Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Reasoning

None dare call it reason.
ER — (archived)

If the market doesn't like Obama, after a whole long month in office, is that his fault? Or the market's?

If the rise in GDP percentage of debt increases during Reagan/BushI it can be argued that it merely reflects a trend not of their making, but of society as a whole. But if it goes down under Clinton and up again under Bush II can that not be argued as a direct consequence of their respective ideologies? It's too early to see what it will do under Obama, but I'm sure if it skyrockets it can just as easily be swept under the rug and explained away as the only way to undo the malfeasance of his predecessor.

You cannot use statistics to settle a philosophical argument, any more than you can prove the existence of God by seeking seeking supporting Scriptures. It is circular reasoning. And if you continue to do so, it only demonstrates that you are incapable of understanding the difference between verifiable facts and ideological preferences, especially when the facts are selected by those with an agenda. There is right and wrong on both sides, and everyone gets to draw the line where he or she feels it is right, and as I, and history, have often pointed out, some mixture of the two is the best we can hope for. In fact, it seems to work quite well.

In a democracy, the only criterion that matters is whether you get elected or not. This time, the Democrats won. Eight years ago the Republicans won. Get over it.

And perhaps you can see why I don't come here any more. You need to win too badly. It scares me.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (52 posts)