Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You must have to repeat that 10 times a day to believe it.
Inflation Jan 1977:5.22%
Inflation Jan 1981: 11.83%
Facts are not your friends here. It would help if you had actually been alive during that time. But alas you get your talking points from leftist sources and lack teh intellectual underpinnings to examine them.
I was born in 1961. I was living at the time. My facts are accurate to the t..
Reagan was a wrecking ball, domestically.
Then you were dead from the neck up during that time.
Your statement abotu Reagan is dead wrong.
TRANSLATION:Yeah..basically "Nuh-uh". There's nothing in anyone of your links that is even remotely a "lie" or violation of the Constitution. And it's interesting you bring up the "Bill of Attainer" issue for a "bank tax" (that's a bit of Orwellian logic if I ever heard it) and rush head long to defend the Congressional actions with ACORN.
Interesting and hypocritical.You're so predictable. One day, perhaps, you'll grow up and realize that your petulant refusal to admit facts does not make them non-factual.
But I doubt it.
Petulant refusal of facts?
Chief, one of the sites you posted is under the title "Obamalies"..and lists among the "lies" blatant slips of the tongue.
The other site is Briebart. Briebart stated goal is the downfall of the Obama administration. He doesn't even bother to vet anything he puts up..the only criteria for his site is that the story is anti-Obama.
The other stuff is ridiculous..and I've shown you why..
There are no facts here..it's smoke and mirrors.
No matter how much you stamp your feet..and whine about it.
From my link:I repeat: That you disagree with them does not make them nonfactual.The whole picture, Reagan 11/82 vs. Obama 11/10, has now been posted. Some laughably obscure and irrelevant microbe of propaganda was posted by you.
I think the reasonable here can discern the qualitative difference.
The facts are posted. Please point out which one is not factual. Specifically.
You have
1. unemployment rate
2. interest rates
3. non-farm payrolls
4. approval rating
5. GDP
Show that most of those favored Reagan as opposed to what has been posted, i.e., that all of them favor Obama,
then, you can say we were wrong. Until then, you're just trolling.
Now, dumbshit, you get to show where I said the bailouts were a good thing. Hint: You can't use faxes from the union hall as proof. It has to be something I wrote, not something you were programmed with.I don't understand how daveman can fault Obama on the bailout when it was...
1) Such a huge success
and
2) His hero Reagan (you know, the liar with all the scandals) did the same thing with the Chrysler bailout.
The bailout has been a rousing success, and that's the business press talking.
Thanks to the government intervention, General Motors is out of bankruptcy and again turning profits. Chrysler is stabilized. Last April, GM paid back its loan in full and with interest years ahead of schedule.
Yet many tea party/Republican politicians persist in portraying this story as one of government overreach forced on good Americans by Washington socialists. They totally forget the economic mayhem that was gripping the country. Or perhaps they simply welcome any opportunity to bash unions.
The $86-billion bailout was a gamble, all right, but it was a bet that America won. And it was won not through dumb luck but the administration's skilled management of the bankruptcy. And the good news keeps coming. At the last count, the bailout's actual cost to taxpayers has fallen to $17 billion, according to the Detroit News.
What Was Wrong With the Auto Bailout? Nothing by Froma Harrop on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
And the bailout was started by BUSH....
Bush Approves Auto Industry Bailout - The Consumerist
TRANSLATION:
But I doubt it.
Petulant refusal of facts?
Chief, one of the sites you posted is under the title "Obamalies"..and lists among the "lies" blatant slips of the tongue.
The other site is Briebart. Briebart stated goal is the downfall of the Obama administration. He doesn't even bother to vet anything he puts up..the only criteria for his site is that the story is anti-Obama.
The other stuff is ridiculous..and I've shown you why..
There are no facts here..it's smoke and mirrors.
No matter how much you stamp your feet..and whine about it.
My goodness, you're terrified of differing views, aren't you?
You may as well just say that you will not accept anything that criticizes Obama.No translation needed..one of your sites throws up a bunch of bullshit on the wall and hopes something sticks.
The others don't make your case at all.
And one is known for just plain lying.
If I put up that sort of nonsense I would be called for it.
Like I am calling you on it.
From my link:I repeat: That you disagree with them does not make them nonfactual.
The facts are posted. Please point out which one is not factual. Specifically.
You have
1. unemployment rate
2. interest rates
3. non-farm payrolls
4. approval rating
5. GDP
Show that most of those favored Reagan as opposed to what has been posted, i.e., that all of them favor Obama,
then, you can say we were wrong. Until then, you're just trolling.
In August 1982, the median length of unemployment was 8.7 weeks. In August 2010, it was 19.9 weeks -- more than twice as long. And that's not a blip. For nearly a year, the median duration of unemployment has ranged between 19 and 25.5 weeks.Are you claiming that being unemployed 19.9 weeks is better than being unemployed 8.7 weeks?
From my link:The facts are posted. Please point out which one is not factual. Specifically.
You have
1. unemployment rate
2. interest rates
3. non-farm payrolls
4. approval rating
5. GDP
Show that most of those favored Reagan as opposed to what has been posted, i.e., that all of them favor Obama,
then, you can say we were wrong. Until then, you're just trolling.
In August 1982, the median length of unemployment was 8.7 weeks. In August 2010, it was 19.9 weeks -- more than twice as long. And that's not a blip. For nearly a year, the median duration of unemployment has ranged between 19 and 25.5 weeks.Are you claiming that being unemployed 19.9 weeks is better than being unemployed 8.7 weeks?
No. Don't you think I'm capable of seeing what you're trying to pull here? Why insult my intelligence?
From my link:
In August 1982, the median length of unemployment was 8.7 weeks. In August 2010, it was 19.9 weeks -- more than twice as long. And that's not a blip. For nearly a year, the median duration of unemployment has ranged between 19 and 25.5 weeks.Are you claiming that being unemployed 19.9 weeks is better than being unemployed 8.7 weeks?
No. Don't you think I'm capable of seeing what you're trying to pull here? Why insult my intelligence?
Is that even possible?
I'm curious: Through how many stats did you have to look to find ones that make The One look good?From my link:The facts are posted. Please point out which one is not factual. Specifically.
You have
1. unemployment rate
2. interest rates
3. non-farm payrolls
4. approval rating
5. GDP
Show that most of those favored Reagan as opposed to what has been posted, i.e., that all of them favor Obama,
then, you can say we were wrong. Until then, you're just trolling.
In August 1982, the median length of unemployment was 8.7 weeks. In August 2010, it was 19.9 weeks -- more than twice as long. And that's not a blip. For nearly a year, the median duration of unemployment has ranged between 19 and 25.5 weeks.Are you claiming that being unemployed 19.9 weeks is better than being unemployed 8.7 weeks?
No. Don't you think I'm capable of seeing what you're trying to pull here? Why insult my intelligence?
You're taking one fraction of the overall economic situation from the two time periods, claiming that it was better in 82 than in 10, and then attempting to leap from that to establishing the conclusion that OVERALL things were better in November 82 than in November 10.
So in all fairness we'll add your comparative statistic to the other 5 and so now we have it being better for Obama than Reagan in 5 out of 6 measures.
I'm curious: Through how many stats did you have to look to find ones that make The One look good?From my link:
In August 1982, the median length of unemployment was 8.7 weeks. In August 2010, it was 19.9 weeks -- more than twice as long. And that's not a blip. For nearly a year, the median duration of unemployment has ranged between 19 and 25.5 weeks.Are you claiming that being unemployed 19.9 weeks is better than being unemployed 8.7 weeks?
No. Don't you think I'm capable of seeing what you're trying to pull here? Why insult my intelligence?
You're taking one fraction of the overall economic situation from the two time periods, claiming that it was better in 82 than in 10, and then attempting to leap from that to establishing the conclusion that OVERALL things were better in November 82 than in November 10.
So in all fairness we'll add your comparative statistic to the other 5 and so now we have it being better for Obama than Reagan in 5 out of 6 measures.
Well, you're right. He's evil, and his name should be struck from history.I'm curious: Through how many stats did you have to look to find ones that make The One look good?No. Don't you think I'm capable of seeing what you're trying to pull here? Why insult my intelligence?
You're taking one fraction of the overall economic situation from the two time periods, claiming that it was better in 82 than in 10, and then attempting to leap from that to establishing the conclusion that OVERALL things were better in November 82 than in November 10.
So in all fairness we'll add your comparative statistic to the other 5 and so now we have it being better for Obama than Reagan in 5 out of 6 measures.
Apparently not too many since the ones I posted are generally accepted as major indicators of the state of the economy (excepting the approval rating)
How many did you have to look through before you gave up?
And in regards to your stat, keep in mind that Reagan inherited an EXPANDING economy that didn't go into recession until July of 1981,
6 months AFTER Reagan took office.
Well, you're right. He's evil, and his name should be struck from history.I'm curious: Through how many stats did you have to look to find ones that make The One look good?
Apparently not too many since the ones I posted are generally accepted as major indicators of the state of the economy (excepting the approval rating)
How many did you have to look through before you gave up?
And in regards to your stat, keep in mind that Reagan inherited an EXPANDING economy that didn't go into recession until July of 1981,
6 months AFTER Reagan took office.
One can ask, but one shouldn't expect an honest answer.Well, you're right. He's evil, and his name should be struck from history.Apparently not too many since the ones I posted are generally accepted as major indicators of the state of the economy (excepting the approval rating)
How many did you have to look through before you gave up?
And in regards to your stat, keep in mind that Reagan inherited an EXPANDING economy that didn't go into recession until July of 1981,
6 months AFTER Reagan took office.
One has to ask quite simply who was quick to spend the equity from Reagan's work after the fall of the Soviet Union? And how many times our military had to suffer from their shorsightedness?
One can ask, but one shouldn't expect an honest answer.Well, you're right. He's evil, and his name should be struck from history.
One has to ask quite simply who was quick to spend the equity from Reagan's work after the fall of the Soviet Union? And how many times our military had to suffer from their shorsightedness?
Now, dumbshit, you get to show where I said the bailouts were a good thing. Hint: You can't use faxes from the union hall as proof. It has to be something I wrote, not something you were programmed with.I don't understand how daveman can fault Obama on the bailout when it was...
1) Such a huge success
and
2) His hero Reagan (you know, the liar with all the scandals) did the same thing with the Chrysler bailout.
The bailout has been a rousing success, and that's the business press talking.
Thanks to the government intervention, General Motors is out of bankruptcy and again turning profits. Chrysler is stabilized. Last April, GM paid back its loan in full and with interest years ahead of schedule.
Yet many tea party/Republican politicians persist in portraying this story as one of government overreach forced on good Americans by Washington socialists. They totally forget the economic mayhem that was gripping the country. Or perhaps they simply welcome any opportunity to bash unions.
The $86-billion bailout was a gamble, all right, but it was a bet that America won. And it was won not through dumb luck but the administration's skilled management of the bankruptcy. And the good news keeps coming. At the last count, the bailout's actual cost to taxpayers has fallen to $17 billion, according to the Detroit News.
What Was Wrong With the Auto Bailout? Nothing by Froma Harrop on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
And the bailout was started by BUSH....
Bush Approves Auto Industry Bailout - The Consumerist
One of these days you'll learn some reading comprehension.
Well, you're right. He's evil, and his name should be struck from history.I'm curious: Through how many stats did you have to look to find ones that make The One look good?
Apparently not too many since the ones I posted are generally accepted as major indicators of the state of the economy (excepting the approval rating)
How many did you have to look through before you gave up?
And in regards to your stat, keep in mind that Reagan inherited an EXPANDING economy that didn't go into recession until July of 1981,
6 months AFTER Reagan took office.
Well, you're right. He's evil, and his name should be struck from history.Apparently not too many since the ones I posted are generally accepted as major indicators of the state of the economy (excepting the approval rating)
How many did you have to look through before you gave up?
And in regards to your stat, keep in mind that Reagan inherited an EXPANDING economy that didn't go into recession until July of 1981,
6 months AFTER Reagan took office.
One has to ask quite simply who was quick to spend the equity from Reagan's work after the fall of the Soviet Union? And how many times our military had to suffer from their shorsightedness?
No, he refuses to waste time on an ignorant slob like you who cannot stick with a topic or resort to tired worn out old cliches that have been disproven about 100 times on this site alone in the last 2 weeks alone.Well, you're right. He's evil, and his name should be struck from history.Apparently not too many since the ones I posted are generally accepted as major indicators of the state of the economy (excepting the approval rating)
How many did you have to look through before you gave up?
And in regards to your stat, keep in mind that Reagan inherited an EXPANDING economy that didn't go into recession until July of 1981,
6 months AFTER Reagan took office.
See, you simply refuse to debate like an adult. And lose like a man.
Well, you're right. He's evil, and his name should be struck from history.I'm curious: Through how many stats did you have to look to find ones that make The One look good?
Apparently not too many since the ones I posted are generally accepted as major indicators of the state of the economy (excepting the approval rating)
How many did you have to look through before you gave up?
And in regards to your stat, keep in mind that Reagan inherited an EXPANDING economy that didn't go into recession until July of 1981,
6 months AFTER Reagan took office.
