Obama's Correct

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by budgetaudio6

assumeing makes an ass out of me and you, and them as well Where can we find uncut videos of the politicians speaches without them being cut? Inquiring minds want to know? I wont sit through speech by obama. Insulting to say the least.


This isnt about party lines. Its just that i cant stand people who lie all the time. Now im not so certain romney will be better.

But at least he isnt a commie minded candidate...or will he be...not certain of that either considering his many flipflops.

You would not recognize a commie if one bit you on the arse, though I would recommend he get a rabies shot first.

[Rex E.]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

From the article you cite:

"Assuming this White House estimate proves correct, Obama will have cut spending as a percentage of GDP by 7.5 percent in the four fiscal years that started during his term. That would put him ahead of Reagan in terms of how much he would have cut federal spending measured as percentage of GDP."

In other words, it ain't a lie.

Regards,

D-Ray

Is this the way you deal with your court cases? "We'll, my client assumes
what he 's saying will be correct in a year or so, so it has to be fact and therefore true, your honor"

[budgetaudio6]

Im not just a man, Im also an animal! "D

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Rex E.

Is this the way you deal with your court cases? "We'll, my client assumes
what he 's saying will be correct in a year or so, so it has to be fact and therefore true, your honor"

We deal with expert witness in court cases. Experts deal with hypothetical questions and statistical probabilities - like what was being dealt with in the article. One might question the bases of the statistical conclusions, the premises or the methodology. But a difference in opinion does not lead to the conclusion that the proponent of that opinion is a liar. The poster's premise for citing to the article was to prove that Obama was a liar about that particular point. The article shows that the point was not a lie, but that there are reasons to challenge the methodology.

Yes it is necessary to make predictions and conclusions that are not absolutely verifiable, and to show that it was reasonable to rely on those conclusions. I have been involved in cases where union leaders had to make decisions about grievance processing based on their predictions about what an arbitrator would do. They have to decide whether it is worth it to spend several thousand dollars worth of union dues to pursue a grievance. If the prediction is that the grievance is unlikely to prevail, the decision is often to not pursue the grievance.

Can the officer say with absolute certainty what the arbitrator would have ruled? Of course not! But I am able to argue and present evidence to show that the union officer was reasonable in reaching his conclusion.

Regards,

D-Ray

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

We deal with expert witness in court cases. Experts deal with hypothetical questions and statistical probabilities - like what was being dealt with in the article. One might question the bases of the statistical conclusions, the premises or the methodology. But a difference in opinion does not lead to the conclusion that the proponent of that opinion is a liar. The poster's premise for citing to the article was to prove that Obama was a liar about that particular point. The article shows that the point was not a lie, but that there are reasons to challenge the methodology.

Yes it is necessary to make predictions and conclusions that are not absolutely verifiable, and to show that it was reasonable to rely on those conclusions. I have been involved in cases where union leaders had to make decisions about grievance processing based on their predictions about what an arbitrator would do. They have to decide whether it is worth it to spend several thousand dollars worth of union dues to pursue a grievance. If the prediction is that the grievance is unlikely to prevail, the decision is often to not pursue the grievance.

Can the officer say with absolute certainty what the arbitrator would have ruled? Of course not! But I am able to argue and present evidence to show that the union officer was reasonable in reaching his conclusion.

Regards,

D-Ray

Do you actually believe that Obama has showed fiscal restraint? You do realize that Nutting, and Obama, cherry picked their numbers? But, yes, given Nuttings methodology, Obama can validly make his absurd claim.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Do you actually believe that Obama has showed fiscal restraint? You do realize that Nutting, and Obama, cherry picked their numbers? But, yes, given Nuttings methodology, Obama can validly make his absurd claim.

Mitt has already "...restored America.". I can't wait for his mythical nation where "...everyone can be in the 1%." Man, is that gonna be awesome! I've already gotten on the waiting list for my Veyron.....Have you?

[budgetaudio6]

bluestreak, you are in the top 1 percent in the world. I know you have google. To say top one percent in america is irrelevant, as we are all connected to the entire world through commerce, and what is commerce? money!

[budgetaudio6]

looky here. this is what google showed me.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/09/th...-of-the-world/

[bobabode]

Your reference is The Caller? Doesn't appear to be much especially the blog collumn you're linking to. I read down about two paragraphs and was underwhelmed by his set up and conclusions. Just more partisan crap in my opinion. That's just me, so far. It's a nonsense article in a rag filled with it.
That's the problem with taking a bloggers words as truth and nothing but and linking to it as substantiation. It doesn't pass the smell test.

[merrylander]

I guess our wee texter does not yet realize that the internet is 5% factual, 45% conjecture and 50% bullshit.