A little perspective on the economy

[robinsre]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

I believe in the world of statistics the differences would be considered statistically insignificant. Put another way the comparisons are so close as to not have any meaningful levels of difference. Put another way: what's the point?

A good way to elevate statistical significance would be to compare data-points from each of the 12 months of the two years. More correlating, and agreeing data points always results in greater statistical significance. I believe, via small cursory glances I have made searching google, that the data would support what has already been posted.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Did you fail to read delija's post? He explains exactly what I am talking about. He is talking about my comparison of Obama to Hitler.

Gosh...please read and educate yourself before you post.



Actually, that is false. I have only been defending the administration lately regarding one issue, which is the accusation that Bush and Cheney lied to get us into Iraq. That's all I remember defending them about lately.

I have disagreed with the Bush adminstration regarding spending, immigration, Iraq, healthcare..etc...etc..

For you to label me as an "unabashed bush administration apologist" because I have said that I don't think he lied about Iraq is shortsighted at best.



Please provide examples. We are all eagerly waiting.

As I said, I can only remember defending them regarding Iraq and the accusation by some on this forum that Bush and Cheney lied. Even when I was talking about that I was simply saying that there is no proof that he lied.

Do us all a favor and please educate yourself before you make insights into other forum members.

Frank

Yep, I read Delija. He makes sense. You try to make everyone else prove you're wrong or prove what you said. Typical modis operandi of an unabashed Bush apologist.

Comparison of Obama to Hitler: superfically stupid and at it's base disturbing to a pathological degree. Why would you make the compraison Frank? Got some issues Frank? Are you our little racist Frank? Does it bother you that a women or a black man could get into the White House Frank?

[Delija]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

I never said "they were/are strong orators". In fact, I never even said the word "orator".

Please read my posts before commenting on them or asking questions.

Since this is a completely different thread AND you misquoted me, I don't see why it is worth it to respond.

Please go back and quote what I actually said and then readdress your question.

By the way, most people in that thread had no problem understanding what I meant (further evidence that you did not actually read my posts or the thread in question).

Thanks in advance,

I don't need homework assignments from you. If you didn't use the word "orator", so what? Who cares about the semantics? Whatever exact words you used added up to the same...if not, why didn't YOU tell us what you said, and explain how it differed from my impression? Believe me...reading your posts once was more than enough.

Also, why is it that you can not only "ask questions" but make the rules regarding who else is or isn't qualified to do the same? No matter what your "exact words were", why is the question less valid? Would you have compared Reagan to Hitler? If not, that's fine. But if you give that answer it would be up to YOU and not me to explain how your "exact words" were so different from the impression I came away with....("Orator" as opposed to "what"?) -that Reagan would somehow be ineligible for the same comparison you found appropriate for Obama.

I usually agree with what Kevwyo has to say, but in this case I agree with you...I believe EVERYONE "understood" exactly what you "meant"....I think that if Kevwyo thought about it more he too would agree. Certainly despite your words to the contrary, I believe that both Bree and Etta understood as well as anyone. Frenchy proved he did as did OEFM.

It seems you look at reflections of reality with a fun-house mirror. Distorted and in a way that makes your contentions true, but not for the reasons you believe.

And no surprise that you "see no reason to respond"....don't cop out with the easy and lame excuse that you don't like the venue. This is where where we are. Deal with it (or don't) but stop with the excuses. It never mattered where the questions are asked of you...there's always some reason that you can't (won't) respond, but never the real reason. Always blaming the person who poses the question. Quite funny coming from the guy that screams 'foul' if he asks a question and does not get a response. The old One Way Rizzo Highway.

When (if ever) will you ever come to realize that you don't make the rules here and that this place (like the world in general) existed before you showed up and was (it so happens) totally unmoderated and things worked out just fine. We didn't need hall monitors to tell us all what was a violation of the "CoC", what threads were off limits to discussions spilled over from other threads. We didn't need anyone telling us that an "off topic" one sentence attempt at humor ('humor'...you should "research" what that word means) was a violation, and needing a half dozen posts to hammer that "fact" home. Like now, back then people would have laughed if anyone made such a ridiculous display of childish behavior.

Answer the question or don't....no one really cares, not even me, and I'm the one who wasted the keystrokes asking what I KNEW would be dodged. It was even a layup as to what your excuse would be.

What may surprise you Frank, is I am hardly the only person here who was not expecting an answer. You are more predictable than than even "TypicalTom"...With Tom we can know what he will say, but with you we know how you will behave.

Tom is Tom....his every word is a repetition of what he's heard on the radio from Limbaugh or on TV from the FOX News crew...with you, it's even easier... one might need to listen to the mad ravings Tom adores to be 100% prepared for his regurgitation. With you, it's just a simple matter of of using a bit of imagination to picture what Neidermeyer, the character in the movie "Animal House" would do in your situation. LOL

Only difference between you and Neidermayer is he aspred to grow up to be Dean Wormer while you seem headed toward being more like the character Ed Rooney...the principal in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off".


LOL

Peace,
D.

[Cannibul]

More thought on "unconvicted rapist".

We have a former Governor here in Oregon.

It has been widely report and widely known that while Mayor of Portland he was raping a young girl. It was reported as an affair but when a 30 year old man has sex with a 14/15 year old it's rape.

He was never charged, never convicted. But he never denied it. He paid off the girl.

He's an unconvicted rapist.

Very similar except for age of the woman/girl as Billy.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by Cannibul

More thought on "unconvicted rapist".

We have a former Governor here in Oregon.

It has been widely report and widely known that while Mayor of Portland he was raping a young girl. It was reported as an affair but when a 30 year old man has sex with a 14/15 year old it's rape.

He was never charged, never convicted. But he never denied it. He paid off the girl.

He's an unconvicted rapist.

Very similar except for age of the woman/girl as Billy.

Was it widely proved?

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Yep, I read Delija. He makes sense. You try to make everyone else prove you're wrong or prove what you said. Typical modis operandi of an unabashed Bush apologist.

Comparison of Obama to Hitler: superfically stupid and at it's base disturbing to a pathological degree. Why would you make the compraison Frank? Got some issues Frank? Are you our little racist Frank? Does it bother you that a women or a black man could get into the White House Frank?

Obama Climbs Back On His Anti-Gun Horse

Read the thread. Then you can join the small minority of people who cannot understand what I wrote when I said...

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

The similarity that I draw is that they were able to persuade people with rhetoric, not substance. They were both able to get people to blindly follow them because of the way they spoke, not because of a record of accomplishment or experience.

Others here seemed to have no problems understanding me...

Originally Posted by charlie.45

I agree with what you said frank and I get what your saying.

Originally Posted by trik396

Bree... chill out a second... No one is saying or has said that the message or the messenger is the same.

Originally Posted by wombat13

If I understand Frank's original post, he sees Obama and Hitler as each having a similar ability to persuade people to follow him without the the people really understanding his politics/positions.

Originally Posted by lobster_roboto

I know what you mean Frank.

Originally Posted by Frenchy

I think I understood Frank pretty well.

Originally Posted by Etta Place

I understood what you said.

Now all of these people may not agree with me, but they are capable of understanding what I said. They understand that I was comparing Obama to Hitler ONLY regarding their abilities to seemingly persuade people with rhetoric, not substance, IMO. They were both able to get people to blindly support them without regards to their ideas, substance, or record, IMO.

Now, KEVWYO, if that is your reason for calling me racist (which is inappropriate and a violation of the COC), then perhaps you need to seek some help. Before you seek help, please give that thread one final read. You may understand it if you read every post.

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Delija

Would you have compared Reagan to Hitler?

Sure, Reagan and Hitler were both good communicators. But being a good communicator was NOT what I was using to compare Obama and Hitler. Again, read the thread in question. I've said MANY times, that I was comparing them based on their abilities to persuade people with rhetoric, to get folks to blindly follow them without regard to records, substance, ideas, or experience. The people who follow them seem to like them not based on their opinions, but based on empty words like "hope" and "change". Both of them campaigned about sweeping "change", with little mention to what the change would be and how they would achieve it.

Reagan was a good communicator, but he said exactly what he was going to do. He had a long record of experience, which was scrutinized by the media and voters. He didn't simply gain support because he "gives a good speech". IMO, it was his ideas, right or wrong, that persuaded people to vote for him. Not his ability to get people to faint at his rallies, using the word change hundreds of times without actually saying what the change would be and how it would be achieved.

They each had/have a similar ability to persuade people to follow them without the the people really understanding his politics/positions, IMO.

I don't understand why I have to keep repeated myself about this in multiple threads.

Originally Posted by Delija

I usually agree with what Kevwyo has to say, but in this case I agree with you...I believe EVERYONE "understood" exactly what you "meant"....I think that if Kevwyo thought about it more he too would agree. Certainly despite your words to the contrary, I believe that both Bree and Etta understood as well as anyone. Frenchy proved he did as did OEFM.

I agree, 100%. KEVWYO would rather imply that people are racist and bigoted, rather than try to understand something.

Originally Posted by Delija

When (if ever) will you ever come to realize that you don't make the rules here and that this place

Here's a challenge for you. You keep claiming that I think I make the rules here. Please find ONE time where I have stated that I make the rules here.

Thanks in advance and please do not "cop out".

Frank

[Cannibul]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Was it widely proved?

On the Gov? Yeah. A local weekly paper got a Pulitzer out of it.

[bountyhunter]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

Don't waste your time with the facts and the statistics.

The last time I tried this, I was given the following response....



See? Statistics are lies! (Especially if they do not conform to one's own internal bias).

Frank

We won't waste our time giving you any facts (we have seen what happens when we do), but I notice you tactfully avoided quoting the 2008 statistics for home foreclosures, loans defaulted, airlines going bankrupt, financuial institutions collapsing, etc.... not to mention the massive budget deficit, amount of personal debt being shouldered on the backs of the average individual... no, everything is peachy. It must be since Bush is in charge and we know everything he does is perfect.

No, do the "Bush thing" and cherry pick a couple of numbers, claim you can build a universe around it, and try to ridicule other people whose falling hair follicles contain more udnerstanding of economics than you ever will because they are "liberal".... if that even means anything anymore.

Business in America may be debateable, but it's definitely business as usual for a political debate.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by bountyhunter

We won't waste our time giving you any facts (we have seen what happens when we do), but I notice you tactfully avoided quoting the 2008 statistics for home foreclosures, loans defaulted, airlines going bankrupt, financuial institutions collapsing, etc.... not to mention the massive budget deficit, amount of personal debt being shouldered on the backs of the average individual... no, everything is peachy. It must be since Bush is in charge and we know everything he does is perfect.

No, do the "Bush thing" and cherry pick a couple of numbers, claim you can build a universe around it, and try to ridicule other people whose falling hair follicles contain more udnerstanding of economics than you ever will.

Business in America may be debateable, but it's definitely business as usual for a political debate.

What are you talking about

I didn't post any economic statistics in this thread, thus I can't have cherry-picked anything.

Please reread the thread and try to understand it this time.

Speaking of cherry-picking, your last post looks like you are pretty good at that.

Thanks in advance,

Frank