US Budget BasicsFollow

No, that's moral rhetoric. It's a questions of ethics and morals, regardless of whether emotions of empathy, sympathy or compassion are prompted by the moral issue.

The emotions generated are a side issue and irrelevant to the moral questions at hand.

You mean, "not all that easy," right? Most data analysis is fairly straightforward (though entirely over your head), and anyone with any experience with it will raise red flags when they see any deviation. And people who are experts in data analysis will pick it apart if the methods used would artificially substantiate a conclusion.

Christ, take a fucking class sometime.

Yes. Those experts will do it for you, so there's no need for you to think. Got it!

And if the experts are the ones with the vested interest in spinning the data to support their conclusion, who tells you they're doing this? Other experts right? Like those other experts who say that their math is all wrong? We're taking their word for it, right? Oh wait! We're not supposed to listen to them because according to Joph, since they're in the minority (among some arbitrary group of course), they must not be "expert" enough or something.

And just to be sure no one gets the wrong idea, we'll make sure to ostracize anyone who doesn't agree with our experts. We'll make sure they don't get published in the journals that we use to decide who's really an expert, and they don't get research grants, and otherwise can't work anywhere in their field in a position "we" have decided means that someone is qualified to be an "expert". See how that works? That guy who isn't working for a university or the government, he's not an expert. Ignore the fact that he may have a 20 year history actually working in the private industry managing real money in the real world. Nope. He can't be an expert on economics.


You really don't know how the real world works, do you?



Understand the classes you take sometime. It's easy to memorize and regurgitate. Understanding what you've been exposed to is apparently a wholly different matter. And understanding how the real world isn't like the classroom is something you may eventually figure out. I still have hope!

What? A vague, rambling screed about how bad "experts" (don't forget the scare quotes!) are and how all the "experts" are lying and the "experts" are keeping the truth down with their "expert" powers? One that mentions no names, gives no real examples and is just a wandering stream of babble about how bad the "experts" are purely because they don't agree with what you just know in your heart of hearts to be true? Stuff that you don't need any so-called "expert" to back up with any sort of facts or data? And when they do, they must all be liars because you just know they're all wrong and lying about it to push some unnamed agenda? And topped off by some high school-esque "Fight the real power, man! Don't listen to those tricky educated types! Don't be a sheeple!" bit?

Yeah, you're not driven by emotional rhetoric at all!

Edited, Feb 9th 2011 8:26am by Jophiel

Well, no actually. But Gbaji already tried that line of attack and, when it failed, had to resort to "Well... but I only meant they think exactly the same!" So, since you're walking in Gbaji's footsteps, that should help you decide your next step.


Oh, I'm sure some do. But that's not really the issue in this thread, now is it?


However, your refusal to look at the balance book for Oprah's channel doesn't mean it's bankrupt purely because you've convinced yourself that it can't make any money.

Really? A completely erroneous claim that the economists who did these studies are the same ones from Obama's 2009 economic team is a "good line of attack"?

Well, any port in a storm.

Timey,

What gets me is you liberals just keep on believing all the lies sold to you as long as it coincides with your philosophy. And then when you can't actually prove your point you result to the "well you're stupid" line of defense. That's all that's going on here.

H*ll you probably still think barry was born in the US, not that it matters to any of you liberals where he was born.

10/10. I was going to go with a 9/10, but then I realized you copied Joph's criticisms and decided that's probably the best troll post you've made in a long while.

Oh my god, gbaji.

OH MY GOD, gbaji.

I am literally amazed at how transparently full of **** you are. Your willingness to speak with confidence about **** that you know absolutely nothing about is blowing my mind.



Ever hear of a little thing called peer review? The experts with the "vested interest in spinning the data" are NEVER the people who are scrutinizing the data analysis. The analysis is ANONYMOUS, by people with no vested interest, and professors in particular can't be threatened with job security because they have a thing called TENURE, which they freely use to publish whatever the fuck they want. God damn, it's like you think it never occurred to anyone else in the entire world of academia that there should be some kind of system of protections to prevent unethical conducting and analysis of research. It's research methodology 101!

None of the stuff you just described has even the remotest possibility of actually happening. You've just proven that you're the last person who should be talking about "how the real world works".

FUCK, you should be ashamed of your own ignorance.


This is another huge fucking laugh-fest. It's not "easy to memorize and regurgitate" data analysis. It's IMPOSSIBLE. It requires a conceptual understanding, which is required to actually, you know, pass a class. Do you even think about the words you type? Did it occur to you that hey, maybe for an advanced degree, you can't just memorize a few facts and take a multiple choice test?

Of course not, because you are completely lacking in that level of education. Awfully easy to dismiss what you can't grasp. Sour grapes, much? Well now you know: Memorization basically does not exist at the graduate level, let alone the research level. You understand it, or you fail it. btw, "understanding" is only the second of six levels of learning, so it's quite seriously the minimum expectation of a graduate student.

Even conservative leaning "experts" disagree with Gbaji's analysis.