- This topic has 340 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
Arraya.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 21, 2009 at 8:22 PM #419218June 21, 2009 at 9:34 PM #418506
zk
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dpalmer]That question isn’t spectacularly difficult. It’s a trig question. Also you failed to post the diagram that goes with it.
Whoa!!! Look at all those buttons!!! OMG HOW COULD ANYONE HANDLE THAT OMG!!!! NUCLEAR MISSILE SUPER IQ WOWZ!!![/quote]
Even without the diagram, if it’s so obvious how to solve it, you can walk through how to solve it without the diagram. Right?
And I sure hope you keep that attitude the next time you fly the friendly skies…[/quote]
It’s not a trig question. It could be answered with trig, of course, but trig isn’t required. And it’s not a difficult question at all(if you have all the required info, which isn’t given here). Any 8th grader who had average intelligence and had received the proper instruction could answer that question.
June 21, 2009 at 9:34 PM #418733Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dpalmer]That question isn’t spectacularly difficult. It’s a trig question. Also you failed to post the diagram that goes with it.
Whoa!!! Look at all those buttons!!! OMG HOW COULD ANYONE HANDLE THAT OMG!!!! NUCLEAR MISSILE SUPER IQ WOWZ!!![/quote]
Even without the diagram, if it’s so obvious how to solve it, you can walk through how to solve it without the diagram. Right?
And I sure hope you keep that attitude the next time you fly the friendly skies…[/quote]
It’s not a trig question. It could be answered with trig, of course, but trig isn’t required. And it’s not a difficult question at all(if you have all the required info, which isn’t given here). Any 8th grader who had average intelligence and had received the proper instruction could answer that question.
June 21, 2009 at 9:34 PM #419000Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dpalmer]That question isn’t spectacularly difficult. It’s a trig question. Also you failed to post the diagram that goes with it.
Whoa!!! Look at all those buttons!!! OMG HOW COULD ANYONE HANDLE THAT OMG!!!! NUCLEAR MISSILE SUPER IQ WOWZ!!![/quote]
Even without the diagram, if it’s so obvious how to solve it, you can walk through how to solve it without the diagram. Right?
And I sure hope you keep that attitude the next time you fly the friendly skies…[/quote]
It’s not a trig question. It could be answered with trig, of course, but trig isn’t required. And it’s not a difficult question at all(if you have all the required info, which isn’t given here). Any 8th grader who had average intelligence and had received the proper instruction could answer that question.
June 21, 2009 at 9:34 PM #419066Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dpalmer]That question isn’t spectacularly difficult. It’s a trig question. Also you failed to post the diagram that goes with it.
Whoa!!! Look at all those buttons!!! OMG HOW COULD ANYONE HANDLE THAT OMG!!!! NUCLEAR MISSILE SUPER IQ WOWZ!!![/quote]
Even without the diagram, if it’s so obvious how to solve it, you can walk through how to solve it without the diagram. Right?
And I sure hope you keep that attitude the next time you fly the friendly skies…[/quote]
It’s not a trig question. It could be answered with trig, of course, but trig isn’t required. And it’s not a difficult question at all(if you have all the required info, which isn’t given here). Any 8th grader who had average intelligence and had received the proper instruction could answer that question.
June 21, 2009 at 9:34 PM #419227Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=dpalmer]That question isn’t spectacularly difficult. It’s a trig question. Also you failed to post the diagram that goes with it.
Whoa!!! Look at all those buttons!!! OMG HOW COULD ANYONE HANDLE THAT OMG!!!! NUCLEAR MISSILE SUPER IQ WOWZ!!![/quote]
Even without the diagram, if it’s so obvious how to solve it, you can walk through how to solve it without the diagram. Right?
And I sure hope you keep that attitude the next time you fly the friendly skies…[/quote]
It’s not a trig question. It could be answered with trig, of course, but trig isn’t required. And it’s not a difficult question at all(if you have all the required info, which isn’t given here). Any 8th grader who had average intelligence and had received the proper instruction could answer that question.
June 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM #418516drboom
Participant[quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.
Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?
Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.
[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.
June 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM #418745Participant[quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.
Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?
Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.
[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.
June 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM #419009Participant[quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.
Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?
Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.
[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.
June 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM #419077Participant[quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.
Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?
Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.
[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.
June 22, 2009 at 1:25 AM #419237Participant[quote=EconProf]Here are a couple of facts released by Treasury about two weeks ago in various sources.
This year will see a federal deficit of 1.84 trillion (note: historically Treasury usually underestimates deficits). This is over 4 times last year’s fiscal year deficit under Bush.[/quote]You actually believe the headline deficit total? As I alluded to earlier, it’s a bogus number that includes Social Security contributions and other dishonest accounting practices.
Go here for some real numbers. Bush added over 1 trillion dollars to the national debt between 9/30/2007 and 9/30/2008 alone. Are you seriously suggesting Obama is going to add 4 trillion bucks in one year?
Anyway, Bush’s tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare and Medicaid benefits make the above look like petty cash.
[quote]So while Bush was clearly a big spender who thereby did great harm to the conservative cause, his deficits pale next to what we are now in for.
[/quote]News flash: Ron Paul didn’t win, which is a pity.
June 22, 2009 at 1:36 AM #418520Participant[quote=partypup]
There is simply no historical precedent for the debt that Obama is generating now. We are in uncharted territory. [/quote]It’s pretty well charted, actually. We’re at about the level seen during the Truman administration, when compared to the GDP.
Of course we used to make stuff back then and sell it to other countries.
June 22, 2009 at 1:36 AM #418750Participant[quote=partypup]
There is simply no historical precedent for the debt that Obama is generating now. We are in uncharted territory. [/quote]It’s pretty well charted, actually. We’re at about the level seen during the Truman administration, when compared to the GDP.
Of course we used to make stuff back then and sell it to other countries.
June 22, 2009 at 1:36 AM #419014Participant[quote=partypup]
There is simply no historical precedent for the debt that Obama is generating now. We are in uncharted territory. [/quote]It’s pretty well charted, actually. We’re at about the level seen during the Truman administration, when compared to the GDP.
Of course we used to make stuff back then and sell it to other countries.
June 22, 2009 at 1:36 AM #419082Participant[quote=partypup]
There is simply no historical precedent for the debt that Obama is generating now. We are in uncharted territory. [/quote]It’s pretty well charted, actually. We’re at about the level seen during the Truman administration, when compared to the GDP.
Of course we used to make stuff back then and sell it to other countries.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.