So, now that we've established that any source that disagrees with you is by definition flawed, how about telling me which sources back your views, and how they were vetted for objectivity and lack of a political axe to grind?
Face it, you have no idea how GDP is calculated, either by the government or any other source, and when faced with your own ignorance you retreated into extended verbal bullshit on my sources. There is not one word in your post specifically addressing any number or assumption in my source as being incorrect.
Even if it was incorrect, if you had read the original Business Week article you would have found out that the problem as they described it would have make a difference of roughly half a percent in GDP between 2003 and 2007.
You don't click on my links? Figures. At some point most people who respond to me eventually wind up saying "screw your facts!" It's nothing new.
Flame » in reply to And as always....
Was wondering how long that would take.
The whole thread (30 posts)
- And now, what could Obama do that would make him a great President
- Does Anthrax in the mail count as terrorism? (n/t)
- "one of great things Bush managed to do was prevent another terrorist attack on the US"
- Earth to GBaikie
- Replace our existing power grid with 600 AP1000 reactors. (n/t)
- Listen to every damned neocon coming down the pike? Do what Bush did?