Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.
In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.
Logic doesn't seem to be a strong suit of yours Raees. Looking solely at one metric and formulation.g a sweeping conclusion from it would garner a failing grade in any statistical analysis class - even an introductory one.
Another instance of liars using statistics to forward a theory they wish to establish is what this latest opinion piece reverberating inside the "progressive" echo chamber is, and nothing more.
PrintSmith wrote: Logic doesn't seem to be a strong suit of yours Raees. Looking solely at one metric and formulation.g a sweeping conclusion from it would garner a failing grade in any statistical analysis class - even an introductory one.
Another instance of liars using statistics to forward a theory they wish to establish is what this latest opinion piece reverberating inside the "progressive" echo chamber is, and nothing more.
Your only retort is to make a personal attack, and not even address the statistics that are the premise of the argument? Meanwhile you make a habit of positing arguments constructed of speculation. You used to do much better...trying to carry on the fight against Obama, and being forced to support Romney is clearly wearing you out.
What a load of hooey PV. I addressed the premise by exposing the fatal flaw in the logic used to sustain it. Taking a single metric and using it to prove the sweeping conclusion would net you a failing grade in even an introductory statistical analysis class. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with reason and logic is capable of understanding that. And yet not only was the article written, it was regurgitated as if there was even a sliver of merit contained within it. To label it as a prime example of liars attempting to use statistics as a means of forwarding a theory they wished to establish is a spot on analysis of the contents of the written diarrhea the link directed anyone who clicked on it to.
