It costs HOW much?!?!

[madrin]

there IS some small semblance of logic there...except that it's been twisted and stretched by spin doctors with an obvious agenda...

I KNOW what study has made the rounds on the full media circuit of late. I heard the exact same thing on the radio yesterday...and it was badly done. Specifically it was a cost study that wound up anywhere from 1 to 3 trillion dollars, based on GDP hits (which were in and of themselves manipulated with ridiculous assumptions, as I detailed above). That line was begun in Australia and picked up by groups in Europe with a decidedly left stance.....

also known as liberal socialists...

..and then there was an earlier study which has now been thoroughly trounced put out in December, I think, by the American academy of arts and sciences....now THAT one DID apply to the US, and it submitted that the war could cost anywhere from 50 billion to about 2 trillion if I'm not mistaken...I can go look that back up some time...but it was dismissed outright because it made assumptions on the high side that were so blatantly manipulative that it lost all credibility within about 3 hours...which is why very few people know about that study...

that and it was put out by the esteemed (snicker) William D. Nordhaus, John D. Steinbruner, and Martin B. Malin...

....nah...no leftist fudging there

In any case....what this winds up being is that someone disagreed, called foul on the statistics, and then ran into a bunch of semantic prattle designed to focus attention away from the obvious shortcoming of the intial premise...

MADrin

 

[flavio]

I

Flav, you're not helping yourself any here. Your argument might have some small semblance of logic if it weren't for the fact that the statistics DID come from liberals with an agenda to push.

And no, liberal doesn't mean "anything I don't agree with." That you would accuse me of such a thing makes you look foolish.

What's making you look foolish is your continued baseless accusations that the numbers I heard on the radio are easily dismissed as "liberals with an agenda" but you seem to have absolutely nothing to back up what you say except your own assertion.

Now since you are obviously a "conservative with an agenda to push" you won't mind if I don't take your ridiculous logic as fact until you provide something resembling proof.

 

[flavio]

A. The study you "heard" about applies to the WORLD...NOT a country...the WORLD..will I need to repeat that yet again? It has nothing whatsoever to do with costs on the order of "20,000" bucks to anyONE or any houshold in the US....

B. The study does include ridiculous financial assertions that are so far out of the realm of reality that they not only point out the agenda, which you'd be able to see even if you didnt bother looking up the author groups, but also add up to work that should be shown utter disdain by anyone with even 8 functioning brain cells.

C. YOU go on, even AFTER being informed about the nature of the "study" and apply it further to your assertions incorrectly, vis a vis the cost to us "here at home" of a 3 trillion dollar war...and then further dismiss the obvious with this bright shiny diamond in the crown jewels of the land of Moronica

All your information is has obviously come directly from religious ultra conservative Klan members.

And since it stems from the Klan I am not going to lend it any credibility.

See how easy that is? I can make ridiculous generalizations without anything to back it up just like you.

I don't claim the numbers I heard on the radio our !00% accurate, I simply said it's what I heard on the radio. You still have given nothing of substance beyond your own claim to indicate any other numbers even though I have asked repeatedly.

Since there is no other information, links, or quotes from reliable sources to go on yet I will have to go with what I heard on the radio over someone with obviously conservative fascist leanings like yourself and a penchant for throwing around words you don't understand.

Let's say, jut for discussion, that the war would cost a couple hundred billion. Would that make further discussion easier?

 

[Gonz]

I just know I'll never hear the end of this one

 

[Squiggy]

Ya got that right...

 

[outside looking in]

What's making you look foolish is your continued baseless accusations that the numbers I heard on the radio are easily dismissed as "liberals with an agenda" but you seem to have absolutely nothing to back up what you say except your own assertion.

Now since you are obviously a "conservative with an agenda to push" you won't mind if I don't take your ridiculous logic as fact until you provide something resembling proof.

The statistics are easily dismissed because even a passing glance tells you they are ridiculously manipulated. That the statistics come from liberals with an agenda is a fact, not a reason for dismissal. The stats are ludicrous on their own without any help from ad hominem arguments.

And if someone tells me that selling Amway can make them 5 billion a year, there's no need for me to actually calculate how much they can realistically make to know that their estimate is ludicrous. You asking me for proof that they are ludicrous is like asking for me to prove that you can't make 5 billion a year selling Amway. Sure, it might be theoretically possible, but would you really be so naive as to support such an argument?

 

[outside looking in]

Since there is no other information, links, or quotes from reliable sources to go on yet I will have to go with what I heard on the radio over someone with obviously conservative fascist leanings like yourself and a penchant for throwing around words you don't understand.

I can't believe what I'm reading. That is precisely the attitude that spreads so much misinformation on everything from religion to science in this country (and elsewhere I'm sure). You don't need an alternative to recognize that something isn't realistic.

"I once heard that you can make 5 billion a year selling Amway on an informercial, and since I've never seen anyone offering reliable information to the contrary, I'll have to go with what I saw on TV."

Gah!

 

[flavio]

So what your

That the statistics come from liberals with an agenda is a fact, not a reason for dismissal.

Because you said so right?

No reason to back up a single thing you say right?

How about a couple hundred billion dollars? Care to give any sort of figure that you find acceptable?


edit: Amway has been widely known to be a scam for many years now. These figures just came out. Your comparison is stupid.

 

[flavio]

 

[outside looking in]

How about a couple hundred billion dollars? Care to give any sort of figure that you find acceptable?

No, I don't. I thought you might understand the concept by now, but I suppose not.

edit: Amway has been widely known to be a scam for many years now. These figures just came out. Your comparison is stupid.

The analogy is just fine. It doesn't matter that amway is now known to be a scam, because in my analogy I made it clear that little information was known to the hypothetical people involved. If someone told me I could make 5 billion a year selling soap, I would know their estimate was whack, without the need for any confirming information on whether it was in fact a scam or not, or how much you could realistically make.

These statistics are no different. I recognize that the numbers are fraudulent, or very voodooishly misleading at best, and I need no other research to tell me that. I have brain cells, and I use them.

I don't need to know how much a war might actually cost to know with a passing glance that this particular estimate is laughable.

Get it?

Probably not.

 

[flavio]

You're useless. I think the main thing is that you would like to ignore the incredible cost of the war alltogether. Trying to dismiss a estimate as "liberal and socialist" is your way of avoiding the issue.

You have no information to prove your point...none. You also demonstrate no interest in discussing what you would find to be acceptable figures.

Maybe if you simply spout off a bunch of unfounded crap about cost estimates everybody will just assume it's free?

 

[unclehobart]

God damn, guys. Can we put the axe handles away? This isn't going anywhere.

 

[PT]

Hey now, we have a page and a half of insults, that's something.

 

[Gonz]

God damn, guys. Can we put the axe handles away? This isn't going anywhere.

Hear hear. Be reasonable & prove your point with backing, not backbone.

 

[flavio]

God damn, guys. Can we put the axe handles away? This isn't going anywhere.

Hear hear. Be reasonable & prove your point with backing, not backbone.

Good thing you posted that picture to calm things down. I don't know what would have happened without peacekeeping efforts like that.

 

[Gonz]

 

[Professur]

I love politics, don't you?

Oh, moderator, check please.

Y'know, my dad once told me that, on a plane, you should never discuss politics of religion. Noone ever wins a discussion of either, and the silence after makes the 6 hour flight seem even longer.

 

[Gonz]

Without politics & religion to argue (war) over, teh only thing we'd have to discuss is Movie Title threads

 

[outside looking in]

You're useless. I think the main thing is that you would like to ignore the incredible cost of the war alltogether. Trying to dismiss a estimate as "liberal and socialist" is your way of avoiding the issue.

Please point out any instance where I insinuated a war would not cost anything.

You have no information to prove your point...none.

I only need common sense. But in any case, the details of those statistics are out there for your amusement. Look at the assumptions made. Do you agree with them? I don't. They're obviously voodoo numbers. What more do you want of me... equally 'shot in the dark' estimates from someone else?

How about this: "I heard on TV somewhere last night that the war would cost less than 3 trillion dollars." Now we're on equal footing as to having "proof" of what a war might actually cost. Happy?

You also demonstrate no interest in discussing what you would find to be acceptable figures.

Since you insist, off the hip I'd guess tens of billions. An accurate estimate would (aside from eliminating some of the ridiculous assumptions made) also include instances where war stimulates the economy. Remember... MRE's and bullets do cost money, but manufacturing them provides jobs. It's much more complex than even that propaganda made it out to be, and I would expect the cost to be orders of magnitudes less.

Maybe if you simply spout of a bunch of unfounded crap about cost estimates everybody will just assume it's free?

Maybe if you repeat propaganda you heard on the radio everyone will believe it's going to cost them $20,000?

We can hurl insults back and forth ad infinitum, but I don't see the point. No one really has accurate economic estimates of that sort of thing. It's your attitude of "in the absence of other information, I'm going to accept these numbers until someone can prove me wrong" that blows my mind.

 

[flavio]

How about this: "I heard on TV somewhere last night that the war would cost less than 3 trillion dollars."

Yeah, but you didn't. The numbers I heard were actually from a study.

But they're ludicrous, liberal, and socialist numbers because YOU say so. Which you will simply just repeat over and over again. Since you feel no need to back up the things you say I can't see how discussing it with you can be useful to anyone.

Here's another study .

Maybe these numbers will help take this conversation somewhere.