The context was obvious: they are scholarly papers that use appropriate empirical methods to test for cross-country differences in poverty anbd mobility; I've simply given the relevant conclusions. Now I'm more than happy to discuss differences in findings; for example, there mat be differences between cross sectional analysis through the Luxembourg Income Study and panel analysis from the likes of the European Household Panel Survey. Of course, bothering to research the subject (and motivated by testing whether short term poverty problems are lessened by significant volatility in the income distribution) I ensured reference to both longitudinal and cross sectional analysis. Now a non-dodger may decide that I've ignored a key empirical paper. The appropriate response then of course is to present that paper. A mere reference is all that's required
So you decide a human being you have never met 'isn't capable' of doing something? I am surprised you seem to expect to be taken seriously when you make unscientific, illogical and obviously emotionally-based statements like that. Even a high school freshman would know to exchange the words 'isn't' with 'seems that he is not' or 'so far has failed to show that he is'. Your consistent lack of exactitude and apparent reliance on illogical personal attacks speaks volumes about your intellectual/emotional capabilities at this time in your life - in my opinion. Have a nice day.
It wasn't difficult to conclude, the dodge level has been painfully high. Its a shame that your post had no content. I assumed you might try critiquing the empirical sources employed or at least attempting to meet my little request
I am sure it was not difficult for you to conclude...that is your problem. But sadly you appear to have little idea what I am talking about. 18,000+ posts and you seem to often make conclusions like a middle-level high school student. Let me give you some advice: learn to separate your emotions from your 'intellect'...if you can (not that you are the only one on this board that could take that advice, imo). Or, I fear, you are an intellectual lost cause (relatively speaking). I would have given this advice to you in pm - but you seem to have yours turned off (not that I am shocked at that). Have a nice day.
Again you provide no content. Given that you're arguing against a position that has used scholarly research (and also ensured the appropriate data and methodologies were used to look at the distinct analysis required for poverty and mobility), your put-down routine lacks logic. And of course we won't see any intellectual critique of my argument. There won't be, for example, any reference to alternative academic journals that support some counter-argument. Ultimately that's always going to be the problem for you fellows, I've simply been good natured enough to support my argument with evidence. That Americans are often so unaware of their social immobility is an interesting result though (and of course also supportive of my original argument and use of the evidence)
Ummm...what are you talking about? Where exactly did I argue for or against the position in question? I suggest you do more reading and less assuming. Have a nice day.
Your whole putdown routine has been about attacking the person using published evidence and referencing key cross-country empirical evidence. That ensures a complete lack of logic within those putdowns.
You typed the following: 'Given that you're arguing against a position that has used scholarly research (and also ensured the appropriate data and methodologies were used to look at the distinct analysis required for poverty and mobility),' Now I will ask you again...where EXACTLY did I argue for or against the child poverty position?
I know what I typed. Its based on logic. I've ensured a position based on evidence. You've subsequently given several put-down attempts, given that use of evidence (and the other fellow unable to present any evidence as that evidence doesn't exist). This merely advertises that your position is free from logic.
In other words...you cannot. And you cannot because I did not. Which means your statement was based on nothing but assumptions. Typical Reiver (imo)...prefers assumptions to facts. Here is some more advice? Learn exactitude and leave your pride at home. Have a nice day.
You don't even understand what you've typed? Gosh! You've personally attacked me because I have used evidence. You've supported the person that cannot. Work it out!
You just did it again...LOL. Here is some more advice...try and refrain some saying things like: 'you don't even understand'. Since there is absolutely no way you can know what another person is thinking - especially one whom you have never met - then to pre-suppose that you do in a matter-of-fact manner shows a preference for in-exactitude and desperation. And it also shows (imo) that you prefer assumptions to facts. And btw - for the record - you STILL have not answered my question. Have a nice day.
Yes, I will continue to use logic and tut at those that don't. Carry on and attack those that use empirical evidence; it only helps their position!
Notice folks how he does not include the question that I have asked him THREE times now in his quote. Why he has not should be obvious. You know, it is amazing how people like Reiver stumble on the simplest questions. That's the key with people like him (imo). Ask simple questions that they cannot answer without making themselves look in the wrong and they will seemingly do ANYTHING to try and avoid having to deal with it. Deflect, insult, avoid, deny...seemingly anything. But they just will not answer it (usually). Their egos (apparently) just cannot deal with it. Above is a case in point. Good day all.
I don't need to quote anything. You're merely continuing with your poorly put together put down against someone who has defended their argument with evidence. Keep it up though! It amuses
Yes I did. No you didn't. Yes I did. No you didn't. Boys Boys! Gawd this reads like a real bad 3 Stooges script... Is anyone actually debating the issue here...or have we degraded into play school mud-slinging now?
Happy to debate. Given the liberal approach to the military industry complex cannot explain the full effects of the military sector (i.e. rather than just being a problem of over-expenditure due to manipulatable politicians, it has a significant economic role), what would you replace military expenditures with to ensure that economic problems are not created?
You do not debate. You do not give sources. You have nothing and you prove nothing other than you know how to rant
