patrick.net

R/C/Ts are fully capable without help from the Ds.

The R v D charade is a misdirection used by the politicians to occupy the mutts.

Meanwhile back at the ranch/beltway government is doing what all democracy does, unrestrained growth, unrelenting growth, squishing and sucking the lifeblood out of the economy.

Yup there are limits to this it is called the parasite killing the host, which it will sooner than later.

This thread recieved five likes?

The only thing simple here, is the minds of those five fucking morons

I guess its time to put the trolls back on ignore

errc says

The only thing simple here, is the minds of those five fucking morons

I guess its time to put the trolls back on ignore

Why so harsh? Did you run out of stash?

Gentlemen,

Lets not digress. As I work my 80+ hour week, I think of my Chemical Engineering Friend who passed away after working long hours for > 20 at the USPTO as an examiner.

He was constantly working overtime. He was a really bright guy. He also was my best friend of African American heritage, extremely kind, generous even during these extremely long work weeks. And he let me stay at his house every time I visited.

Please do not people based on the amount of Melanin pigments in their skin, or their light reflectivity of their skin in the visible range.

Entitlemented says

Please do not people based on the amount of Melanin pigments in their skin, or their light reflectivity of their skin in the visible range.

Yup, but there are plenty of white people that are more nigger than any black people.

I would state that the black socialist thinking was created by the state not by the black people. And the rabble rousers such as Sharpton and Jackson.

We now have more that 10 million people on permanent disability following 99 weeks of unemployment. The state has turned these people into niggers even though most of them are white.

indigenous says

A simple explanation

Correction: A simple-minded explanation

Fact: 25 Percent of Military Families Seek Food Aid

Which means indigenous just called 25% of military families niggers. So, yes, he is being racist. Then again, the military is by far the largest socialist program in the United States, so by indigenous's philosophy, they are all scumbag parasites.

Socialism is an economic tactic, and without it no economy could exist including our own. We socialize the expense of military spending, highways, government cost, education, prisons, elections, and many other things that benefit society as a whole. Why shouldn't we have social safety nets that allow people to escape poverty and that reduce violent crimes like burglary, rape, murder, organize drug businesses, etc.? The leading cause of violent crime is income inequality.

Crime rates and inequality are positively correlated within countries and, particularly, between countries, and this correlation reflects causation from inequality to crime rates, even after controlling for other crime determinants.

Dan8267 says

Which means indigenous just called 25% of military families niggers.

No you stupid mutt, they contribute far more than they take, you are trying to put words in my mouth, Fuck You.

The real question why is that this country thinks that war is ok?

All socialism is a charade. You will point to tiny countries like Sweden and point to their success. In fact previous to the 70s Sweden was as capitalistic as they come. That aside to focus everything on a tiny country of 10 million is nothing more than statistical cherry picking.

Dan, you have to choose your words carefully with these mutts, and im going to have to disagree. Income inequality doesnt matter. Wealth inequality is probably what youre looking for, but its not the inequality itself that matters, rather the poverty that it breeds.

Poverty is the root cause of most all violent crime

indigenous says

"But, mama, don't the white people get pissed off about that?"

"Sure they do, Honey. That's called Racism."

The kind of right-wing simple minded cliche and parodies that instantly terminates any critical thinking, and distract them from paying attention to what republicans are actually doing.

indigenous says

All socialism is a charade.

And you double down on dissing people who rely on food stamps including 25% of military families. You are calling a service that is essential to those families a charade and implying that anyone who relies on a social safety net to survive is scum. Pretending that only non-military black families are on food stamps is racist. There are plenty of white people on food stamps, plenty of white military families on food stamps, and plenty of black military families on food stamps. 21.5% of the army is black and 19.3% of the navy is black despite the fact that only 12.06% of the American population is black. So, by mathematical necessity, you cannot uphold that military families are good and black families are bad. African American families are more likely to be military families than white families. You have a contradiction.

errc says

Dan, you have to choose your words carefully with these mutts, and im going to have to disagree. Income inequality doesnt matter. Wealth inequality is probably what youre looking for, but its not the inequality itself that matters, rather the poverty that it breeds.

You are correct. I did mean "wealth inequality".

The Dan8267 says

You are calling a service that is essential to those families a charade and implying that anyone who relies on a social safety net to survive is scum.

I'm calling the self appointed government that sucks wealth out of the economy to the tune of 50% per individual. This creates a dearth of jobs willy nilly, this is because every dollar that is extracted to pay for pretend jobs is not spent on something the citizen would willingly buy. This starves the free market and creates a dearth of jobs. So then the self appointed overlords. elected by the tyranny of the majority, "fix" the problem by dishing out welfare in all of it's stripes. None more egregious than corporate welfare.

Spare me the blather about the 1 1/2 multiplier effect of government spending. This country has had 6 years of flat GDP, especially after adjustment for inflation, yet we have had 4 trillion dollars in government spending, explain this to us???

indigenous says

Spare me the blather about the 1 1/2 multiplier effect of government spending. This country has had 6 years of flat GDP, especially after adjustment for inflation, yet we have had 4 trillion dollars in government spending, explain this to us???

It has been explained to you many, many times but you obviously aren't willing or aren't able to understand the explanation.

tatupu70 says

It has been explained to you many, many times but you obviously aren't willing or aren't able to understand the explanation.

Regale me again with your delusions of your understanding of this point...

indigenous says

Regale me again with your delusions of your understanding of this point...

4 Trillion = Nominal M2 growth from Nov 2008 to today.
That is not adjusted for CPI as Real GDP is. For apt comparison, we must look at nominal GDP.

Nominal GDP Nov 2008: 14,550B (baseline)
Nominal GDP Nov 2009: 14,567B (17B growth from baseline)
Nominal GDP Nov 2010: 15,230B (680B growth from baseline)
Nominal GDP Nov 2011: 15,785B (1,235B growth from baseline)
Nominal GDP Nov 2012: 16,333B (1,783B growth from baseline)
Nominal GDP Nov 2013: 17,078B (2,528B growth from baseline)
Nominal GDP Nov 2014: 17,711B (3,161B growth from baseline)

Total aggregate GDP growth from Nov 2008 to Nov 2014: 9,404B.

4 trillion times 1.5 multiplier is 6 trillion. 9,404 billion is greater than 6 trillion.

QED.

indigenous says

I'm calling the self appointed government that sucks wealth out of the economy to the tune of 50% per individual. This creates a dearth of jobs willy nilly, this is because every dollar that is extracted to pay for pretend jobs is not spent on something the citizen would willingly buy.

That would be an excellent reason to cut the military budget by 90%. The military is the largest socialist program we have and it forces us to pay for things we don't want like tanks the army doesn't want.

The new defense spending bill includes $120 million for tanks that the Army has repeatedly said it doesn't want.

In a statement, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said that Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected."

Damn Republicans always giving away free money to welfare queens at the expense of tax payers. Where's the free market in that?

Cutting the military budget by 90% would cut the entire federal budget almost by a third while keeping us in line with all the other major nations' military spending. So, if you want to cut socialist waste, never vote for a Republican.

control point says

For apt comparison, we must look at nominal GDP.

What is the rate of inflation used?

How much of the GDP came directly from government spending?

Why do you think that your numbers correlate to government spending?

control point says

QED

Bullshit

Dan8267 says

That would be an excellent reason to cut the military budget by 90%. The military is the largest socialist program we have and it forces us to pay for things we don't want like tanks the army doesn't want.

Yup

Dan8267 says

Cutting the military budget by 90% would cut the entire federal budget almost by a third while keeping us in line with all the other major nations' military spending. So, if you want to cut socialist waste, never vote for a Republican.

You think Dems are immune to this? Almost every war in the past 100 yr has been instigated by a Dem.

indigenous says

You think Dems are immune to this? Almost every war in the past 100 yr has been instigated by a Dem.

Pre-1960s, the parties where reversed. Count WWI as conservative. WWII neutral. Korea conservative. Vietnam neutral, although conservatives supported it far more, I'll grant it neutral as Kennedy and Johnson supported it. First Gulf War, neutral. Second Gulf War conservative. Afghanistan war conservative.

Nope, not seeing that. Conservatives love war, but suck at it.

Dan8267 says

Pre-1960s, the parties where reversed

Gawd you are full of shit.

Dan8267 says

Count WWI as conservative.

Woodrow Wilson was not a conservative by anyone's definition.

Dan8267 says

WWII neutral.

how the fuck do you figure FDR was as liberal as they come.

Dan8267 says

Korea conservative.

Truman a conservative??? WTF

Dan8267 says

Vietnam neutral, although conservatives supported it far more, I'll grant it neutral as Kennedy and Johnson supported it.

LBJ escalated with the bullshit Gulf of Tonkin story liberal all the way on this as well.

Bush 43 was hardly a conservative even though he was an R

indigenous says

Almost every war in the past 100 yr has been instigated by a Dem.

You have a really strange version of history. Submarine warfare against the US merchant marine and offering to help Mexico to regain tx,ar,nm was instigated by the democrats? Pearl Harbor was instigated by the democrats? North Korea attacking South Korea was instigated by the democrats? If you actually knew any history at all you would know these events were going to happen no matter who was president of the US.

VIetnam was the only war instigated by democrats. Again if you knew any history at you would know that LBJ was a lot more conservative than many republicans. Prior to reagan and gingritch both parties had conservative and liberal wings.

Bush 43 was Cheney's sock puppet. Iraq was Rumsfeld and Cheney's war from beginning to end. Rumsfeld and Cheney are the most conservative people in the USA. But, since no one short of hitler is conservative enough for you then everything that happens is because of liberals in your bizzaro world.

indigenous says

What is the rate of inflation used?

It was omitted, both for M2 and GDP. That is, actual numbers were used, hence, nominal.
indigenous says

How much of the GDP came directly from government spending?

How much of the GDP growth was due to growth of government spending? Hehe ok,
2008: 5,131 (baseline)
2009: 5,561 (430B)
2010: 5,723 (592B)
2011: 5,758 (627B)
2012: 5,775 (644B)
2013: 5,772 (641B)
2014: 5,901 (770B)

Total: 3,704B. Times 1.5 multiplier = 5,556B

indigenous says

Why do you think that your numbers correlate to government spending?

They don't. Largest increase in spending was 2009, GDP was flat. Spending flat from 2011 through 2013, GDP up in each year.

bob2356 says

If you actually knew any history at all you would know these events were going to happen no matter who was president of the US.

Why were they all democrat, with the exception of the Bushes?

FDR put enough sanctions on Japan to provoke war. Wilson sent the Lusitania across known U boat controlled waters despite warnings from the Germans not to.

Bushes spending was not conservative. TARP was not conservative, as Bush put it "abandon free market principles to save the free market"

control point says

It was omitted, both for M2 and GDP. That is, actual numbers were used, hence, nominal.

So if the Gov states that we had 2% growth last year that includes inflation. If the Gov says we have .8% inflation then almost half of the reported growth is due to inflation. But that is you believe that inflation was .8%, but if you go to the grocery store you realize that it is well over 10% on food, let alone if you look at housing.

control point says

How much of the GDP growth was due to growth of government spending? Hehe ok,

So the gov spending was around 14%?

Why does this page show it being between 20 and 25%?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_actual

control point says

They don't. Largest increase in spending was 2009, GDP was flat. Spending flat from 2011 through 2013, GDP up in each year.

So you are saying that the 1.5 multiplier is specious?

indigenous says

So if the Gov states that we had 2% growth last year that includes inflation. If the Gov says we have .8% inflation then almost half of the reported growth is due to inflation. But that is you believe that inflation was .8%, but if you go to the grocery store you realize that it is well over 10% on food, let alone if you look at housing.

Please look up what nominal means. When the government states 2% growth, 9 times out of 10 they are stating real (inflation adjusted) growth. Nominal means the actual (non-inflation adjusted) growth. Talking about what adjustment for inflation is used is silly here, becasue I am not using any adjustment.

indigenous says

So the gov spending was around 14%?

Why does this page show it being between 20 and 25%?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_actual

Huh? You really suck at math. 5,901/ 17,711 = 33%. This is ALL government spending. Your link includes federal spending only.

indigenous says

So you are saying that the 1.5 multiplier is specious?

Nope.

control point says

ease look up what nominal means. When the government states 2% growth, 9 times out of 10 they are stating real (inflation adjusted) growth. Nominal means the actual (non-inflation adjusted) growth. Talking about what adjustment for inflation is used is silly here, becasue I am not using any adjustment.

DEFINITION OF 'NOMINAL GDP'
A gross domestic product (GDP) figure that has not been adjusted for inflation.

Talking about the inflation rate is not silly, to ignore it is stupid.

As to the other you lost me.

indigenous says

FDR put enough sanctions on Japan to provoke war.

Yes every conspiricy nut on the planet has said so. Japan was going to war with the US no matter what. Read the Japanese side some time.

indigenous says

Wilson sent the Lusitania across known U boat controlled waters despite warnings from the Germans not to

Now that's funny. Lusitania was a british flag ship on her regular schedule. The captain was not subject to orders from wilson. The german's didn't warn anything, they declared a war zone around britain and most of france. All british flagged ships were in danger, but they sailed anyway.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Pre-1960s, the parties where reversed

Gawd you are full of shit.

Like most conservatives you are completely ignorant of history. Time for school.

http://www.Rx7WqNRlcgU
http://www.MAPeFRNtTP4
http://www.vjv4h8KoUqM

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Count WWI as conservative.

Woodrow Wilson was not a conservative by anyone's definition.

Woodrow Wilson was hardly the only person supporting America's entry into WWI. The single person most responsible for America's entry into WWI was Winston Churchill, a conservative Brit who later became a Prime Minister of the U.K. Churchill ensured that American lives would be lost to German U-boats because the ships the Americans were on were carrying arms. As for American politicians and citizens, conservatives supported entry into war far more than liberals or centralists. Conservatives love war; they just don't know how to win wars.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

WWII neutral.

how the fuck do you figure FDR was as liberal as they come.

I was actually giving credit to conservatives here as most people supported WWII and rightfully so, but if you want to make the case that conservatives were against taking down Hitler, go right ahead. WWII is the quintessential example of a justified war.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Korea conservative.

Truman a conservative??? WTF

Truman was hardly a liberal. Being against racism does not automatically qualify someone as a liberal. Furthermore, economic policies are irrelevant to liberalism. Truman dropped the atomic bombs on cities full of civilians, said "Everyone suffers from the presence of these illegal immigrants in the community.", and stated that the basic source of our national strength is spiritual.

But more importantly, the president alone does not determine which wars America fights. Conservatives highly supported and even demanded the Korean War. They wanted to fight Communism and proposed The Domino Effect that if any country "fell to Communism" all the countries around it would and Communism would become the dominate economic model. And it's big business and the owner class that opposed Communism, not for economic reasons, but for their own personal financial interest.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Vietnam neutral, although conservatives supported it far more, I'll grant it neutral as Kennedy and Johnson supported it.

LBJ escalated with the bullshit Gulf of Tonkin story liberal all the way on this as well.

Certainly LBJ was highly responsible for the escalation of the Vietnam War, but don't give me any shit that Nixon, a powerful conservative at the time, was anti-war. He and other Republicans were very much in favor of the Vietnam War and surges in it.

The American people who opposed the war where almost entirely either leftist or liberal. The police attacking the anti-war protestors were overwhelmingly conservative.

indigenous says

DEFINITION OF 'NOMINAL GDP'

A gross domestic product (GDP) figure that has not been adjusted for inflation.

Talking about the inflation rate is not silly, to ignore it is stupid.

As to the other you lost me.

We are comparing Government spending and money supply growth to GDP. If we are going to adjust GDP for inflation, we must also adjust money supply and government spending by inflation. That is my argument. M2 is not inflation adjusted.

So pick a side, adjust M2 and government spending by CPI and compare to Real GDP, OR do not adjust M2 and government spending and compare to Nominal GDP.

control point says

So pick a side, adjust M2 and government spending by CPI and compare to Real GDP, OR do not adjust M2 and government spending and compare to Nominal GDP.

I choose the prior. i would think that there is a correlation between M2 & GDP.

With taxes counted in GDP and gov spending the statistic is a pretend statistic anyway.

I mean can you say the price of RE in some location or the Stock Market reflect true value?

indigenous says

I choose the prior.

Well that is what was shown above.

indigenous says

i would think that there is a correlation between M2 & GDP.

You would be wrong. As I have told you many times, the relationship between M2 and GDP is money velocity. A clearly non-linear function. No linear relationship, no correlation.

indigenous says

With taxes counted in GDP

They are not.

indigenous says

GDP and gov spending

Right here.

indigenous says

the statistic is a pretend statistic anyway

Ah. And the winning streak ends at one.

indigenous says

I mean can you say the price of RE in some location or the Stock Market reflect true value?

Totally irrelevant to our discussion.

control point says

Well that is what was shown above.

At what post?

indigenous says

You would be wrong. As I have told you many times, the relationship between M2 and GDP is money velocity. A clearly non-linear function. No linear relationship, no correlation.

So out of the 4 trillion in spending none of that was put into M2? Certainly you would admit there is a correlation between the stock market and RE in some areas and the QE?

control point says

They are not.

I read otherwise

control point says

Ah. And the winning streak ends at one.

Sure it is it includes government spending, which is as queer as an empty Chinese city.

Not to mention that it does not include business investment which eclipses consumer spending by far.

indigenous says

Totally irrelevant to our discussion.

The Fed openly declares it is targeting the stock market, resulting in the Greenspan, Bernanke, Yelling put. Yet you say it is irrelevant? Not to mention RE. I would say it is very relevant.

indigenous says

At what post?

17 and 24 in this thread.

indigenous says

Not to mention that it does not include business investment

Huh? Yes it does. GDP = Consumption plus investment plus government expenditures plus net exports.

indigenous says

So out of the 4 trillion in spending none of that was put into M2? Certainly you would admit there is a correlation between the stock market and RE in some areas and the QE?

No it was. However, as I said above there are other inputs into GDP which are wholly independent from money supply. If you add 4 numbers together, only one of which is correlated to money supply but the other 3 are not, the sum is not going to be correlated to money supply. Stocks and bonds are substitutes. By devaluing one through QE, the other becomes more attractive. There are many other factors that determine stock prices, as shown by the continued stock market run after QE ended.

indigenous says

I read otherwise

That doesn't make it true.

indigenous says

Sure it is it includes government spending, which is as queer as an empty Chinese city.

I'm sure the multitude of contractors who provide service to the government would disagree with you.

indigenous says

The Fed openly declares it is targeting the stock market, resulting in the Greenspan, Bernanke, Yelling put. Yet you say it is irrelevant?

Yes. We are talking about the correlation between economic activity and government spending.

control point says

Huh? Yes it does. GDP = Consumption plus investment plus government expenditures plus net exports.

Nope not true:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/29/beyond-gdp-get-ready-for-a-new-way-to-measure-the-economy/2/

control point says

indigenous says

So out of the 4 trillion in spending none of that was put into M2? Certainly you would admit there is a correlation between the stock market and RE in some areas and the QE?

No it was. However, as I said above there are other inputs into GDP which are wholly independent from money supply. If you add 4 numbers together, only one of which is correlated to money supply but the other 3 are not, the sum is not going to be correlated to money supply. Stocks and bonds are substitutes. By devaluing one through QE, the other becomes more attractive. There are many other factors that determine stock prices, as shown by the continued stock market run after QE ended.

The evidence indicates that it correlates to QE

control point says

indigenous says

Sure it is it includes government spending, which is as queer as an empty Chinese city.

I'm sure the multitude of contractors who provide service to the government would disagree with you.

Yup, but that does not make it so.

control point says

indigenous says

The Fed openly declares it is targeting the stock market, resulting in the Greenspan, Bernanke, Yelling put. Yet you say it is irrelevant?

Yes. We are talking about the correlation between economic activity and government spending.

Yes but that does not prove out the 1.5 multiplier. It does prove out that increasing money supply will produce yield seeking and over investment and malinvestment.

Dan8267 says

Woodrow Wilson was hardly the only person supporting America's entry into WWI. The single person most responsible for America's entry into WWI was Winston Churchill, a conservative Brit who later became a Prime Minister of the U.K. Churchill ensured that American lives would be lost to German U-boats because the ships the Americans were on were carrying arms. As for American politicians and citizens, conservatives supported entry into war far more than liberals or centralists. Conservatives love war; they just don't know how to win wars.

Yes they did a great job at creating the illusion. Churchill was one of the prime instigators before he was prime minister even. Since grandpa Bush was found guilty in a US court of law of helping to finance Hitler, I will go one step further the bankers saw to it that Hitler got into power. Certainly the Rothchilds did this with Napoleon, not much of an extension to say it occurred with Hitler.

But to say the Ds were not complicit and the ones who signed the declaration of war is wrong.

indigenous says

Nope not true:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/29/beyond-gdp-get-ready-for-a-new-way-to-measure-the-economy/2/

That doesn't surprise me that you cant read you own fucking article. Page 1, 6th paragraph
"Since consumer spending represents 70% or more of GDP, followed by 20% by government, the media naively concludes that any slowdown in retail sales or government stimulus is necessarily bad for the economy. (Private investment comes in a poor third at 13%.)"

indigenous says

The evidence indicates that it correlates to QE

Because you don't understand math.

indigenous says

Yes but that does not prove out the 1.5 multiplier.

This was already PROVEN to be exceeded, infact, in posts 17 and 24.

control point says

That doesn't surprise me that you cant read you own fucking article. Page 1, 6th paragraph

"Since consumer spending represents 70% or more of GDP, followed by 20% by government, the media naively concludes that any slowdown in retail sales or government stimulus is necessarily bad for the economy. (Private investment comes in a poor third at 13%.)"

Don't lose control, Control Point...

Here is where you went off the rails, re read the first part of the paragraph:

"While GDP is a good measure of national economic performance, it has a major flaw [emphasis added]: In limiting itself to final output, GDP largely ignores or downplays the “make” economy, that is, the supply chain and intermediate stages of production needed to produce all those finished goods and services. This narrow focus of GDP has created much mischief in the media, government policy, and boardroom decision-making. For example, journalists are constantly overemphasizing consumer and government spending as the driving force behind the economy, rather than saving, business investment, and technological advances. Since consumer spending represents 70% or more of GDP, followed by 20% by government, the media naively concludes that any slowdown in retail sales or government stimulus is necessarily bad for the economy. (Private investment comes in a poor third at 13%.)"

Gross Output exposes these misconceptions. In my own research, I’ve discovered many benefits of GO statistics. First, Gross Output provides a more accurate picture of what drives the economy. Using GO as a more comprehensive measure of economic activity, spending by consumers turns out to represent around 40% of total yearly sales, not 70% as commonly reported. Spending by business (private investment plus intermediate inputs) is substantially bigger, representing over 50% of economic activity. That’s more consistent with economic growth theory, which emphasizes productive saving and investment in technology on the producer side as the drivers of economic growth. Consumer spending is largely the effect, not the cause, of prosperity.

control point says

indigenous says

Yes but that does not prove out the 1.5 multiplier.

This was already PROVEN to be exceeded, infact, in posts 17 and 24.

Au contriaire, illustrating the fallacy of a posteriori methodology.

indigenous says

Don't lose control, Control Point...

Here is where you went off the rails, re read the first part of the paragraph:

"While GDP is a good measure of national economic performance, it has a major fl

Dude, your argument was investment was not part of GDP, I said it was, your support for your argument was an article that said as much. The content of the rest of the article in general was that GDP as a measure of economic activity focused too much on consumption. He is supporting a statistic that increases the effective weight of business investment in as a measure of economic activity. He is not, however, arguing that investment is not a component of GDP.

So once again, you are wrong, arent smart enough to realize where you are wrong, and now are arguing and supporting an counter to an argument that I am not making. It was black and white, you said investment is not part of GDP, I said it was. The article you posted supported my argument.

indigenous says

Au contriaire, illustrating the fallacy of a posteriori methodology.

You make an argument without support. What you are saying here is "No." Good job, you're really changing hearts and minds with arguments like that.

Shame on me I know better, this ending was inevitable.

control point says

So once again, you are wrong, arent smart enough to realize where you are wrong, and now are arguing and supporting an counter to an argument that I am not making. It was black and white, you said investment is not part of GDP, I said it was. The article you posted supported my argument.

Show me where it says that.
control point says

You make an argument without support. What you are saying here is "No." Good job, you're really changing hearts and minds with arguments like that.

You are saying that it is correlated by an assertion, I'm not the one doing this...