Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That if you don't include WWII, Dem/Dem White Houses/Congresses had a better deficit record than Bush/DeLay on average.> You just moved the goalposts. Your earlier claim was it was "Lower than any year of Bush/DeLay". It was not lower than the first year, according to that site. <I didn't say they all did, only that you could find some combination of any of the above that was better than Bush/DeLay.> Again moving the goal posts. <And lower than their average. Game over.> Saying "Game over" doesn't make it so. It's not like you've shown I've been wrong about anything. <Or the difference was that Clinton needed a couple of years to get over the hangover of Bush I, and Bush II needed a couple of years of Bush/DeLay fiscal imprudence to really come home to roost.> Oh please. Anyone can look at the GDP and see it was rising when Clinton took office, and falling when Bush did. <Of course, when your stats have shown you to be wrong, you can talk about what you "believe."> Nonsense. I stated what I believed long ago. You presented stats that you think proved I was wrong, and then I pointed out why your stats either aren't correct or irrelevant. <I'll remember that next time you ask for proof for something. "Um, I could show you that, I just choose not to."> You've used it in the past. <And here you lose any shred of credibility you had left.> Such a statement only works if you have any credibility to claim I have lost any. If you had credibility, you wouldn't have dodged the question I asked. <Actually, you're often hapless. Maybe that's why you're so cute.> Again, I'm always cute and never hapless.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That if you don't include WWII, Dem/Dem White Houses/Congresses had a better deficit record than Bush/DeLay on average.>> <You just moved the goalposts. Your earlier claim was it was "Lower than any year of Bush/DeLay". It was not lower than the first year, according to that site.> You're confusing two different things from two different posts. Besides, would you really want to look at the Dem/Dem average being "lower than all years but one of Bush/DeLay and lower than the Bush/Delay average" as any sort of "victory?" LOL. <<I didn't say they all did, only that you could find some combination of any of of the above that was better than Bush/DeLay.>> <Again moving the goal posts.> Wrong again. Let's go to the videotape, post #54. Here's what I said. "So take your pick. Just about every administration in our history - GOP president with Dem. congress, Dem. President with GOP congress, GOP/GOP and Dem/Dem alike have done a better job balancing the budget than then Bush II/DeLay bunch." You see, I wasn't just doing the reverse of your typical knee-jerk "Democrats BAD, Republicans GOOD" thing. I was pointing out that this administration specifically wasn't terrific fiscally. But that other GOP/GOP combos had been better. As had Dem/Dem, Dem/GOP, and GOP/Dem. And indeed, you can find all combinations in there that are better than Bush II/DeLay. Indeed, Bush II/DeLay's fiscal irresponsibility has been a major sticking point with ACTUAL fiscal conservatives. If a conservative here like vbdad had pointed it out, you probably would have let it pass. Since it was me, your knee jerked. But the record is clear. <<And lower than their average. Game over.>> <Saying "Game over" doesn't make it so. It's not like you've shown I've been wrong about anything.> I've shown you to be wrong on this thread once already. And in this sequence several times. <<Or the difference was that Clinton needed a couple of years to get over the hangover of Bush I, and Bush II needed a couple of years of Bush/DeLay fiscal imprudence to really come home to roost.>> <Oh please. Anyone can look at the GDP and see it was rising when Clinton took office, and falling when Bush did.> And anyone can also see their overal fiscal records and not fall for the excuses you make for them. <<Of course, when your stats have shown you to be wrong, you can talk about what you "believe.">> <Nonsense. I stated what I believed long ago.> No argument there. You believe what you believe, facts be damned. You show that often. < You presented stats that you think proved I was wrong, and then I pointed out why your stats either aren't correct or irrelevant.> No you haven't. Not even close. And what's ironic is a). you undoubtedly really think you have, and b). it was YOUR stats that I've been using half the time. But it's so convenient to be able, when shown to be wrong, that this wrongness is magically "irrevelvant." LOL! You really are providing me with material here. <<I'll remember that next time you ask for proof for something. "Um, I could show you that, I just choose not to."> > <You've used it in the past.> Show me when, please. <<And here you lose any shred of credibility you had left.>> <Such a statement only works if you have any credibility to claim I have lost any. If you had credibility, you wouldn't have dodged the question I asked.> I dodged nothing. I reply to everything in your posts, as always. It's you who sometimes conveniently dodges. <<Actually, you're often hapless. Maybe that's why you're so cute.>> <Again, I'm always cute and never hapless.> You're often hapless. And less cute when you just repeat yourself.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You're confusing two different things from two different posts.> No, I'm not. <Besides, would you really want to look at the Dem/Dem average being "lower than all years but one of Bush/DeLay and lower than the Bush/Delay average" as any sort of "victory?"> Does it prove my point that Republicans are more fiscally conservative than Democrats? Of course not. It does show, however, that you repeatedly make statements that are not entirely accurate. <And indeed, you can find all combinations in there that are better than Bush II/DeLay.> And some that are worse. <Bush II/DeLay's fiscal irresponsibility has been a major sticking point with ACTUAL fiscal conservatives.> Fiscal conservatives were not happy with the increased amounts of spending that happened under President Bush and Speaker Delay. That fact does nothing to prove that Democrats have been or would be more fiscally conservative than Republicans, which was my point. <Since it was me, your knee jerked. But the record is clear.> Only if you narrowly define what fiscal conservatism means, and twist the record to make your point. <I've shown you to be wrong on this thread once already.> Really? Where? <No argument there. You believe what you believe, facts be damned. You show that often.> Nonsense. <No you haven't.> Of course, you would believe that. <But it's so convenient to be able, when shown to be wrong, that this wrongness is magically "irrevelvant."> First, you haven't shown that anything I've said was wrong. Second, it's been irrelevant the whole time. <I dodged nothing. I reply to everything in your posts, as always.> Replying isn't answering. One can reply and still dodge. <You're often hapless. And less cute when you just repeat yourself.> Again, I'm never hapless. And you repeat yourself more often than me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You're confusing two different things from two different posts.>> <No, I'm not.> Yes, you are. <<Besides, would you really want to look at the Dem/Dem average being "lower than all years but one of Bush/DeLay and lower than the Bush/Delay average" as any sort of "victory?">> <Does it prove my point that Republicans are more fiscally conservative than Democrats? Of course not. It does show, however, that you repeatedly make statements that are not entirely accurate.> I've already shown you doing that on this thread. I've only done so if you intentionally confuse things from different posts. <<And indeed, you can find all combinations in there that are better than Bush II/DeLay.>> <And some that are worse.> Yeah. Reagan. But I never said they were all better, just that some from every combination were better. <<Bush II/DeLay's fiscal irresponsibility has been a major sticking point with ACTUAL fiscal conservatives.>> <Fiscal conservatives were not happy with the increased amounts of spending that happened under President Bush and Speaker Delay. That fact does nothing to prove that Democrats have been or would be more fiscally conservative than Republicans, which was my point.> But you have no proof other than your ideology-based assumptions that Democrats would be worse than Bush/DeLay. In fact, we've seen Dem/Dem combinations that were better, as well as the other combinations. Bush/DeLay may not have been the absolute worst, but they were in the lower tier. <<Since it was me, your knee jerked. But the record is clear.>> <Only if you narrowly define what fiscal conservatism means, and twist the record to make your point.> I don't need to twist the record, as we've seen. On the contrary, it is you who unilaterally declared the stats you didn't like "irrelevant." <<I've shown you to be wrong on this thread once already.>> <Really? Where?> On mischaracterizing what I said in post #54, for one. For the ridiculous claim that "Democrats' health plan would have been more expensive" was the same sort of "fact" as "Mt. Hood is the tallest mountain in Oregon" for another. <<No argument there. You believe what you believe, facts be damned. You show that often.>> <Nonsense.> Nope, demonstrable. <<No you haven't.>> <Of course, you would believe that.> I don't have to "believe." I've shown. <<But it's so convenient to be able, when shown to be wrong, that this wrongness is magically "irrevelvant.">> <First, you haven't shown that anything I've said was wrong.> See above. <Second, it's been irrelevant the whole time.> Well, ain't that convenient? LOL! <<I dodged nothing. I reply to everything in your posts, as always.>> <Replying isn't answering. One can reply and still dodge.> And you can play semantics all you want. What did I supposedly dodge? Meanwhile, I'll show you a flat dodge from last time: <<<I'll remember that next time you ask for proof for something. "Um, I could show you that, I just choose not to."> >> <<You've used it in the past.>> <Show me when, please.> Followed by... no answer at all. A dodge. <<You're often hapless. And less cute when you just repeat yourself.>> <Again, I'm never hapless. And you repeat yourself more often than me.> You're haplessly repeating yourself.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh All you're doing is repeating erroneous statements. There's no point in my responding to that.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< All you're doing is repeating erroneous statements. >>> No he's not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No he's not. The statements aren't erroneous, and in fact I pointed out your erroneous ones, AND your dodge.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "Yes, he is." No, what he's doing is giving you a spanking, yet again, and you keep coming back for more. It reminds me of Kevin Bacon in "Animal House" saying "please Sir, may I have another?" while getting paddled again and again. Although #145 looks like you may have finally figured it out and decided not to get spanked again.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < It reminds me of Kevin Bacon in "Animal House" saying "please Sir, may I have another?" while getting paddled again and again. > I can't decide if I love that image, or am slightly freaked out at the thought of it. Anyway, thanks for seeing the real deal (and you too, SuperDry).
Originally Posted By ecdc Thank you sir, may I have another. Best analogy. EVER. Dabob, you're awesome. Keep it up.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<I am 40 and decided a careeer in the military was a few years to late for me personally, but it was very close to happening>> Interesting excuse. Did you forget how old you were when you were blathering on about how you were going to join?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I was "very close" to winning the lottery. I only missed by five numbers.
