You mentioned Salon, sock. Guess who Todd Nickerson writes for? They have now scrubbed their site of his writings, but the Internet remembers.
https://www.thecut.com/2017/02/salon-shouldnt-have-unpublished-its-pedophilia-article.html
Hi -- New here.
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
You mentioned Salon, sock. Guess who Todd Nickerson writes for? They have now scrubbed their site of his writings, but the Internet remembers.
https://www.thecut.com/2017/02/salon-shouldnt-have-unpublished-its-pedophilia-article.html
Grumps, your anecdotal evidence is no more valid than the socks is.
Interesting. I look forward to seeing whether he revises his position in light of that.
Yet you presented yourself as a Korean bi-sexual woman, sock. Why did you do that if thought it was meaningless?
If I didn't want anyone to notice the blog, wouldn't the obvious step be NOT to post a link to it? Isn't it clear my whole point in posting the link was to call attention to it? Honestly, I don't know what you're trying to argue here.
Of course not. Other than any posters here who actually know each other, there's no way to be sure of such things. That's why I helped you out with the long list of external URLs to establish that the phenomenon I learned about from my friend actually exists. Now you know that, whether or not you choose to believe my friend exists. You're a little more knowledgeable about the world than you were. You're welcome.
Are you under the impression that I said that you said anti-American sentiment doesn't exist? If so, what led you to that misconception? Or was that just a straw man attack?
No, sock, it is not.
For the reason I just explained, in the very post you just replied to, in the text you deleted in your reply.
Why would you do that unless you presumed that I denied that anti-American sentiment "actually exists" in Okinawa and Japan, sock?
Are you going to post some links to establish that grass is green?
Which of the assertions, specifically, are you disputing? Just to start with the first, that the growth cycle is long in the tooth already, this can provide you some context, in that it lists the length of each growth cycle since the mid-19th century:
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
I don't believe you, sock.
Nobody knows anyone on an anonymous message board, as we both know.
There is no upside to "introducing yourself" as a Korean bi-sexual woman unless you think it's advantageous, is there?
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Easy answer is your corospondent a civilian or a GI? If civilian they are in different circumstances. Plus what attitude does he/she project. I have seen numerous Americans expecting the people in the country they visit speak english. That Pisses the natives off. So You nor I have the full story.
I'm not trying to interfere in your interaction with the sock, Grump. Just a word in your ear: The fact is that anecdotal evidence is nothing but hearsay and proves nothing. That's why I try to avoid it, personally.
Fluff her harder. Maybe you could write her into your essay about the time you supposedly partied with Cary Grant, Frank Sinatra, and Gina Lollobrigida.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Oh there is so much missing info as to make this discussion pointless.
Controlled Opposition
Note my apathy
If you are a sock, you are very good at it. My question is; are you on vacation? For a financial analyst in NYC, your volume of posts during the work week is impressive.
Yes. And if you'd like to know what those periods have been, historically, the link I provided is useful for educating yourself.
In any particular instance, certainly not. However, at some point "coincidence" starts to become an unsatisfying explanation.
Here's a way to think about it. Let's say you flip a coin and it comes up "heads." Will you think it's weighted towards heads on that basis? No. It could be random. Now you flip it again, and it comes up "heads" again. Still could be coincidence. Same with the third "heads." But if it were to come up "heads" nine times in a row, the probability of that happening randomly is less than 1/5 of 1%. So, it makes sense to think maybe it's not random, at that point. Maybe the coin is weighted.
In the same sense, if you have a recession start under a Republican president, that could be random. But what if a recession starts under each of the last nine Republican presidents? What if, in fact, sometimes two or even three recessions start under some of those Republican presidents? Well, you might say, recessions start under every president, so that doesn't mean anything. Only that's not true. No recession started under Obama. Or Clinton. Or Johnson. Or Kennedy.
Is it just a big coincidence that we fall into recession so often when Republicans are in the White House, and so seldom when Democrats are? Perhaps. It's impossible to say with what is, by necessity, a fairly small data set. But the dynamic I talked about in my post would be consistent with the pattern I'm seeing -- if, basically, Republicans tend to take control when Democrats have created a strong economy, because more voters are thinking of themselves as future millionaires who will benefit from Republican policies. If that's what's happening, then the tendency would be for Republicans to take charge when growth cycles were already pretty old, so there was a heightened risk of recession. Meanwhile, Democrats would tend to take charge either in the midst of a recession that started under a Republican (like Obama) or shortly after one ended (like with Clinton). So, they'd tend to take charge when the growth cycles hadn't even started, or were quite young, allowing for longer run-ups. That would go a long way towards explaining the pattern. It wouldn't, however, do much to explain why we tend to get multiple recessions under Republican presidents (e.g., the two that started under Bush, or the two during the eight years of Nixon/Ford, or the three that started under Eisenhower).
LOL. I noticed that, too.
Stand by for a supposedly "plausible" explanation.