The American Way.

cawacko said:
You're trying to create a scenario in your mind to justify positions you hold with the economic facts
Click to expand...

You haven't provided any economic facts, even when prompted to do so!

An "economic fact" would be what baseline revenues you're using to determine this liability. Or the period of time you're looking across. Both pieces of information are necessary to determine the truthfulness of the position.

Both are HUGE parts of the equation that you're leaving unspoken. it's basically, "take my word for it, or rather, take someone else's word for it because I can't be expected to do the work necessary to know if I'm being bullshitted to or not".

We can't examine the truthfulness of your claim unless you provide the context in which you're making the claim.

I think even you recognize this, but your fucking ego is just not letting you admit it. As always, it comes down to you and your shitty ego. Like a broken fucking record.
 
cawacko said:
I guess we can have this circular conversation all day. You've been given the info from multiple sources. If you have a disagreement with it post your retort with the correct info. Again, not difficult.
Click to expand...

We're only having this conversation because you refuse to do any work in support of your argument.

You're just disseminating propaganda because it makes you feel good about yourself.

BARF.
 
cawacko said:
I guess we can have this circular conversation all day. You've been given the info from multiple sources. If you have a disagreement with it post your retort with the correct info. Again, not difficult.
Click to expand...

I can't correct you when you're not revealing your work.

None of the pieces you linked to did that either.

None of the pieces you linked to showed the math of how they were reaching that liability figure.

NOT ONE.

So you just spread propaganda and then lazily expect others to do the work you should have already done before disseminating the links in the first place.

But you're such a hack, you are compelled to act this way by your ego.

Total fraud.
 
LV426 said:
We're only having this conversation because you refuse to do any work in support of your argument.

You're just disseminating propaganda because it makes you feel good about yourself.

BARF.
Click to expand...

Have you been paying attention? He hasn't even been doing that. He's done literally nothing to support an argument.
 
LV426 said:
We're only having this conversation because you refuse to do any work in support of your argument.

You're just disseminating propaganda because it makes you feel good about yourself.

BARF.
Click to expand...

LOL, and why are these national publications promoting propaganda?
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Ya know? This thread is a perfect study of the "american way".
Click to expand...

Yup.

Cawacko has an inherent bias.

Cawacko searches for confirmation of that bias.

Cawacko then posts Op-Eds confirming his bias.

Cawacko refuses to show the work (because he didn't do the work).

Cawacko then expects others to prove his point for him while not offering anything that he relied on to come to the point he made.

Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
cawacko said:
LOL, and why are these national publications promoting propaganda?
Click to expand...

Because they have an agenda!

Everything you posted wasn't a report, but an OP-ED.

Why are you just accepting of these Op-Eds? Where's the scrutiny you place on them? You don't do that for the obvious reason that they confirm you bias. So you don't have to do the work, even though you're quite clearly being conned.
 
LV426 said:
Because they have an agenda!

Everything you posted wasn't a report, but an OP-ED.

Why are you just accepting of these Op-Eds? Where's the scrutiny you place on them? You don't do that for the obvious reason that they confirm you bias. So you don't have to do the work, even though you're quite clearly being conned.
Click to expand...

You don't even know news reports from OP-ED's. FFS. No wonder you are so clueless on this.
 
cawacko said:
LOL, and why are these national publications promoting propaganda?
Click to expand...

Instead of appealing to authority, how about you do the base fucking level of effort in understanding the argument you're making and the position you're propagating?

Why is that so fucking hard for you to do?

Simple; YOU'RE A LAZY PIECE OF SHIT.
 
LV426 said:
Instead of appealing to authority, how about you do the base fucking level of effort in understanding the argument you're making and the position you're propagating?

Why is that so fucking hard for you to do?

Simple; YOU'RE A LAZY PIECE OF SHIT.
Click to expand...

Nope. Try to bully all you want but I'm not falling for it. If you have a problem with the sources then show your argument. Google is your friend. Find the numbers you think disprove all that is being reported and show them how they are wrong. B*tching at me because you don't want to do it changes nothing.
 
cawacko said:
You don't even know news reports from OP-ED's. FFS. No wonder you are so clueless on this.
Click to expand...

Dude, everything you posted were editorials, commentary, and/or opinion pieces.

If you wanted to make a coherent argument, you'd eschew all that shit and instead post actual numbers.

You'd post:

Here are the baseline revenues (R)
Here are the pension expenditures (E)
Here's the period of time (T)

So...

(R - E) x T = Liability

It's a very simple equation.

What I think you're doing -or rather, the Op-Eds you're sourcing to because you didn't do this work- is using 2010 Revenue as your baseline for R. That skews the equation in a way that would be different if you were using 2018 Revenues as your baseline for R. How? Simple; in 2010, CA was in the midst of a recession, so revenues would be lower. In 2018, CA's economy is booming, so revenues would be higher. You -or rather, the Op-EDs you're sourcing because you didn't do this work- are using depressed revenues as your baseline, aren't you? It's a simple yes or no question that will reveal just how far you're going to stage a crisis you can concern troll over as an indictment of a system you have an inherent bias against.

Prove me wrong by showing your work.

If you choose not to, then you're just spreading propaganda and disinformation.
 
cawacko said:
Nope. Try to bully all you want but I'm not falling for it. If you have a problem with the sources then show your argument. Google is your friend. Find the numbers you think disprove all that is being reported and show them how they are wrong. B*tching at me because you don't want to do it changes nothing.
Click to expand...

You fell for propaganda about a pension crisis in CA and you don't even know how they're determining that liability.

So since you can't speak to that, how can you say there's a pension crisis?

Don't you do work researching points before making them? It would appear you don't.

You just accept it because it confirms your inherent bias.
 
The American way- Having the insight and fortitude to know what America can afford to do- and what we cannot afford "not" to do as leaders in the Free World!

Both can be costly! Either way!
 
cawacko said:
Find the numbers you think disprove all that is being reported and show them how they are wrong. B*tching at me because you don't want to do it changes nothing.
Click to expand...

Your numbers are the numbers I'd use to disprove it because my hunch is that you are exaggerating the liability by using a revenue baseline from the recession.

Every single one of your links is silent on that baseline.

So that's suspicious because the revenue baseline will have a direct impact on the size of the liability.

And that's just one variable. That's not even accounting for the period of time you're looking at either. How far out you're looking will also impact the size of the liability. Because the liability will be larger if you're looking at a 50 year period vs. a 5 year period.

You know all this of course, but are fighting me on it because you don't want to admit you got hoodwinked by clever opinion writers with agendas.
 
LV426 said:
I did link to the quote.

You literally responded to it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must have missed the link. Could you direct me to it or provide the link again?

But I'll just remind you that during the Cold War the stated objective of both sides was to destroy the other.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Hell, just look at our annexation of the middle east.
Click to expand...

For some reason these people who want to blame Russia/Putin are unable to look at their own countries invastions and world wide aggression.

My motive here is not to condemn the US, nearly as much as I'm trying to cause Americans to accept the facts. I think the problem is that a lot of them haven't been able to accept that Russia isn't the enemy anymore and all the hate has been stirred up by mostly the Dems and their mission of using collusion on Trump. And that's not to suggest that Trump isn't guilty. He's very guilty but that shouldn't be escalated and used against Russia. All nations do the same and the US probably moreso than any other nation. China possibly excepted now)
 
montgomery said:
For some reason these people who want to blame Russia/Putin are unable to look at their own countries invastions and world wide aggression.
Click to expand...

What other countries may or may not have done has no bearing on Putin doing what he's doing unless you want to argue that people cannot be held responsible for their actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top