06-03-2015, 12:28 AM
(06-03-2015, 12:07 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You seem to be kinda talking in circles here. Did anybody provide "burden of proof" by breaking down the Defense numbers?
To answer that question: No. But the welfare numbers are "purposely" misleading because they are not broken down.
It is great to debate someone with an agenda; they abandon logic quickly.
You seem to have no clue what the phrase "talking in circles" actually means, but I'll ignore that distraction and remind you that I didn't offer any charts, figures, numbers or "breakdowns" of defense spending. Not sure why you're asking me to defend what somebody somewhere else said to you.
I stated that The Weekly Standard "purposely" opted not to reveal which programs they consider welfare. I came to that conclusion because clearly the author of the post 1. knows how to type 2. has a computer and 3. can communicate clearly in the English language. And yet he failed to tell us what he considers "welfare", which would have allowed us to make sure he isn't including programs nobody else would call a welfare program in his numbers. Do you conclude that the author accidentally didn't tell us what programs he considers welfare?
