Bunjamin -
You are missing the point that onetime2 and I are making regarding this discussion.
To throw out incomplete information in order to arrange a discussion about a particular issue is misleading. Then to assert that the discussion was created to foster an unbiased debate is even more misleading (especially when you look at the history of the "unbiased" discussions created by this person).
If all of the facts and circumstances are not initially given, what is the debate on? Empty numbers.
onetime2 gave a very simple example of how throwing out a number without the related information shows nothing and further discussion of this number (without corresponding information) proves nothing and accomplishes nothing (other then pushing the already apparent agenda of the thread creator).
This is a huge topic that cannot be discussed by merely posting a graph. This is a topic that requires a much larger forum then is available here. Just the background information needed to start a debate on this topic is overwhelming. While it is an interesting topic and one worthy of debate, I think that it cannot be debated correctly in a forum like this.
I will repeat myself. Here is how the thread was started:
Quote:
This says a lot.
Good handling of the US economy?
|
Followed by:
Quote:
Well, I beg to differ. It's not misrepresenting facts. Facts speak for themselves. It's a graphical representation of the Deficit.
It is NOT a graph of gas prices.
It is NOT a graph of house prices.
It is NOT a graph of inflation.
And it was never, EVER represented as such.
If you go back to the very first page, I post the graph and ask a question. I allow anyone and everyone to comment and draw their own conclusions.
If this graph is misleading, and even "looking" at it is misleading, then by implication collecting this data and showing it to people is an attempt to mislead. What kind of Orwellian world do you live in if you believe such bunkum?
|
So, yes Mr Mephisto, I will call you out on this one. I do not, in any way, believe that you were trying to create an "open" debate. While I appreciate the insight in your posts, I am not naive enough to believe that you created this thread without a pre-conceived agenda in mine. To me it is apparent in your opening comment. It is further grounded in the resulting discussion that ensued in this thread.
Until onetime2 and I, nobody bothered to mention that the discussion was missing information vital to the discussion.
Why?
Because that wouldn't further the underlying reason behind the creation of this thread. If you just look at the graph, it makes any Republican administration look good and any Democrat administration look good. A discussion of this nature is much bigger then any one administration. The underlying factors that influence numbers like this are many and complex.
This is obvious in how Jimmy Carter is shown. Anyone familiar with the economics of the 70's knows this to be a false representation. Carter looks better compared to Clinton and that is blatently and obviously incorrect.
Again, I enjoy reading your posts Mr Mephisto, and I know that you are more then willing to concede if your information is incorrect, that fact is very evident in your posts. You are probably one of the few people on this forum (that I usually disagree with) that is willing to do this. I appreciate this and respect this.
In this case, however, I completely disagree with you and your motives.
In my opinion, if you wanted to foster an open debate regarding a graph like this, you would have spoken differenly in your opening remarks. Maybe something like: "I know that there is a lot of information that isn't shown that affect a graph like this, do you think a graph alone like this proves/disproves anything?"
That would have opened the debate for further information to be brought in (which nobody did). It also would have shown that you acknowledged the ommited/missing information.