Here's Why He's Toast.

[PoliticalChic]

I posted the BLS numbers for July 2012 and they prove that the 25.3 million is an exaggeration "quotation marks" or not, Liberal source or not. A Liberal would not exaggerate the number to make Obama look worse, but that is SOP for a Right-Wingnut.

Mother Jones magazne:

'It's hardly surprising that a recent piece in the uber-liberal rag Mother Jones attempted to expose a "close-up view" of a "dark-money fundraiser" hosted in June by oil billionaires and famous libertarian conservatives Charles and David Koch. After all, the country lies awash in media consumed with and perpetuated by a left-wing bias. But in this recession, where liberals believe President Obama and his economic team can jumpstart the economy, the vitriol the media possesses for the Koch brothers and their donors -- businesspeople who've created jobs and circulated wealth -- is as baffling as it is hypocritical.'
The American Spectator : Mother Knows Best?



OK....the hour out the cage is up....

...back you go.



Here...you can work on this tonight: If you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sound like ‘oranges.’

If the American Spectator says they are Libs then you can be certain they are not, AS has even less credibility than you and you have none.

Again you can't answer the obvious question, why would a Lib exaggerate a number to make Obama look worse? We know that is the MO of the Right, but explain why a Lib would do it to Obama!

The more condescending you are without answering that obvious flaw in your "argument" the more foolish you look.

"...why would a Lib exaggerate a number to make Obama look worse?"

"The George W. Bush years were good for more than just oilfield-services companies and waterboard manufacturers. They were also a boon for liberal political magazines, whose circulation soared on the wings of the Bush hatred that swept much of the country. The paid circulation (subscriptions plus newsstand sales) of The Nation nearly doubled from 2001 to 2005, that of Mother Jones rose by 37 percent, and that of Harper’s Magazine by 7 percent."
Hate Sells: Why Liberal Magazines Are Suffering Under Obama | Vanity Fair


Sometimes they trip into telling the truth...

...you should try it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"To mark this Labor Day weekend, here's a roundup of 10 eye-popping statistics on the American jobs crisis. ... which hangs over President Obama as he gears up for his big jobs speech on Thursday (not to mention his reelection campaign).

1. 25.3 million Americans: The true size of the unemployment crisis. This figure includes people who are out of work, forced to work part-time, or unable to find a full-time job, as well as those who want to work but have given up searching for a job in the past month,...

2. 6.9 million jobs: How many fewer jobs there are today than in December 2007.

3. Twenty-eight out of 32 months: The number of months since January 2009 that job growth failed to keep up with basic population growth (roughly 150,000 jobs a month).

4. 16.7%: The jobless rate for African-Americans. Black unemployment is now at its highest in 27 years.

5. 280,000: The number of jobs the American economy needs to add each month to fill its 11.3 million-job deficit by the middle of 2016.

6. 35,000: The average number of jobs the economy actually added in the past three months."
10 Eye-Popping Labor Day Stats | Mother Jones




And....


7. "...CNN fact-checked that claim and found it to be "not the whole picture." Instead, CNN found that there has been a net increase of just 300,000 non-farm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009.

8. "The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession."

9. However, Obama's job growth percentages trail far behind those of some other recent presidents, including Bill Clinton (+2.60 percent and +1.60 percent), Ronald Reagan (+1.75 percent and +2.53 percent) and even Jimmy Carter (+2.30 percent)."
Fact Check: 4.5 million new jobs created under Obama? | The Ticket - Yahoo! News



He's right - YouTube

All very interesting but the media says none of this is Obama's fault.
A person risks being branded a racist if one doubts Obama's handling of the economy.
And the Obama followers still think Obama already fixed everything so the right should just STFU....


All hail Obama
All hail Obama
All hail Obama

Rozzy.....your post: you didn't build that!!!! Somebody else did that!!!


....OK...back to 'All hail Obama."

 

[edthecynic]

Mother Jones magazne:

'It's hardly surprising that a recent piece in the uber-liberal rag Mother Jones attempted to expose a "close-up view" of a "dark-money fundraiser" hosted in June by oil billionaires and famous libertarian conservatives Charles and David Koch. After all, the country lies awash in media consumed with and perpetuated by a left-wing bias. But in this recession, where liberals believe President Obama and his economic team can jumpstart the economy, the vitriol the media possesses for the Koch brothers and their donors -- businesspeople who've created jobs and circulated wealth -- is as baffling as it is hypocritical.'
The American Spectator : Mother Knows Best?



OK....the hour out the cage is up....

...back you go.



Here...you can work on this tonight: If you say ‘gullible’ very slowly it sound like ‘oranges.’

If the American Spectator says they are Libs then you can be certain they are not, AS has even less credibility than you and you have none.

Again you can't answer the obvious question, why would a Lib exaggerate a number to make Obama look worse? We know that is the MO of the Right, but explain why a Lib would do it to Obama!

The more condescending you are without answering that obvious flaw in your "argument" the more foolish you look.

"...why would a Lib exaggerate a number to make Obama look worse?"

"The George W. Bush years were good for more than just oilfield-services companies and waterboard manufacturers. They were also a boon for liberal political magazines, whose circulation soared on the wings of the Bush hatred that swept much of the country. The paid circulation (subscriptions plus newsstand sales) of The Nation nearly doubled from 2001 to 2005, that of Mother Jones rose by 37 percent, and that of Harper’s Magazine by 7 percent."
Hate Sells: Why Liberal Magazines Are Suffering Under Obama | Vanity Fair


Sometimes they trip into telling the truth...

...you should try it.

How does that change the fact that the author exaggerated the 25.3 million number by several million to make Obama look worse, a favorite tactic of the Right???? It doesn't, of course, as any fool would know, even you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the American Spectator says they are Libs then you can be certain they are not, AS has even less credibility than you and you have none.

Again you can't answer the obvious question, why would a Lib exaggerate a number to make Obama look worse? We know that is the MO of the Right, but explain why a Lib would do it to Obama!

The more condescending you are without answering that obvious flaw in your "argument" the more foolish you look.

"...why would a Lib exaggerate a number to make Obama look worse?"

"The George W. Bush years were good for more than just oilfield-services companies and waterboard manufacturers. They were also a boon for liberal political magazines, whose circulation soared on the wings of the Bush hatred that swept much of the country. The paid circulation (subscriptions plus newsstand sales) of The Nation nearly doubled from 2001 to 2005, that of Mother Jones rose by 37 percent, and that of Harper’s Magazine by 7 percent."
Hate Sells: Why Liberal Magazines Are Suffering Under Obama | Vanity Fair


Sometimes they trip into telling the truth...

...you should try it.

How does that change the fact that the author exaggerated the 25.3 million number by several million to make Obama look worse, a favorite tactic of the Right???? It doesn't, of course, as any fool would know, even you.

"Mother Jones is an independent, nonprofit magazine rooted in what it terms progressive political values and ... Mother Jones is the most widely read progressive publication in the United States."
Mother Jones - NewsTrust

Not just liberal.....even further south of sane: Progressive!!

Wadda ya' think....are you lookin' dumber and dumber?


Holy shishkbob!!!! Did I just use the word 'think' in any connection with you????

My bad.

 

[edthecynic]

"...why would a Lib exaggerate a number to make Obama look worse?"

"The George W. Bush years were good for more than just oilfield-services companies and waterboard manufacturers. They were also a boon for liberal political magazines, whose circulation soared on the wings of the Bush hatred that swept much of the country. The paid circulation (subscriptions plus newsstand sales) of The Nation nearly doubled from 2001 to 2005, that of Mother Jones rose by 37 percent, and that of Harper’s Magazine by 7 percent."
Hate Sells: Why Liberal Magazines Are Suffering Under Obama | Vanity Fair


Sometimes they trip into telling the truth...

...you should try it.

How does that change the fact that the author exaggerated the 25.3 million number by several million to make Obama look worse, a favorite tactic of the Right???? It doesn't, of course, as any fool would know, even you.

"Mother Jones is an independent, nonprofit magazine rooted in what it terms progressive political values and ... Mother Jones is the most widely read progressive publication in the United States."
Mother Jones - NewsTrust

Not just liberal.....even further south of sane: Progressive!!

Wadda ya' think....are you lookin' dumber and dumber?


Holy shishkbob!!!! Did I just use the word 'think' in any connection with you????

My bad.

You still can't explain why a Liberal, and now a Progressive, would make up crap to make Obama look worse, something all Right-Wing nuts do habitually!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

How does that change the fact that the author exaggerated the 25.3 million number by several million to make Obama look worse, a favorite tactic of the Right???? It doesn't, of course, as any fool would know, even you.

"Mother Jones is an independent, nonprofit magazine rooted in what it terms progressive political values and ... Mother Jones is the most widely read progressive publication in the United States."
Mother Jones - NewsTrust

Not just liberal.....even further south of sane: Progressive!!

Wadda ya' think....are you lookin' dumber and dumber?


Holy shishkbob!!!! Did I just use the word 'think' in any connection with you????

My bad.

You still can't explain why a Liberal, and now a Progressive, would make up crap to make Obama look worse, something all Right-Wing nuts do habitually!!!

Let's be clear:

1. Mother Jones magazine is not "a Liberal, and now a Progressive," as though it was ever anything but.

a. You have been convinced by overwhelming documented proof that above is the case.

b. You've changed your what-passes-for-a-mind. Question: what did you do with the diaper?


2. "would make up crap to make Obama look worse,..."
The answer is so simple, only a simpleton (that's where you come in) could miss it:
Obama is as bad as could be....there is no making him worse.


3. In conclusion, one must make the oh-so-difficult choice of believing the data provided by what has been proven to be- not a right-wing organ- but a progressive source....or, you....proven to be a blithering idiot.

Let me ponder that one.......

 

[edthecynic]

"Mother Jones is an independent, nonprofit magazine rooted in what it terms progressive political values and ... Mother Jones is the most widely read progressive publication in the United States."
Mother Jones - NewsTrust

Not just liberal.....even further south of sane: Progressive!!

Wadda ya' think....are you lookin' dumber and dumber?


Holy shishkbob!!!! Did I just use the word 'think' in any connection with you????

My bad.

You still can't explain why a Liberal, and now a Progressive, would make up crap to make Obama look worse, something all Right-Wing nuts do habitually!!!

Let's be clear:

1. Mother Jones magazine is not "a Liberal, and now a Progressive," as though it was ever anything but.

a. You have been convinced by overwhelming documented proof that above is the case.

b. You've changed your what-passes-for-a-mind. Question: what did you do with the diaper?


2. "would make up crap to make Obama look worse,..."
The answer is so simple, only a simpleton (that's where you come in) could miss it:
Obama is as bad as could be....there is no making him worse.


3. In conclusion, one must make the oh-so-difficult choice of believing the data provided by what has been proven to be- not a right-wing organ- but a progressive source....or, you....proven to be a blithering idiot.

Let me ponder that one.......

I gave the BLS data for July 2012 that proved your Right-Wing nut author had exaggerated his 25.3 million by several million to make Obama look worse. So the real question is who do we believe, a Right-Wing nut who exaggerates his data with no source to make Obama look worse, or the actual BLS numbers.

BTW, the BLS has just released the August data this morning:

Unemployed 12.5 million
Part time employed for economic reasons 8 million
Discouraged workers 844,000

 

[PoliticalChic]

You still can't explain why a Liberal, and now a Progressive, would make up crap to make Obama look worse, something all Right-Wing nuts do habitually!!!

Let's be clear:

1. Mother Jones magazine is not "a Liberal, and now a Progressive," as though it was ever anything but.

a. You have been convinced by overwhelming documented proof that above is the case.

b. You've changed your what-passes-for-a-mind. Question: what did you do with the diaper?


2. "would make up crap to make Obama look worse,..."
The answer is so simple, only a simpleton (that's where you come in) could miss it:
Obama is as bad as could be....there is no making him worse.


3. In conclusion, one must make the oh-so-difficult choice of believing the data provided by what has been proven to be- not a right-wing organ- but a progressive source....or, you....proven to be a blithering idiot.

Let me ponder that one.......

I gave the BLS data for July 2012 that proved your Right-Wing nut author had exaggerated his 25.3 million by several million to make Obama look worse. So the real question is who do we believe, a Right-Wing nut who exaggerates his data with no source to make Obama look worse, or the actual BLS numbers.

BTW, the BLS has just released the August data this morning:

Unemployed 12.5 million
Part time employed for economic reasons 8 million
Discouraged workers 844,000

Some mules require being hit in the head numerous time.

"1. Mother Jones magazine is not "a Liberal, and now a Progressive," as though it was ever anything but."

 

[edthecynic]

Let's be clear:

1. Mother Jones magazine is not "a Liberal, and now a Progressive," as though it was ever anything but.

a. You have been convinced by overwhelming documented proof that above is the case.

b. You've changed your what-passes-for-a-mind. Question: what did you do with the diaper?


2. "would make up crap to make Obama look worse,..."
The answer is so simple, only a simpleton (that's where you come in) could miss it:
Obama is as bad as could be....there is no making him worse.


3. In conclusion, one must make the oh-so-difficult choice of believing the data provided by what has been proven to be- not a right-wing organ- but a progressive source....or, you....proven to be a blithering idiot.

Let me ponder that one.......

I gave the BLS data for July 2012 that proved your Right-Wing nut author had exaggerated his 25.3 million by several million to make Obama look worse. So the real question is who do we believe, a Right-Wing nut who exaggerates his data with no source to make Obama look worse, or the actual BLS numbers.

BTW, the BLS has just released the August data this morning:

Unemployed 12.5 million
Part time employed for economic reasons 8 million
Discouraged workers 844,000

Some mules require being hit in the head numerous time.

"1. Mother Jones magazine is not "a Liberal, and now a Progressive," as though it was ever anything but."

A magazine that published an article by a Right-Wing hack who undeniably exaggerated a 25.3 million U-6 number to make Obama look worse, like all Right-Wing nuts do.

Just admit it, you were not only gullible enough to swallow the bullshit number, but also stupid enough to parrot it in a public forum without bothering to check its accuracy with the readily available data from the BLS.

 

[Rshermr]

Let's be clear:

1. Mother Jones magazine is not "a Liberal, and now a Progressive," as though it was ever anything but.

a. You have been convinced by overwhelming documented proof that above is the case.

b. You've changed your what-passes-for-a-mind. Question: what did you do with the diaper?


2. "would make up crap to make Obama look worse,..."
The answer is so simple, only a simpleton (that's where you come in) could miss it:
Obama is as bad as could be....there is no making him worse.


3. In conclusion, one must make the oh-so-difficult choice of believing the data provided by what has been proven to be- not a right-wing organ- but a progressive source....or, you....proven to be a blithering idiot.

Let me ponder that one.......

I gave the BLS data for July 2012 that proved your Right-Wing nut author had exaggerated his 25.3 million by several million to make Obama look worse. So the real question is who do we believe, a Right-Wing nut who exaggerates his data with no source to make Obama look worse, or the actual BLS numbers.

BTW, the BLS has just released the August data this morning:

Unemployed 12.5 million
Part time employed for economic reasons 8 million
Discouraged workers 844,000

Some mules require being hit in the head numerous time.

"1. Mother Jones magazine is not "a Liberal, and now a Progressive," as though it was ever anything but."

Politichic is projecting again. She finds hitting herself in the head feels good.
do not try to confuse here with data from sites like BLS. She much prefers to distort reality with dogma. Which is all that she knows.

 

[Rshermr]

Politichic and other cons post dogma. Unthinking, unfiltered dogma. The problem with our economy is unemployment, 95% and debt, 5%, History shows that if you eliminate unemployment problems, bring it down, say. to under 5 or 6%, the debt problem goes away. So, what do cons propose. Why, the Ryan budget, in every single case.

So, we should decrease taxes. Cut spending. And that has worked when iin the US when the economy was bad???? You can ask them all day, and you generally get no answer. Though sometimes you get a stupid answer.

Politichic, for instance, has been asked many times but refuses to answer.
edthecynic posts actual numbers, from the BLM. But she will never admit that they are correct, but instead just stalls. She is what is technically called a dipshit. Total con tool. And she will waste your time with drivel because that is what con tools do.

So, it is up to Congress. They can pass the stimulus bill asked of them by the pres and dems, or they can continue to refuse. And if they continue to refuse, it is proof of their desire to crash this economy in order to get more clowns like you see on this board to believe it is the pres responsibility. Which leads to my contention that repubs are totally un-American.

 

[Moonglow]

"To mark this Labor Day weekend, here's a roundup of 10 eye-popping statistics on the American jobs crisis. ... which hangs over President Obama as he gears up for his big jobs speech on Thursday (not to mention his reelection campaign).

1. 25.3 million Americans: The true size of the unemployment crisis. This figure includes people who are out of work, forced to work part-time, or unable to find a full-time job, as well as those who want to work but have given up searching for a job in the past month,...

2. 6.9 million jobs: How many fewer jobs there are today than in December 2007.

3. Twenty-eight out of 32 months: The number of months since January 2009 that job growth failed to keep up with basic population growth (roughly 150,000 jobs a month).

4. 16.7%: The jobless rate for African-Americans. Black unemployment is now at its highest in 27 years.

5. 280,000: The number of jobs the American economy needs to add each month to fill its 11.3 million-job deficit by the middle of 2016.

6. 35,000: The average number of jobs the economy actually added in the past three months."
10 Eye-Popping Labor Day Stats | Mother Jones




And....


7. "...CNN fact-checked that claim and found it to be "not the whole picture." Instead, CNN found that there has been a net increase of just 300,000 non-farm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009.

8. "The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession."

9. However, Obama's job growth percentages trail far behind those of some other recent presidents, including Bill Clinton (+2.60 percent and +1.60 percent), Ronald Reagan (+1.75 percent and +2.53 percent) and even Jimmy Carter (+2.30 percent)."
Fact Check: 4.5 million new jobs created under Obama? | The Ticket - Yahoo! News



He's right - YouTube

I think he's more of an English Muffin

 

[Moonglow]

notice you did not include Booshs' 7.8% UE rate

 

[PoliticalChic]

I gave the BLS data for July 2012 that proved your Right-Wing nut author had exaggerated his 25.3 million by several million to make Obama look worse. So the real question is who do we believe, a Right-Wing nut who exaggerates his data with no source to make Obama look worse, or the actual BLS numbers.

BTW, the BLS has just released the August data this morning:

Unemployed 12.5 million
Part time employed for economic reasons 8 million
Discouraged workers 844,000

Some mules require being hit in the head numerous time.

"1. Mother Jones magazine is not "a Liberal, and now a Progressive," as though it was ever anything but."

A magazine that published an article by a Right-Wing hack who undeniably exaggerated a 25.3 million U-6 number to make Obama look worse, like all Right-Wing nuts do.

Just admit it, you were not only gullible enough to swallow the bullshit number, but also stupid enough to parrot it in a public forum without bothering to check its accuracy with the readily available data from the BLS.

The right-wing hack' who writes for 'Mother Jones magazine'?


The right-wing hack' who writes for the Huffington Post?

The right-wing hack' who wrote this:
"Behold the Walker model: Kneecap public-employee unions; slash government spending for education and services for the poor and elderly; lower corporate taxes; implement controversial -- and potentially discriminatory -- voter identification legislation; redraw your state's political boundaries to benefit the GOP (and then wait for the election contributions to pour in by the multimillions from enthused right-wing billionaires and corporate “individuals,” with a blitz of the airwaves to follow)."
Tomgram: Andy Kroll, How the Wisconsin Uprising Got Hijacked | TomDispatch


That 'right-wing hack'????

My, oh my.



Based on the evidence in this thread, you should go back to your first job, making fax and modem noises.

 

[PoliticalChic]

notice you did not include Booshs' 7.8% UE rate

Is that the best you've got, drop-draws?



Possibly, due to your A.D.D., you hadn't noticed that Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him) is the candidate in question.

You probably noticed that I didn't include FDR's 25.2% unemployment rate in 1933.
And for the same reason.

 

[edthecynic]

Some mules require being hit in the head numerous time.

"1. Mother Jones magazine is not "a Liberal, and now a Progressive," as though it was ever anything but."

A magazine that published an article by a Right-Wing hack who undeniably exaggerated a 25.3 million U-6 number to make Obama look worse, like all Right-Wing nuts do.

Just admit it, you were not only gullible enough to swallow the bullshit number, but also stupid enough to parrot it in a public forum without bothering to check its accuracy with the readily available data from the BLS.

The right-wing hack' who writes for 'Mother Jones magazine'?


The right-wing hack' who writes for the Huffington Post?

The right-wing hack' who wrote this:
"Behold the Walker model: Kneecap public-employee unions; slash government spending for education and services for the poor and elderly; lower corporate taxes; implement controversial -- and potentially discriminatory -- voter identification legislation; redraw your state's political boundaries to benefit the GOP (and then wait for the election contributions to pour in by the multimillions from enthused right-wing billionaires and corporate “individuals,” with a blitz of the airwaves to follow)."
Tomgram: Andy Kroll, How the Wisconsin Uprising Got Hijacked | TomDispatch


That 'right-wing hack'????

My, oh my.



Based on the evidence in this thread, you should go back to your first job, making fax and modem noises.

Again you cannot rebut the fact that he fabricated a U-6 number to make Obama look worse. Anyone can understand a Right-Wing hack doing that, but it makes no sense for a Left-Wing hack to do it, except to YOU!

 

[PoliticalChic]

A magazine that published an article by a Right-Wing hack who undeniably exaggerated a 25.3 million U-6 number to make Obama look worse, like all Right-Wing nuts do.

Just admit it, you were not only gullible enough to swallow the bullshit number, but also stupid enough to parrot it in a public forum without bothering to check its accuracy with the readily available data from the BLS.

The right-wing hack' who writes for 'Mother Jones magazine'?


The right-wing hack' who writes for the Huffington Post?

The right-wing hack' who wrote this:
"Behold the Walker model: Kneecap public-employee unions; slash government spending for education and services for the poor and elderly; lower corporate taxes; implement controversial -- and potentially discriminatory -- voter identification legislation; redraw your state's political boundaries to benefit the GOP (and then wait for the election contributions to pour in by the multimillions from enthused right-wing billionaires and corporate “individuals,” with a blitz of the airwaves to follow)."
Tomgram: Andy Kroll, How the Wisconsin Uprising Got Hijacked | TomDispatch


That 'right-wing hack'????

My, oh my.



Based on the evidence in this thread, you should go back to your first job, making fax and modem noises.

Again you cannot rebut the fact that he fabricated a U-6 number to make Obama look worse. Anyone can understand a Right-Wing hack doing that, but it makes no sense for a Left-Wing hack to do it, except to YOU!

"...he fabricated..."


I can't let go of this, because of the picture it paints of you.


A way-left organization publishes data you claim tears down Obama.


You tried to say Mother Jones was right wing.
Shot down.


You claimed the author was a right wing hackl
Shot down.


Yet your mouth-foaming, chin-dribbling, spittle-spewing Jennifer Granholm-like performance simply spotlights what a flop Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him) has been!!!


It's like his supporters admit him to be a serial killer, and you're screaming that he only killed five or six!!!!


And I'm here, helping you to reach your comic potential.

Continue.

 

[edthecynic]

The right-wing hack' who writes for 'Mother Jones magazine'?


The right-wing hack' who writes for the Huffington Post?

The right-wing hack' who wrote this:
"Behold the Walker model: Kneecap public-employee unions; slash government spending for education and services for the poor and elderly; lower corporate taxes; implement controversial -- and potentially discriminatory -- voter identification legislation; redraw your state's political boundaries to benefit the GOP (and then wait for the election contributions to pour in by the multimillions from enthused right-wing billionaires and corporate “individuals,” with a blitz of the airwaves to follow)."
Tomgram: Andy Kroll, How the Wisconsin Uprising Got Hijacked | TomDispatch


That 'right-wing hack'????

My, oh my.



Based on the evidence in this thread, you should go back to your first job, making fax and modem noises.

Again you cannot rebut the fact that he fabricated a U-6 number to make Obama look worse. Anyone can understand a Right-Wing hack doing that, but it makes no sense for a Left-Wing hack to do it, except to YOU!

"...he fabricated..."


I can't let go of this, because of the picture it paints of you.


A way-left organization publishes data you claim tears down Obama.


You tried to say Mother Jones was right wing.
Shot down.


You claimed the author was a right wing hackl
Shot down.


Yet your mouth-foaming, chin-dribbling, spittle-spewing Jennifer Granholm-like performance simply spotlights what a flop Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him) has been!!!


It's like his supporters admit him to be a serial killer, and you're screaming that he only killed five or six!!!!


And I'm here, helping you to reach your comic potential.

Continue.

The BLS data proves that his 25.3 million is a fabricated number. First of all, only Right-wing hacks use the U-6 number for Dems and only the most dishonest Right-wing hacks exaggerate it by several million to make Obama look worse. For all GOP presidents Right-wing hacks use the U-3 numbers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again you cannot rebut the fact that he fabricated a U-6 number to make Obama look worse. Anyone can understand a Right-Wing hack doing that, but it makes no sense for a Left-Wing hack to do it, except to YOU!

"...he fabricated..."


I can't let go of this, because of the picture it paints of you.


A way-left organization publishes data you claim tears down Obama.


You tried to say Mother Jones was right wing.
Shot down.


You claimed the author was a right wing hackl
Shot down.


Yet your mouth-foaming, chin-dribbling, spittle-spewing Jennifer Granholm-like performance simply spotlights what a flop Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him) has been!!!


It's like his supporters admit him to be a serial killer, and you're screaming that he only killed five or six!!!!


And I'm here, helping you to reach your comic potential.

Continue.

The BLS data proves that his 25.3 million is a fabricated number. First of all, only Right-wing hacks use the U-6 number for Dems and only the most dishonest Right-wing hacks exaggerate it by several million to make Obama look worse. For all GOP presidents Right-wing hacks use the U-3 numbers.

"....to make Obama look worse."


No...you make him look worse!

How?

Here...let me teach you a new phrase:
Damn with faint praise is an English idiom for words that effectively condemn by seeming to offer praise which is too moderate or marginal to be considered praise at all.
Damn with faint praise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Now....keep up the good work!

 

[edthecynic]

"...he fabricated..."


I can't let go of this, because of the picture it paints of you.


A way-left organization publishes data you claim tears down Obama.


You tried to say Mother Jones was right wing.
Shot down.


You claimed the author was a right wing hackl
Shot down.


Yet your mouth-foaming, chin-dribbling, spittle-spewing Jennifer Granholm-like performance simply spotlights what a flop Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him) has been!!!


It's like his supporters admit him to be a serial killer, and you're screaming that he only killed five or six!!!!


And I'm here, helping you to reach your comic potential.

Continue.

The BLS data proves that his 25.3 million is a fabricated number. First of all, only Right-wing hacks use the U-6 number for Dems and only the most dishonest Right-wing hacks exaggerate it by several million to make Obama look worse. For all GOP presidents Right-wing hacks use the U-3 numbers.

"....to make Obama look worse."


No...you make him look worse!

How?

Here...let me teach you a new phrase:
Damn with faint praise is an English idiom for words that effectively condemn by seeming to offer praise which is too moderate or marginal to be considered praise at all.
Damn with faint praise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Now....keep up the good work!

Again you fail to prove the fabricated 25.3 million is a real number. You are still reduced to nothing but insults and condescension because you have no facts.
Thank you.