Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 9, 2004 19:16
VIEWED: 9195
PAGE 4 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The second document is the one that covers the ODP grants. Pretty well hidden? Don't think so.
Page 1:
Texas 115,110,000 second only to California. And what grants/whatever isn't recorded in these documents. Seeing my point yet?
You seem to be attempting to mislead anyone that may read this thread by attempting to weaken my position by pointing out that I didn't read one out of the two documents. But, you seem to have missed the point.
That being that clearly according to the first document some numbers aren't included in the study. Thus the hiding money point.
Secondly, pointing out that I didn't read the second document just strengthened the defense of the article posted in the first post and weakened your crit of it.
Anything else you'd care to bring up?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Nice pic you got there. Is that your "Head Boy" grad photo or just an award for best brownshirt tea bagger?
See how his sort label people then label the facts as "propoganda"?
To be propoganda it must be created by commitee. Hence - Micheal Moores docu/movie can't possibly be propoganda.
The picture is Robert Heinlein, and is used for my Firefly Roleplay character Roosevelt Thorne.
You have an interesting take on the definition of 'propaganda'. I've yet to see any that requires it to be created by committee. Relying on good ole Google again, see here for several definitions:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:pr
opaganda
The Webster's 9th New Collegiate on my desk gives three. #1 is the Congregatio de propaganda fide and can probably be ignored in this discussion. #2 - The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. #3 - Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.
Hmm. No requirement for a committee.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Page 1:
Texas 115,110,000 second only to California. And what grants/whatever isn't recorded in these documents. Seeing my point yet?
Not really. I found both these documents in less than 5 minutes of research, starting from zero, to check the figures Mr. Carter used. The first covers specifically DHS and HHS allocations, and mentions that there are other grants from ODP. The second document covers the ODP grants (different money). They are obviously the same documents Mr. Carter used to get the info for his article, since amounts match exactly. So what's hidden?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Page 1:
Texas 115,110,000 second only to California. And what grants/whatever isn't recorded in these documents. Seeing my point yet?
Not really. I found both these documents in less than 5 minutes of research, starting from zero, to check the figures Mr. Carter used. The first covers specifically DHS and HHS allocations, and mentions that there are other grants from ODP. The second document covers the ODP grants (different money). They are obviously the same documents Mr. Carter used to get the info for his article, since amounts match exactly. So what's hidden?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Again from your document posted:
"Some of the grant programs provide funding to states through reimbursement, such as ODP..."
SUCH AS. Meaning *not* only. What else isn't included in these numbers? Just because they give you a break down *doesn't* mean that it's all that there is to break down. There wording even supports this! SUCH AS.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Again from your document posted:
"Some of the grant programs provide funding to states through reimbursement, such as ODP..."
SUCH AS. Meaning *not* only. What else isn't included in these numbers? Just because they give you a break down *doesn't* mean that it's all that there is to break down. There wording even supports this! SUCH AS.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Look. I searched out these documents so I could check on the figures Mr. Carter used in his list (The list at the beginning of this thread. The original topic, remember?). They appear to be where he got his numbers. That was my only reason for bringing them up. If you want to go off on another conspiracy theory, be my guest. I was just fact-checking Mr. Carter's work.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
"Some of the grant programs provide funding to states through reimbursement, such as ODP..."
SUCH AS. Meaning *not* only. What else isn't included in these numbers? Just because they give you a break down *doesn't* mean that it's all that there is to break down. There wording even supports this! SUCH AS.
I was going to let this drop, but I just can't stand it.
The document you refer to was created by the Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, possibly at the request of Rep. Maloney, since it's on his site. It states very clearly what information it does and does not contain. It explains the methodology used to arrive at the figures shown. It provides cites for more detailed information. It states "Amounts do not represent what has been distributed, but what has been allocated.", since that's probably what was requested, allocations. it then notes "that some of the grant programs provide money through reembursement grants...". Reembursements, not allocations, so they're not included.
Did you do any research to find other sources of homeland security allocation or reembursement figures? Even just looking at the ones cited in this report? No. You went off on a "The Government is hiding things from us!" rant. Stop and think about this for a second. Does it seem a fair or logical thing for you to do? Does it even seem rational?
At least do a little research. That's what I did when I questioned Mr. Carter's presentation.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Nice pic you got there. Is that your "Head Boy" grad photo or just an award for best brownshirt tea bagger?
See how his sort label people then label the facts as "propoganda"?
To be propoganda it must be created by commitee. Hence - Micheal Moores docu/movie can't possibly be propoganda.
The picture is Robert Heinlein, and is used for my Firefly Roleplay character Roosevelt Thorne.
You have an interesting take on the definition of 'propaganda'. I've yet to see any that requires it to be created by committee. Relying on good ole Google again, see here for several definitions:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:pr
opaganda
The Webster's 9th New Collegiate on my desk gives three. #1 is the Congregatio de propaganda fide and can probably be ignored in this discussion. #2 - The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. #3 - Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.
Hmm. No requirement for a committee.
... any organization (a "commitee" say) or plan for spreading a particular doctrine or a system of principles. I can look up words too... how did Geezer fail to do this?
Isn't it amazing how CNN, FOX, Dicky Cheney, and liars like Geezer here, who is a paid propagandist, have convinced all of America that Micheal Moores' movie is propaganda without using a dictionary?
Nice try moron but one man cannot be a propagandist. Period. REALITY!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Nice try moron but one man cannot be a propagandist. Period. REALITY!
LOL you kill me brother. I just about peed my pants when I read this. In one sentence you managed to criticize someone for being a moron, while completely contradicting your own statement. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA *tears stream down my face
Here we go,:
Meaning of PROPAGANDIST
Pronunciation: `prâpu'gandist
WordNet Dictionary
Definition: [n] a person who disseminates messages calculated to assist some cause or some government
[adj] of or relating to or characterized by propaganda
Synonyms: propagandistic
See Also: communicator, Goebbels, Joseph Goebbels, Paul Joseph Goebbels, sloganeer
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition: \Prop`a*gan"dist\, n. [Cf. F. propagandiste.]
A person who devotes himself to the spread of any system of
principles. ``Political propagandists.'' --Walsh.
Here's the link as well ROFLMAO
, but hey if you say that no one man can be a "PROPAGANDIST" **still laughing balls off** , then it must be true. Thanks for that, I needed it today LOLhttp://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/propagandist
PS - Michael Moore is indeed a Propagandist and not a Documentarian. He's a Goram talented one too. "Roger & Me" was the best piece of Propaganda I've ever seen. However that doesn't mean he is above reproach.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I'm jumping in here because Ghoulman really pisses me off. I'm not here to support either side, only to put in my two cents.
Ghoulman - I respect you for your opinion and for the fact that you stand strongly by your beliefs. More people need to be like that.
Now, that is where my respect for you stops. It's one thing to stand up for your beliefs, but it's another thing to bash people because their line of thinking tends to differ from yours. The entire time I've been on this board, with the exception of a brief line of sympathy for a fellow browncoat, every post of yours that I have read has been put there to tear down someone who dares to challenge the mighty Ghoulman. In FireflyFans.net, you have found a platform to voice your viewpoint on the world, which is what this site is here for, but you have abused that privilege time and time again. You constantly insult and humiliate anyone who walks a different path from the one that you saunter down. Debate is a good thing, but only if it is done with respect to all parties involed and their stances on what is being discussed.
In this, Ghoulman, your way is not the right way. Or the left way, for that matter.
______________________
But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Guys, havent you figured by now that Ghoulman is a troll; a sophisticated troll, to be sure, and sometimes he makes good points. But sooner or later he's down there under the bridge again trying to start a flame war just like the rawest pimple-faced 16-year-old.
See wikipedia for a nice definition of a troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME