. That's like going to a food convention to talk to everyone about World of Warcraft.
I'm pretty sure that OP is the originator of the Gordo Granudo meme.
^This //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

hispls

CarAudio.com Veteran
Sep 10, 2009
10,725
221
Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Really the only ones who benefit from endless and inescapable debt are the global banking cartels that loan us our money at interest. Economic boom and bust cycles are a pure function of money supply which is entirely controlled by the private central bank. These banks and the corporations they own have nearly every politician bought and paid for. While these left vs. right things are cute (in a pro wrestling sort of way), they're totally irrelevent and ignore the fact that they're two piles of the same **** and while their rhetoric differs, we can see through history there is a continuity of agenda regardless of which "choice" we are given.

Neither of the 2 major parties have any solutions for you and probably most of the lesser parties don't either. As long as people don't understand how money works it will continue to be the tool of our enslavement.

Anybody who is participating in one of these " R vs. D" threads does not understand how money works and who controlls it. The reason nobody ever wins these "debates" is that the entire premise is flawed so any conclusions will also seem nonsensical.

Carry on:



 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.


Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Trending topics

Latest classifieds