NationStates Jolt Archive

For all the talk of a "grand economy" I wonder who the hell politicians are listening to. It wouldn't be the the GAO of the US, but then again what the hell would the GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE know?

:headbang: :mp5:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_go_ot/america_the_bankrupt

It's wouldn't the the GAO of the US, but then again what the hell would the GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE know?

To string together a coherent sentence, I should hope.

Try again, please.

To string together a coherent sentence, I should hope.

Try again, please.

sorry for the haste in my post

sorry for the haste in my post

"It wouldn't br the the GAO of the US, but then again what the hell would the GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE know?"

Oh, it's all suddenly so much clearer.

Cassandra Syndrome: They've been saying this for years, but nobody listens.

The GAO are my heroes. I wish someone would reinstate their enforcement powers.

"It wouldn't br the the GAO of the US, but then again what the hell would the GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE know?"

Oh, it's all suddenly so much clearer.

Can you argue with the central basis of my post or just the typing? I'm not here to argue intellect with you as I'm sure my education would figuratibely urinate on yours. Any response or are you an attack the messenger instead of the messege? :gundge:

"It wouldn't br the the GAO of the US, but then again what the hell would the GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE know?"

Oh, it's all suddenly so much clearer.

Fass/Baguetten? Is that you?

Can you argue with the central basis of my post or just the typing? I'm not here to argue intellect with you as I'm sure my education would figuratibely urinate on yours. Any response or are you an attack the messenger instead of the messege? :gundge:

When the 'central basis' of your post is incomprehensible as a result of the typing, it is perfectly acceptable to attack the incoherence.

Your education is struggling to urinate on a deceased mole, let alone that of anyone here.

Can you argue with the central basis of my post or just the typing? I'm not here to argue intellect with you as I'm sure my education would figuratibely urinate on yours. Any response or are you an attack the messenger instead of the messege? :gundge:
Skip it. Didn't you notice he had a typo in his correction of your post? Justice reigns. Chill and wait for the NS economists to show up with their magic math to explain how the GAO doesn't know what it's talking about.

Skip it. Didn't you notice he had a typo in his correction of your post? Justice reigns.
...that wasn't a correction. It was what the post said.

"It wouldn't br the the GAO of the US, but then again what the hell would the GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE know?"

Oh, it's all suddenly so much clearer.
Dryer than the sahara.

nice to see you back, friend.

...that wasn't a correction. It was what the post said.
Oh, I guess people don't actually notice such subtle things. Check the two posts again, sir.

EDIT: Or better yet, don't. Let's see if the actual topic will develop instead.

Oh, I guess people don't actually notice such subtle things. Check the two posts again, sir.

Nope...I'm still not seeing it. You'll have to enlighten me.

EDIT: Or better yet, don't. Let's see if the actual topic will develop instead.

There's a topic?

Can you argue with the central basis of my post or just the typing?

That's the thing - you haven't presented a central basis of your own in your post. So, no, I'm not going to attempt to hone my psychic skills and read your mind to see what you wished to say and respond to that, nor will I respond to someone else's writing that you cut&pasted. You will have to supply something much more valuable than gibberish: a cohesive opinion of your own.

I'm not here to argue intellect with you as I'm sure my education would figuratibely urinate on yours.

There, there, I'm sure your education is very impressive, and I must say I am tantalised by the offer of water sports and golden showers, but your education is not a substitute for making yourself understood, which is the thing you failed at. Miserably so, too.

Any response or are you an attack the messenger instead of the messege? :gundge:

See, there wasn't any message or even "messege" in your post that was comprehensible. One cannot respond to something that was not uttered. Such a highly educated person as yourself surely has not let such a vital piece of logic escape your grasp?

That's the thing - you haven't presented a central basis of your own in your post. So, no, I'm not going to attempt to hone my psychic skills and read your mind to see what you wished to say and respond to that, nor will I respond to someone else's writing that you cut&pasted. You will have to supply something much more valuable than gibberish: a cohesive opinion of your own.



There, there, I'm sure your education is very impressive, and I must say I am tantalised by the offer of water sports and golden showers, but your education is not a substitute for making yourself understood, which is the thing you failed at. Miserably so, too.



See, there wasn't any message or even "messege" in your post that was comprehensible. One cannot respond to something that was not uttered. Such a highly educated person as yourself surely has not let such a vital piece of logic escape your grasp?

Seriousy, What the hell did I put it in there for? For you to diddle your cat to? I made reference to the GAO and when you look at the link it's a yahoo link to a report by the "GAO." I'm off to a wonderful dinner in NYC with my wife. I am typing quickly as I'm in a rush as I stated before. What part of that is incomprehensible to you? Click the link in the original post that says things about the economy that most of the MSM is not. Seriously, next time I'll hold your hand while you read posts.

Nope...I'm still not seeing it. You'll have to enlighten me.
Oh, I see what happened. Liuzzo fixed his OP after Fassigen corrected it.

Originally, it read like this:
...It's wouldn't the the GAO of the US...

Which Fassigen changed to:
...It wouldn't br the the GAO of the US...

Both contained errors. Now the only error remaining is the second "the."

Not that it ever made any difference, of course.

There's a topic?
Yes. It's the topic of the article. To be on best form, Liuzzo should have posted a question to go along with the article, but perhaps he thought the question was as obvious as I thought it was: Do we agree with the economic predictions of the GAO or not, and if not, why?

Seriousy, What the hell did I put it in there for? For you to diddle your cat to? I made reference to the GAO and when you look at the link it's a yahoo link to a report by the "GAO." I'm off to a wonderful dinner in NYC with my wife. I am typing quickly as I'm in a rush as I stated before. What part of that is incomprehensible to you? Click the link in the original post that says things about the economy that most of the MSM is not. Seriously, next time I'll hold your hand while you read posts.

The link is still devoid of any writing of yours. Your post is still devoid of any opinion one can respond to. See, for a discussion to start, one must have something to discuss - in this case, it would be your opinion and not something written in a copy&pasted article, or some sort of gobbledegook. What is your opinion of the things the article deals with? What would you like to do? How would you do them? Now, those would be things I could respond to, instead of having to endure you not supplying them ad infinitum. My patience is wearing thin - deliver, or I'll just have to give up on coaxing something legible of yours out of you.

Which Fassigen changed to:

I didn't change the OP at all. The "It wouldn't br the the GAO of the US" version is his own - that was how he "fixed" his post. By failing to fix it. Do keep up.

I didn't change the OP at all. The "It wouldn't br the the GAO of the US" version is his own - that was how he "fixed" his post. By failing to fix it. Do keep up.
Was it? I read it the way I quoted it. But if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. Good thing I've exhausted my capacity to give a shit about it.

So, just out of curiosity, do you give a shit about the GAO's report?

So, just out of curiosity, do you give a shit about the GAO's report?

I would if there were something in the OP to discuss about it - that's why I've been trying to make the OP actually post something of his own, something that makes his stance and his proposals known and open for criticism.

"Here, article!" is so fark.com, and I don't recall this place being it. Maybe it changed since I left, though, and turned into an aggregator of stories rejected by the people at the aforementioned site, who knows?

For all the talk of a "grand economy" I wonder who the hell politicians are listening to. It wouldn't be the the GAO of the US, but then again what the hell would the GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE know?

:headbang: :mp5:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061028/ap_on_go_ot/america_the_bankrupt

I would suppose people would be able to ascertain what they were being asked to respond to without highlighting and bolding it. Let me make it crystal clear for the rest of us. Many politicians are talking about the US economy as if it is all roses. Clearly by my words above I disagree with that position. How can politicians be in such a dissonant position to that of the GAO? Where the hell are they pulling this "wonderful world" viewpoint from if their very own government agencies are saying just the opposite? Would that suffice as a question anyone would be willing to entertain? Politicians are overly optimistic and economists are not...Does this worry you and make you want to smack the next politicians that says, "the economy is great" in their nuts with a shovel? Does the US having a deficit such as it does and a credit rating worse than the majority of its citizens frighten you? By the way, my questions should give you an indication as to what my position is. Those of you who need remediation to figure it out can go to www.getafrickenclue.com

I'm the leader of Liuzzo and I approve of this message