Hi -- New here.

Grumpy said:
I'm not so sure she is a sock. She is too articulate for any of the lefties here. But I've been wrong before. Plus who in their right mind would have a sock that says they lived and worked in Gomorrah by the sea?
Click to expand...

As I recall, the story of Gomorrah involve the Hebrew God deciding to destroy two cities based on them being especially sinful. Unless you think New York City is especially sinful, it wouldn't make a very good Gomorrah. As a reality check, consider, for example, murder rates.... murder being a sin so grave that it is expressly called out in the Hebrew God's Decalogue. The murder rate in my city is just 3.4%. Not only is that not especially high, it's actually much lower than the national average of 5.3. If you're looking for a Gomorrah, you'd be better off looking well south. For example, St. Louis has a murder rate of 59.8. They're over ten times as likely to commit murder there as in NYC.

Of course there are other sins than just murder. Gluttony, for example, is one of the seven deadly sins. Yet if you check obesity rates, you'll see that NYC suffers from relatively little of that sin, too. Is there a particular sin you have in mind when you give New York that sobriquet?
 
Oneuli said:
The murder rate in my city is just 3.4%.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean that you say the murder rate in the city you claim to infest is just 3.4%, sock?

BTW, who told you that NYC has a murder rate of "3.4%," sock?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-murders-on-the-rise-in-2018-nypd-data-shows-1531262595

https://nypost.com/2018/07/10/nycs-murder-rate-rises-due-to-gang-violence/

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/04/03/new-yorks-annual-murder-statistics-are-still-worse-than-londons
 
Legion said:
Mighty convenient. Did you notice that little "fact" was missing in the sock's initial telling of "her" tale, Topsy?
Click to expand...

There's that Catch 22 again: if I mention personal details, that's a problem, and if I don't mention personal details, that's a problem.
 
Legion said:
In what ways....
Click to expand...

Well, we could start by looking at executive branch staffing. One of a president's top duties is to surround himself with good people. For example, consider the FEMA slot. Instead of using it the way GW Bush did, as a patronage position for a wholly inexperienced fund-raiser (the infamous "Helluva Job Brownie"), he used the slot for James Lee Witt, a man with a long track record of handling emergency planning and disaster recovery management at the state level. Thus, when disasters struck in the Clinton years, they were handled competently and did much less socioeconomic damage than they would have with a Brownie-style incompetent trying to learn on the job.

That's something you see throughout Clinton's terms: the selection of highly respected and skilled people who could draw on deep experience in the role. That included a willingness to reach across the aisle and appoint prominent Republicans to leading roles. When you have the top slots in the bureaucracy clicking on all cylinders that way, instead of those roles being used as rewards for loyalists (or sinecures for fundraisers and immediate family members), things tend to go well.
 
Last edited:
evince said:
what do you see as the difference between progressives and liberals?
Click to expand...

One VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE is that liberals call themselves liberals...and progressives call themselves progressives. They use different descriptors for whatever reason.

I do not use a descriptor in the political spectrum. To my way of thinking...it causes more problems than it is worth.

For what it is worth, on the liberal/conservative continuum, with "very liberal" being a 1 and "very conservative" being a 10...I would be found at color purple.
 
Oneuli said:
Well, we could start by looking at executive branch staffing. One of a president's top duties is to surround himself with highly experienced people. For example, consider the FEMA slot. Instead of using it the way GW Bush did, as a patronage position for a wholly inexperienced fund-raiser (the infamous "Helluva Job Brownie"), he used the slot for James Lee Witt, a man with a long track record of handling emergency planning and disaster recovery management at the state level. Thus, when disasters struck in the Clinton years, they were handled competently and did much less socioeconomic damage than they would have with a Brownie-style incompetent trying to learn on the job.

That's something you see throughout Clinton's terms: the selection of highly respected and experienced people who could draw on deep experience in the role. That included a willingness to reach across the aisle and appoint prominent Republicans to leading roles. When you have the top slots in the bureaucracy clicking on all cylinders that way, instead of those roles being used as rewards for loyalists (or sinecures for fundraisers and immediate family members), things tend to go well.
Click to expand...

True. Plus you don't tend to have as many scandals, resignations, firings, and turnover as, for example, in a Trump administration. Apparently in the 45 Era, "draining the swamp" means sifting out the government gold to line one's personal office and pocket with.
 
Legion said:
Looks like I hit a nerve...."
Click to expand...

No. Obviously, it doesn't impact me at all when you tell Grumpy that his obvious anecdote is anecdotal. I suppose that's ultimately between you and him. But it's odd that you'd apparently imagine he didn't already know that. His whole point was to offer an anecdote, so I just don't know what value you think you're adding by telling him what he already knows.
 
Last edited:
Oneuli said:
Well, we could start by looking at executive branch staffing. One of a president's top duties is to surround himself with highly experienced people. For example, consider the FEMA slot. Instead of using it the way GW Bush did, as a patronage position for a wholly inexperienced fund-raiser (the infamous "Helluva Job Brownie"), he used the slot for James Lee Witt, a man with a long track record of handling emergency planning and disaster recovery management at the state level. Thus, when disasters struck in the Clinton years, they were handled competently and did much less socioeconomic damage than they would have with a Brownie-style incompetent trying to learn on the job.
Click to expand...

Cite the comparative statistics between natural disasters that occurred during both Administrations and show evidence of a verifiable causal relationship between the identities of the respective directors or administrators of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, sock.

Oneuli said:
That's something you see throughout Clinton's terms: the selection of highly respected and experienced people who could draw on deep experience in the role. That included a willingness to reach across the aisle and appoint prominent Republicans to leading roles. When you have the top slots in the bureaucracy clicking on all cylinders that way, instead of those roles being used as rewards for loyalists (or sinecures for fundraisers and immediate family members), things tend to go well.
Click to expand...

Can you provide any evidence to support these generalizations, sock?

I'll understand if you cannot, of course.
 
Oneuli said:
No. Obviously, it doesn't impact me at all when you tell Grumpy that his obvious anecdote is anecdotal. I suppose that's ultimately between you and him. But it's odd that you'd apparently imagine he didn't already know that. His whole point was to offer an anecdote, so I just don't know what value you think you're adding by telling him what he already knows.
Click to expand...

A hit. A very palpable hit.
 
ThatFowlWoman said:
True. Plus you don't tend to have as many scandals, resignations, firings, and turnover as, for example, in a Trump administration. Apparently in the 45 Era, "draining the swamp" means sifting out the government gold to line one's personal office and pocket with.
Click to expand...

No scandals during Blowjob Bill's Reign of Error, fuck face?

No firings, resignation, or turnover?
 
Legion said:
Were they? List their accomplishments, imbecile.
Click to expand...

Just to list a few they had in common:

Higher real GDP per capita, higher real median incomes, higher real wages, higher real stock values, lower deficits, lower unemployment rates, lower poverty rates, unusually long periods of economic growth, high approval ratings for the US in other leading nations, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower murder rates, lower violent crime rates, lower property crime rates, no new major wars started, consistently manageable inflation rates, etc.

There were others they didn't share in common. For example, Obama managed eight years without any major terrorist attacks on the US, whereas Clinton had Oklahoma City. Obama also helped to get the incarceration rate to start falling, whereas the Clinton years were part of a decades-long increase. And, Clinton certainly has more bragging rights when it comes to the speed of economic growth and job creation.
 
Oneuli said:
Just to list a few they had in common: Higher real GDP per capita, higher real median incomes, higher real wages, higher real stock values, lower deficits, lower unemployment rates, lower poverty rates, unusually long periods of economic growth, high approval ratings for the US in other leading nations, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower murder rates, lower violent crime rates, lower property crime rates, no new major wars started, consistently manageable inflation rates, etc.
Click to expand...

Cite the comparative statistics with a link to your sources for those assertions, sock. I'll understand if you can't.

Oneuli said:
There were others they didn't share in common. For example, Obama managed eight years without any major terrorist attacks on the US, whereas Clinton had Oklahoma City. Obama also helped to get the incarceration rate to start falling, whereas the Clinton years were part of a decades-long increase. And, Clinton certainly has more bragging rights when it comes to the speed of economic growth and job creation.
Click to expand...

So you say, sock. Where are your citations for these glowing generalizations?
 
Oneuli said:
Certainly it's been nice that the Obama-era trends of economic improvement haven't yet reversed.
Click to expand...

What "trends of economic improvement" were those, sock? Can you show a causal relationship between any "trends of economic improvement" and specific actions taken by B. Hussein Obama?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top