Originally posted by psmith81992
Yes, because you're trying to pass off your definition of success as the objective definition of success, therefore it's bias.
...
I've presenting two definitions. By one, he objectively succeeded what he was trying to accomplish. That is a success.
By the other, a value judgement, it can be judged differently, thus I view it as a success (and so do Obama and a lot of other world leaders).
Under neither definition of the word success am I misrepresenting anything. You're either accusing me of bias for saying something that happened, happened, or accusing me of bias for holding one of the two major stances of the issue as an opinion.
He accomplished something that you may not view as worthwhile, but stop pretending anyone calling it as success is biased or misrepresenting the facts, rather than simply judging it different than you.
But you're not qualifying any of your statements. Instead, you're making general statements with no time limits, no context or anything. If you said "Obama has been a success on the economy the past 3 years", you would be correct, because he wasn't the first 4-5. This is a fact. Bush was also a meager "economy" for 5-6 years until he wasn't, and we only remember his failures.
Ah hem, hello? The first 4-5 years? This is the crap I've been trying to get you to back up.
The unemployment began going down in 2010. He took office in 2009. A year and some change (during which time he also stopped it from going up, which it was doing in an uncontrolled fashion when he stepped in). The stimulus was passed in 2009, and is credited with saving 3.3 million jobs by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The US, indeed, recovered faster than *every* country but Germany. We're number two in recovery speed.
In what way is "the major unemployment number start going down in 2010' five years of doing nothing or not helping?
You have asserted this repeatedly, but the numbers you're using remain unclear. Where's this chart that says numbers didn't start going down in 2010, and keep going down til now?
I'm not disagreeing, I'm providing actual evidence that proves you're being misleading (intentionally or otherwise). Therefore, the only thing I can conclude from that is bias.
I've asked you for charts and elaborations for this 4-5 year numbers a half dozen times and you haven't provided them.
Show me where
Original post
Exact quote: "Nope. Heck, why do you even try on the Benghazi thing? It just makes you look bad and desparate, trying to attack on something where she was repeatedly found to have done no wrongdoing by your own party."
My words to Time, a known Republican: Your party and no wrongdoing. Which is what the Republican-lead investigations found, that it was preventable (which I mentioned in other posts and fully admit, as does Hillary) but there was nothing criminal.
Your post
" My bias or lackthereof has nothing to do with you being an apologist. You claimed not even democrats blame Hilary for Benghazi, I gave you links that state the opposite. What is the excuse this time?"
You just completely changed the subject from which party I was talking about, what I was saying was or wasn't happening away from legal wrongdoing to who blames whom, moved it to an absolute statement about the entire party somehow, and then accused me of having bias for doing so.
And kept it up for a few pages, even after I pointed out and quoted what I actually said in the first post. So you didn't listen to my replies either.
Adam Savage once said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own," but flat-out rewriting someone's argument in whole cloth changing the subject, the action, and the scale all at the same time.
It'd be like going from, "A specific group of Obama administration people say Donald Trump is a jerk," to "You said the entire Republican party thinks Donald Trump is in financial trouble!" in order to make an accusation. It changes almost the entirety of the original save for 'Donald Trump'.
Seriously, what kind of BS was that? Do you have any idea how much of your own believability and respectability as a debater you took out and shot right there, in choosing to not only change the statement but then run with it?