Re: OT: election predictions

On Nov 6, 3:08 am, DaveS <snedek...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:04 pm, riverman <myronb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:







LOL. I say its better to google "War on Poverty" and "cost" to find
out what David is claiming he saw than it is to stand there
boisterously claiming that "I'm the only one who knows what's right"
and striking out wildly at everyone around you. Reminds me of a Three
Stooges clip where one of them is blindfolded and windmilling at
everthing he hears.

I never said I endorsed any of those links, nor did I post an
exhaustive list, just the first few to establish, as I said; "that an
estimate of "around 9 trillion" for the WoP is not without
precedent."

So glad that you have determined that I represent 'all wingnuts'.
Massive generalizations are often quite valid....not.

--riverman- Hide quoted text -

Where to start?

1. Do you understand that when you attribute something to somebody by
putting quotes around it, it should be something the person quoted
actually said? I did not say "I'm the only one who knows what's
right." Evidently in your firmament you can make up *** like that and
its OK.

Here, let ME do it:
Riverman said,   "I Riverman do regularly make up *** and state it as
fact."
Wow Riverman that is some admission. How often do you do it?
"Huh?"
Oh did I hear you say . . . "I do it often because I'm the only one
who knows what's right."
Sheeeeech

2. Striking out wildly? Interesting. Look, I said what my backround in
the subject was. And as a part of that 30+ years i had to listen to
all manner of clowns make up their own numbers. Right/ideologicals
like David and lots of Libs who thought that skewing the numbers to
show more people in need or inflate a program's success was somehow in
their job description. I went after both kind of assholes whenever I
could get away with it. I was a mostly applied, labor market scientist
specializing in the management of employment and worker training
programs, mostly as an independent consultant. I was a Social
Scientist. Not an advocate, not an ideologue. So for me, making up
phony numbers is ethically wrong. It is the equivalent of an physical
scientist faking experiments. For me it is the height of dishonesty,
the province of corrupt mercenaries.

3. I make no apoligies for calling out your bull*** attempt to help
David save face, by cutely listing 3 of the most egregious bags of no-
nothing *** that you managed to Google up, but apparently did not
read. David has long since demonstrated his ability to both defend
himself as well as maintain some of his strange beliefs without
gratuitous amplification. But if thats the role you want then why are
you whining about my reaction? Are you entitled to some sort of Free
Hit card because we share a few progressive beliefs?

4. I believe that there are things called facts. That facts are
important. That there are gray areas, but everything is not relative.
Particularly within the context of the mostly Newtonian world within
which social and economic science functions. However I live in a world
full of people who make up all kinds of stuff. In my field I was
forced sometimes to listen to people far more influential that we on
ROFF, Congressmen, business leaders, politicians and bureaucrats of
both stripes, who many times shared the same delusional belief that
for their own reasons all was relative and they could make up their
own facts, or use 10 year old data as current. And sometimes I even
had to smile and clap when they did it. Well, I am retired now and I
do not ever have ever to shut up and listen to made up numbers.
Opinions, I will listen to but made up crap that I know is made up.,
Never

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NIce, but as a "social scientist" who was, in effect, "calling [my]
bull***" (did I use quotes properly there?), you sure completely
misread my post. Sarcasm aside, you really did. I was specifically not
defending nor supporting David's position, nor was I endorsing those
links. As I clearly stated, I merely googled to find whatever data he
claimed he had found on the cost of the War on Poverty and to
establish that the amount he claimed was not without precedent.
Accusing me of being "full of ***" implies pretty clearly that you
were assuming that I was endorsing those links, or challenging your
expertise by posting them. Flying off at me for that strawman was
windmilling.

--riverman

Oh, and good luck being the judge on what constitutes a Fact.

.

Loading