<<<I refused to answer your question because you never answer any posed to you. >>>
Oh, that's so great! In that case, I'll answer your questions even though you never answered any of mine! -- in the confidence that you will now answer mine! (And after you've answered mine, we can continue the dialogue on these matters if we want to!)
ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS:
1. Yes, I'm concerned about the budget.
2. I have read plausible arguments on both sides of the balanced budget issue and see the downside risks for each side so am not sure.
3. Yes.
4. It seems impossible, since these people are running our country, but maybe it took an outside economist to point out something fiscally quite remarkable that a lot of people, Dems and Repubs alike, had missed? Seems impossible, but it's that or they they knew it. Of course, part of the strategy was to rush the legislation through with limited time for discussion and debate. You may recall the attempt to force a vote when two critical pages were left out of the packet the congress was expected to vote on. But more likely is just that there was considerable arm-twisting, don't you think so? And only 12 Dems did-- is that "so many"? BTW, the "numbers" being "worrisome" is not the subject I raised here. I raised one simple issue to see if any Bush fans had a problem with it. None did, although one seemed to be willing to acknowledge it was a lying document.
5. No.
Okay, Michael, now let's see if you will actually answer some of the questions I've asked you! Back to you later on this.
(But you know what I know about you? -- You will continue to do your change-of-subject and false-implications stuff, like implying I "threatened" you -- you or anyone else. Like claiming that posting a column relevant to two specific threads is "numerous and multiple postings." Like the "Democratic e-mail motivational system" bs. (I'm not even a Democrat.) Like... well, let me count the ways in which you issue false implications and just plain falsehoods.)
Let's see some evidence of this "haunting" you claim I did "about a year ago." It never happened. It's just another lie of yours, of course. You didn't used to tell lies so profligately, Michael. What the hell has happened to you?
My bet is that there was some exchange in the past in which I was replying to posts to me and you have distorted it for your purposes here. Probably to one non-responsive, evasive post after another, posts like yours, hoping against hope to get a responsive answer. The reason I'm confident about that is that I occasionally post here, usually a link to an article, but only read, here, posts linked to mine. But this isn't anything we need argue about. The proof is here, and I'll pay you to find it. Let's make a bet. A hundred bucks, payable via PayPal, that I "haunted" no one "for weeks."
Or do you want to just let that false implication lie there? In effect, I'm willing to pay you a hundred dollars to post the proof of your claim that I "*haunted* someone on this thread with post after post for weeks."
It didn't happen. It is a lie characterized by the same degree of veracity as your accusation that I posted that article on "multiple and numerous threads."
I have too much work to do today so have to go now, but I'll be back with those questions you'll be answering now that I've answered yours -- but in the meantime, substantiate that latest lie, about the weeks of "haunting" you have claimed I did. okay? Or retract it.
You're safe lying about me, because I don't tattle to SI, though, right?
That's okay, because unless you prove that I "*haunted* someone on this thread with post after post for weeks" everyone will know it was just another falsehood posted by Michael D. Cummings.
P.S. If you still won't answer the unanswered questions, let me know so I won't waste time going back to collect 'em. |
