Originally posted by psmith81992
I never said Obama was inferior, did I? I said he had just as much economic acumen as Bush.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Made a show? You're kidding right? That's like saying "well Obama [b]said he wants to close down Gitmo!". All Obama has proven is that he's Bush lite with even less of a grasp on economics than Dubya.. [/B]
Ignoring the obvious (that you're a hardcore liberal),
If only I was so simple as to be easily labeled.
you call me out for hating on Obama ONCE in a while,
You can't say his name without going on a rant sounding like a Faux News soundbite.
give him credit when something good happens, blame "outside sources" when something bad happens, use different standards for Republican presidents and genuinely dislike Republicans, why is that?
The only Republican president I've slammed is Bush. You've slammed Bill Clinton, all liberals, and Obama repeatedly. You're also the guy who posts Conservo-Blog URLs every other day because they reaffirm what you believe is already the case.
I may not be very objective,
Truer words were never spoken.
but I have proven to be more objective than you.p
Not even on my bad days.
Your entire argument consists of either hypocrisy or double standards.
And your entire argument consists of overgeneralizations, unsupported assumptions, and rampant far-right leaning.
Awesome.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Deficit growth from 1990 - 2000: 2,422,957,449,838.18.
Deficit growth from 2001-2009: 6,102,365,591,311.69.
So basically, the deficit was almost three times that of the 1990s just during Bush's two terms.
K.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
I'm assuming you can read a graph. The employment rate spiked before Bush left office, and is declining slowly.
It's interesting to note that the chart clearly shows the percentage for this past available month (Feb '14 at 6.7%) is lower than the election month of Nov. '08, which was 6.8%. So obviously black magic was enacted before Obama was even elected.
Using your double standards, Bush last year as president (2008) was far better than anything Obama has done.
You sure about that? Everything points to the economy going to shit as soon as he took the reigns. Spending increased, the deficit increased exponentially, and by the time Obama was in office, things were already climbing. Meanwhile, the interest rates are lower, and the job rate is declining steadily. I admit it is not beating the average for Bush's entire office, but then I wouldn't be giving credit to the previous administration for actually keeping things under control, would I?
If you want to consider my assertions 'disproved' for being too imprecise, well, so be it.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Awesome. I wouldn't think there was anyone else on this earth that can deal with my bullshit, and same goes for her. I had to reduce my gaming but it is what it is. I work at home and barely put shorts on, if only to go to the gym. Living the dream.
Reducing gaming = not worth it.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Anyone got a patented ice-breaker for talking to chicks at a bar?
Chloroform.
I never said Obama was inferior, did I? I said he had just as much economic acumen as Bush.
You can't say his name without going on a rant sounding like a Faux News soundbite.
The only Republican president I've slammed is Bush. You've slammed Bill Clinton, all liberals, and Obama repeatedly. You're also the guy who posts Conservo-Blog URLs every other day because they reaffirm what you believe is already the case.
And your entire argument consists of overgeneralizations, unsupported assumptions, and rampant far-right leaning.
Awesome.
Deficit growth from 1990 - 2000: 2,422,957,449,838.18.Deficit growth from 2001-2009: 6,102,365,591,311.69.
So basically, the deficit was almost three times that of the 1990s just during Bush's two terms.
K.
I'm assuming you can read a graph. The employment rate spiked before Bush left office, and is declining slowly.
It's interesting to note that the chart clearly shows the percentage for this past available month (Feb '14 at 6.7%) is lower than the election month of Nov. '08, which was 6.8%. So obviously black magic was enacted before Obama was even elected.
You sure about that? Everything points to the economy going to shit as soon as he took the reigns. Spending increased, the deficit increased exponentially, and by the time Obama was in office, things were already climbing. Meanwhile, the interest rates are lower, and the job rate is declining steadily. I admit it is not beating the average for Bush's entire office, but then I wouldn't be giving credit to the previous administration for actually keeping things under control, would I?
Originally posted by psmith81992
Emphasis bold. So while consistency IS key, as you said, reading is fundamental.
The irony is, the second quote is you. You made the assertion which you later denied. How can you not see this?
Using that logic, you can't argue about Republicans without going into an MSNBC rant.
Sure you can. It's all in the approach. The difference is you can actually make some original arguments instead of baseless assertions and sweeping generalizations which are coming out of Faux News around the clock.
Where have I slammed Clinton exactly? Where have I slammed all liberals? Conservo blog urls? What in the world are you talking about?
Really? Amnesia?
As opposed to strawman, unsupported assumptions, and far left leaning?Awesome.
You're so cute when you try to copy me.
Sure. And Obama has almost doubled Bush's insurmountable debt in half the time. Got it.
Actually, between 2010-2012, it was about 2 trillion. Still ridiculous, but Bush is far and away the heavier spender and trail blazer.
Yes, I can. And it's less than anything Obama has shown.
Meaning? This isn't clear.
I read stats according to your logic.
If you did, we'd agree. But we don't agree, so this is obviously not the case. Logic 101.
Do you think Obama was making jobs go away pre-election?
The economy is in the same place it was in 2008,
Proof by assertion.
the debt is almost double,
No, it's not. According to the source you provided, no less.
and while you can argue the job rate is declining steadily, go ahead and look at jobs added during Obama's administration, and see if the job rate is declining because things are going well, or because people have stopped looking for jobs.
I admitted as much, and reading is your friend. Overall, the job numbers are looking good. Whether or not this is because people gave up isn't discern-able.
However, all this is a sideshow to the point that you explicitly stated Bush's economic acumen is superior, even if marginally, to Obama's. Here, I'll post it again so you can read it for reals this time:
Originally posted by psmith81992
All Obama has proven is that he's Bush lite with even less of a grasp on economics than Dubya.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The irony is, the second quote is you. You made the assertion which you later denied. How can you not see this?
Sure you can. It's all in the approach. The difference is you can actually make some original arguments instead of baseless assertions and sweeping generalizations which are coming out of Faux News around the clock.
Really? Amnesia?
You're so cute when you try to copy me.
Actually, between 2010-2012, it was about 2 trillion. Still ridiculous, but Bush is far and away the heavier spender and trail blazer.
If you did, we'd agree. But we don't agree, so this is obviously not the case. Logic 101.
Proof by assertion.
No, it's not. According to the source you provided, no less.
I admitted as much, and reading is your friend. Overall, the job numbers are looking good. Whether or not this is because people gave up isn't discern-able.
However, all this is a sideshow to the point that you explicitly stated Bush's economic acumen is superior, even if marginally, to Obama's. Here, I'll post it again so you can read it for reals this time: [/B]😆 😆
What are you not understanding here? When I asked "did I?" it was a genuine question to cover my ass because I wasn't going to go back and confirm whether or not I did.
Reading is fundamental. 😆 😆
1. 2 trillion is deficit growth. There's a precedent - I used the same terms and similar numbers using the source you provided in the previous post. You should read slower, it might help your comprehension.
2. Again, proof by assertion. Do you not understand what this concept means? I'll help:
Dave: "I say it is; therefore it is."
Bystander: "By can you demonstrate truly that it is so?"
Dave: "I just said so, didn't I? Here, let me strawman, indulge in ad hominems, and generally ignore the whole point of the discussion."
2. Again, proof by assertion. Do you not understand what this concept means? I'll help:Dave: "I say it is; therefore it is."
Bystander: "By can you demonstrate truly that it is so?"
Dave: "I just said so, didn't I? Here, let me strawman, indulge in ad hominems, and generally ignore the whole point of the discussion." [/B]
Except I've shown how national debt has risen, while you still maintain "I say it hasn't so it hasn't". Simply screaming "no!" doesn't change facts. Also it's cute how I accuse you of strawman, then you come right back at me with it. You also include some made up ad hominem to spice up the discussion, and to weasel your way out, just accuse me of ignoring the whole point of the discussion.
Bravo.