Dan Gross Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 My, isn't everyone a bit chippy today? Must be Hump Day Syndrome. 416716[/snapback] A little too much of the old #127 on the retatta today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 And 100 years ago it was 1999, because that was a century ago... 416720[/snapback] I was using liberal logic, moron. Debbie was referring to last century being 1965. Hence that was wrong as the actual rights were the previous century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 How long ago was 1799? 416724[/snapback] DO you know which century the following years are in? 1999 2000 2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I was using liberal logic, moron. Debbie was referring to last century being 1965. Hence that was wrong as the actual rights were the previous century. 416731[/snapback] Sure...go from "I was right", to "I was wrong, but it's the liberals' fault!" Okay, Rich, whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBill Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Sorry I had a FFS moment. 416686[/snapback] Except FFS posts are usualy written by him (or her, I suppose) and not cut and pasted like yours was. Oh yeah, his are worth reading, at least sometimes they are. Unlike yours, most of the times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 DO you know which century the following years are in? 1999 2000 2001 416734[/snapback] Trick question!!! These were previous years. right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Trick question!!! These were previous years. right? 416739[/snapback] Just answer the question. Tell me for each of those years, what century are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 And 100 years ago it was 1999, because that was a century ago... 416720[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Trick question!!! These were previous years. right? 416739[/snapback] It IS a trick question. Once you tell him that 2000 is the 20th and 2001, is the 21st, he's going to explain that it proves they're a century apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 416742[/snapback] So how was 1999 the last century or this century? How many centuries ago was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobblehead Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I was using liberal logic, moron. Debbie was referring to last century being 1965. Hence that was wrong as the actual rights were the previous century. 416731[/snapback] So you can't count to 200, what's the big deal? This isn't exactly the Brookings Institution here. I mean, it takes people an hour to boil noodles around here, for chrissakes! Just man up and go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 It IS a trick question. Once you tell him that 2000 is the 20th and 2001, is the 21st, he's going to explain that it proves they're a century apart. 416747[/snapback] And they are. Now quit being an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I think you're ALL idiots. Arguing over a calendar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 And they are. Now quit being an idiot. 416753[/snapback] this does have implications. The day I turn 60 will I be a decade older? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 this does have implications. The day I turn 60 will I be a decade older? 416756[/snapback] Good point. Damn you're old. Hell you make Bib look like a babe in the woods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 What about milleniums? How does this sound? "One millenium ago the civil war was fought." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I think you're ALL idiots. Arguing over a calendar? 416755[/snapback] Shhhhh, I'm enjoying this thread while eating my lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 What about milleniums? How does this sound? "One millenium ago the civil war was fought." 416762[/snapback] That's correct. Or in the last millenium. But when referring to more then one it would be two millenia ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 And they are. Now quit being an idiot. 416753[/snapback] So since I was born in 1969, because 2000 and 2001 are a century apart, I'm therefore 136 years old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 So since I was born in 1969, because 2000 and 2001 are a century apart, I'm therefore 136 years old? 416768[/snapback] Can I ask who invited Yoda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I think you're ALL idiots. Arguing over a calendar? 416755[/snapback] Not as good as when the Bills win the coin toss and what they should do with that priviledge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Shhhhh, I'm enjoying this thread while eating my lunch. 416766[/snapback] Sorry... I can't stop laughing! You go Yoda! Go Yoda... Its your birthday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Sorry... I can't stop laughing! You go Yoda! Go Yoda... Its your birthday! 416779[/snapback] Its like a bad movie, I keep watching, watching, thinking something good is going to happen. Only to realize that I'm 147 years old, !@#$! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Its like a bad movie, I keep watching, watching, thinking something good is going to happen. Only to realize that I'm 147 years old, !@#$! 416785[/snapback] 147. Damn another old !@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 147. Damn another old !@#$. 416790[/snapback] If nothing else this experience is giving me more respect for Madison, Jefferson, Adams, etc. A Stadium Wall constitutional convention would last forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 That's correct. Or in the last millenium. But when referring to more then one it would be two millenia ago. 416767[/snapback] Gotta feel good about something... Glad I could help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Good point. Damn you're old. Hell you make Bib look like a babe in the woods. 416761[/snapback] I AM a babe in the woods. Did you forget I was a druid? (reformed). and my avatar wants to know how that works out in dog years. HOLY SHIDT!!! It just dawned on me...how long does it take to make Retatta now??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I AM a babe in the woods. Did you forget I was a druid? (reformed). and my avatar wants to know how that works out in dog years. HOLY SHIDT!!! It just dawned on me...how long does it take to make Retatta now??? 416805[/snapback] You must have a lot of hit points by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Its like a bad movie, I keep watching, watching, thinking something good is going to happen. Only to realize that I'm 147 years old, !@#$! 416785[/snapback] I was born in 1968. Was I robbed of my first decade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 I was born in 1968. Was I robbed of my first decade? 416820[/snapback] Yes, by Sirhan Sirhan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 1861 wasn't two centuries ago unless you are using the same sort of math GWB does when calculating the results from his tax cuts. 416554[/snapback] Getting back to this point, please tell me how the growth in federal revenue spurred by the tax cuts relative to the growth of GDP, and counting the revenue as percentage of GDP an illustration of VA's failed math? (Hint, an answer dealing with the budget deficit won't cut it, because the deficit is caused by the expenditures. Tax cuts only deal with the revenues) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I was born in 1968. Was I robbed of my first decade? 416820[/snapback] I'm just waiting for some 16 year old kid try to use the "I was born in 1989, that's a century ago which means I'm really 116 so yes I can buy beer" excuse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I AM a babe in the woods. Did you forget I was a druid? (reformed). and my avatar wants to know how that works out in dog years. HOLY SHIDT!!! It just dawned on me...how long does it take to make Retatta now??? 416805[/snapback] It depends on whether a century is a year long, 72 years long, or 100 years long. But as near as I can figure it...about a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Getting back to this point, please tell me how the growth in federal revenue spurred by the tax cuts relative to the growth of GDP, and counting the revenue as percentage of GDP an illustration of VA's failed math? (Hint, an answer dealing with the budget deficit won't cut it, because the deficit is caused by the expenditures. Tax cuts only deal with the revenues) 416834[/snapback] Voodoo economics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBill Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Getting back to this point, please tell me how the growth in federal revenue spurred by the tax cuts relative to the growth of GDP, and counting the revenue as percentage of GDP an illustration of VA's failed math? (Hint, an answer dealing with the budget deficit won't cut it, because the deficit is caused by the expenditures. Tax cuts only deal with the revenues) 416834[/snapback] If I (or any rational economist) thought the growth in federal revenue was driven solely by GWB's tax cuts, I supose I would try to answer that. I don't think his tax cuts are the only driving force behind increased federal revenues. I don't think Bill Clintons economic policies were the only driving reasons behind increased federal revenues during his terms either. I think his (VABills) statement of the Civil war occuring two centuries was bad math (so do others, obviously) and I still think his likening of the Republican Party of A. Lincoln to the Republican Party of GWB is about as valid as his "calendar" math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 If I (or any rational economist) thought the growth in federal revenue was driven solely by GWB's tax cuts, I supose I would try to answer that. I don't think his tax cuts are the only driving force behind increased federal revenues. I don't think Bill Clintons economic policies were the only driving reasons behind increased federal revenues during his terms either. Tax cuts are not the sole driving force in increased revenue, but they're a pretty big driver. Interesting how the supply side bashers like to ignore the fact that whenever tax rates have been decreased, the tax revenues went up disproportionately higher than the growth of GDP. You don't suppose that Clinton (Rubin) lowering the cap gains tax rate to 20% from 28% was a big driver for the economic gains in his tenure? Voodoo economics, indeed. A good proof of your point would be if there were no tax cuts If the tax cuts weren't responsible for the increase in revenue I think his (VABills) statement of the Civil war occuring two centuries was bad math (so do others, obviously) and I still think his likening of the Republican Party of A. Lincoln to the Republican Party of GWB is about as valid as his "calendar" math. 416928[/snapback] I made no claim on this point, other than you using wrong math to correct his math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBill Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Tax cuts are not the sole driving force in increased revenue, but they're a pretty big driver. Interesting how the supply side bashers like to ignore the fact that whenever tax rates have been decreased, the tax revenues went up disproportionately higher than the growth of GDP. You don't suppose that Clinton (Rubin) lowering the cap gains tax rate to 20% from 28% was a big driver for the economic gains in his tenure? Voodoo economics, indeed. I made no claim on this point, other than you using wrong math to correct his math. 416960[/snapback] I think you confused me with someone else, I never made the statement "voodoo economics". Nor did I ever attempt to correct VABills math. Plenty of other people did, however, I am am inclined to agree with them. My bone of contention was him favorably comparing the Republican Party of A. Lincoln with the current version of the GOP. It was invalid in his original statement, and it remains invalid still. The only comment VABills made was that I was "wrong". Not much better than his anti Losman diatribes on TSW, but I didn't expect much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I think you confused me with someone else, I never made the statement "voodoo economics". Since Exiled's thought process mirrored yours, I answered both posts in one reply. Nor did I ever attempt to correct VABills math. Then what what you doing by comparing VA's math to Bush's calculations of tax cuts, if not correcting VA's math? My bone of contention was him favorably comparing the Republican Party of A. Lincoln with the current version of the GOP. Then you should have stuck with that line of reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 I think you confused me with someone else, I never made the statement "voodoo economics". Nor did I ever attempt to correct VABills math. Plenty of other people did, however, I am am inclined to agree with them. My bone of contention was him favorably comparing the Republican Party of A. Lincoln with the current version of the GOP. It was invalid in his original statement, and it remains invalid still. The only comment VABills made was that I was "wrong". Not much better than his anti Losman diatribes on TSW, but I didn't expect much more. 417048[/snapback] I'm not anti-JP, so you're wrong again. I just don't think he is very good right now, and has major issues to over come. I just hope he does it sooner then later. As far as parties go, I believe it was the repubs who had Abe, and the Dems have Bird and David Duke as Senators. Good company there in the dem party. Not that I am a repub, but I sure don't associate with most of the nut cases that the Dems push out. I do however vote that way when a sane one comes around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 I'm not anti-JP, so you're wrong again. I just don't think he is very good right now, and has major issues to over come. I just hope he does it sooner then later. As far as parties go, I believe it was the repubs who had Abe, and the Dems have Bird and David Duke as Senators. Good company there in the dem party. Not that I am a repub, but I sure don't associate with most of the nut cases that the Dems push out. I do however vote that way when a sane one comes around. 417204[/snapback] Duke ran for the Republican presidential nomination in '92. Link. But to be fair, he's bounced b/w the two parties, making and breaking alliances like underwear in a dryer without Bounce sheets. His voice really doesn't matter, as shown earlier this week. Comparing the parties from Lincoln's time to our own will get you nowhere. They've changed and swapped platforms so much as to be completely unrecognizable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts