On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:



So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!

I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:




So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!


I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

But you *still* have not presented any data of your own to support your
position

If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.

*AND* you find it necessary to take cheap shots at anyone who challenges you

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:03:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:




So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!


I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

But you *still* have not presented any data of your own to support your
position

If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.

*AND* you find it necessary to take cheap shots at anyone who challenges you

Never mind. If you believe the data supports the implication, then do so
happily. I wouldn't want to disrupt your serenity. There was no cheap shot.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:03:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:




On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:





So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!


I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

But you *still* have not presented any data of your own to support your
position

If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.

*AND* you find it necessary to take cheap shots at anyone who challenges you


Never mind. If you believe the data supports the implication, then do so
happily. I wouldn't want to disrupt your serenity. There was no cheap shot.

Is this an admission of the fact that you can't find data to support
your claims, or you are too lazy to look?

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:14:52 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:03:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:




On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:





So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!


I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

But you *still* have not presented any data of your own to support your
position

If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.

*AND* you find it necessary to take cheap shots at anyone who challenges you


Never mind. If you believe the data supports the implication, then do so
happily. I wouldn't want to disrupt your serenity. There was no cheap shot.

Is this an admission of the fact that you can't find data to support
your claims, or you are too lazy to look?

I made no claims, other than to state what wasn't shown. Are you trying to say
that the GDP or the national debt *were* shown?

Your arguments are sounding more like basskisser's by the minute.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:14:52 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:03:53 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



John H wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:24 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




John H wrote:



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:23:12 -0500, thunder wrote:





On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Jeff Rigby wrote:






So Bush is going to increase the national debt by several trillion with
his
special interests (war on Terror, education) where did the other 43
trillion in debt come from? Democrats who are not traditionally fiscally
responsible. And Jim you want to replace Bush with WHAT? A Democrat.

Where the federal debt is concerned, Republicans are #1.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the GDP was
decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show an increase in
the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of showing data.

Find a chart with *both* numbers tracked. Then one can see what actually
occurred.

John -- rather than just challenging the data provided, why don't *YOU*
provide data to refute the argument. You're not in a classroom here!


I didn't challenge the accuracy of what was portrayed. I challenged the
implication that was made given the data presented.

But you *still* have not presented any data of your own to support your
position


If I were to present your brain weight as a percent of your body weight, I'll
bet the slope of the curve would be quite negative. That's not a slur on you,
it's just a fact.

*AND* you find it necessary to take cheap shots at anyone who challenges you


Never mind. If you believe the data supports the implication, then do so
happily. I wouldn't want to disrupt your serenity. There was no cheap shot.

Is this an admission of the fact that you can't find data to support
your claims, or you are too lazy to look?


I made no claims, other than to state what wasn't shown. Are you trying to say
that the GDP or the national debt *were* shown?

Your arguments are sounding more like basskisser's by the minute.

You commented
"This chart hides whatever the GDP was doing at the same time. If the
GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart would show
an increase in the percent of GDP. It is a typical liberal manner of
showing data."

So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."



************************************************** *************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
************************************************** **********************
There. Do you get the idea?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




************************************************** *************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
************************************************** **********************
There. Do you get the idea?

Yes -- You have now proved that you cannot follow even your own logic.
The question involved economics. You presented a desenting opinion, yet
are unable or unwilling to show proof of anything other than that when
pushed into a corner, you resort to personal attack.

HarryKrause wrote:

John H wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating
your point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




************************************************** *************************

Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent

Body Weight

15 1
6.6%
30 1.3
4.3%
60 1.8
3.0%
90 2.0
2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
************************************************** **********************
There. Do you get the idea?



Yeah. A substitute math teacher who cannot arrange columns. Nice work.

IS that *REALLY* your job John?

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:23:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:05:41 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



So having attack liberals -- how about showing data illustrating your
point as prophesied.

"If the GDP was decreasing, and the debt remained constant, the chart
would show an increase in the percent of GDP."




************************************************** *************************
Body Weight(lbs) Brain Weight(lbs) Brain Weight as percent
Body Weight

15 1 6.6%
30 1.3 4.3%
60 1.8 3.0%
90 2.0 2.2%
140 2.3 1.6%
220 2.5 1.1%
************************************************** **********************
There. Do you get the idea?

Yes -- You have now proved that you cannot follow even your own logic.
The question involved economics. You presented a desenting opinion, yet
are unable or unwilling to show proof of anything other than that when
pushed into a corner, you resort to personal attack.

Where, pray tell, is a personal attack? The brain vs body weight analogy was
*not* an attack. Hell, the same idea is true of any human. I showed how a
comparison of two quantities by using a ratio will hide a lot of information,
such as the actual quantities involved.

Did you organize one of these?

Dear MoveOn member,

March 19th, 2005 will mark 2 full years since the bombs started falling in
Iraq. As of yesterday, 1,516 American troops have been killed in combat, and
over 11,220 have been seriously injured. Uncounted tens of thousands of
Iraqi civilians have died, and millions are without electricity or running
water. The Bush administration is in the middle of an optimism campaign
on Iraq, and wants us to believe that a stable peace is around the corner.
But most realists see years of chaos and violence ahead. The two-year
anniversary of the invasion is an important time to come together in
response.

Our friends at Sojourners--a network of progressive faith-based
communities--are organizing peace vigils all across the country, and they
have asked MoveOn members to join them. You can either find a vigil in
your neighborhood, or start one of your own. It's a first step--an
opportunity to mark this date with a solemn recognition of those we have
lost, and a firm commitment to finding a better way.

To find a vigil near you, just go to:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=654&id=522...kG76zTsBh1XI9A

To host a vigil, go to:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=655&id=522...kG76zTsBh1XI9A

The vigils will take many different forms. Some are hosted by churches,
synagogues and mosques and include religious prayers. Some are hosted by
local peace groups and are non-denominational. Resources are available
online to help you organize either type. Common elements include reading
the names of fallen Americans and Iraqis, prayer for peace, and silence.

This anniversary is also an important time to reflect on the war itself,
and where we go from here. The fundamental error of the invasion has left
us, as a nation, with no opportunity for a quick fix. But together, we
must address the catastrophe Bush has created, and ensure we are never
again deceived into a reckless war.

Last summer, we surveyed MoveOn members to determine where folks stood on
Iraq. An overwhelming majority of us agreed that we need to have a clear
exit plan. And that consensus remains: in order to gain the trust of the
Iraqi people, they must know that we don't intend to be there forever.

In the days ahead, we will work together to end the war, by pressuring the
President to negotiate a binding exit plan with the Iraqi government. We
will push to ensure that America doesn't establish permanent military
bases in Iraq, which would send such a terrible message to the world about
our motives there.

Together, we will demand that Congress root out the corporate corruption
that has undercut the rebuilding efforts and washed billions we've already
put into Iraq down the drain. This is especially crucial as Congress
prepares to approve another $80+ billion for Iraq.

And we will counter the Bush doctrine of shortsighted, go-it-alone
militarism by promoting healthy engagement with the international
community--the best way to accomplish diplomatic goals, and address real
security threats.

Finally, we'll organize to increase the political consequences for
misleading the country into war. Future lawmakers must know that
illegitimate wars come at a great political cost.

Our work together goes on. But this Saturday, let's begin by
commemorating what has happened, mourning those we have lost and building
hope together for a more peaceful world.

To find and join a two-year anniversary peace vigil, click he

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=654&id=522...kG76zTsBh1XI9A

To host your own vigil, click here

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=655&id=522...kG76zTsBh1XI9A

Thanks for all that you do to make the world a more secure and peaceful
place.

Sincerely,

--Eli Pariser, Ben Brandzel and the MoveOn.org Team
March 16th, 2005


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."