Are Americans really this Gullable?

[Full-Auto]

The left's problem is one of perception. They pay attention only to the last thing their leaders say. And they never pay attention to what their leaders do.

If what they say contradicts what they said yesterday, no problem. Reality is redefined. If tomorrow's speech contradicts today's, that will be the new reality.

Orwell really nailed them.

Great point Dave. Prior to the last election all we heard from the left was Obama said so.
You point out the policy problems and you got Obama said so.

 

[Jarhead]

You know...I gotta say I really love this meme that President Obama, who has presided over 22 months of job gains is doing poorly (according to the RWers), but Walker, whose state lost 11,500 jobs in November, is doing a great job.

Dont you get it?

If I go out and earn $100 dollars and then spend $200 dollars and someone asks how I am doing financially and I tell them "great, I earned $100 this week"....am I being honest and offering accurate information?

Yes, there were X amount of people hired....but at the same time, there were X+Y people that lost their jobs.

So this was not an issue of jobs created by this administration...This is an issue of people replacing other less productive people...and additional ones being laid off.

 

[bripat9643]

Since his administration has fewer regulations than the Bush administration after three years, Bush must have had "seriously massive" amounts of regulations and not just "massive".

Where do you come up with this bullshit?

Do you know how we can tell a post is a lie? We see your name on it.

 

[daveman]

The left's problem is one of perception. They pay attention only to the last thing their leaders say. And they never pay attention to what their leaders do.

If what they say contradicts what they said yesterday, no problem. Reality is redefined. If tomorrow's speech contradicts today's, that will be the new reality.

Orwell really nailed them.

Great point Dave. Prior to the last election all we heard from the left was Obama said so.
You point out the policy problems and you got Obama said so.

It stems from the left's idea that results don't matter as much as intentions.

 

[Seawytch]

You know...I gotta say I really love this meme that President Obama, who has presided over 22 months of job gains is doing poorly (according to the RWers), but Walker, whose state lost 11,500 jobs in November, is doing a great job.

Repeating wrong information no matter how many times it's repeated do not make it true.

Saying something isn't true without evidence to the contrary is...what RWers do.

We found that the U.S. economy has seen 22 consecutive months of private-sector job growth, beginning in Feb. 2010. During that 22-month period, the number of jobs grew by almost 3.16 million, or about 143,000 per month.​

Have private-sector jobs grown by 3 million in 22 months?

 

[Full-Auto]

You know...I gotta say I really love this meme that President Obama, who has presided over 22 months of job gains is doing poorly (according to the RWers), but Walker, whose state lost 11,500 jobs in November, is doing a great job.

Repeating wrong information no matter how many times it's repeated do not make it true.

Saying something isn't true without evidence to the contrary is...what RWers do.

We found that the U.S. economy has seen 22 consecutive months of private-sector job growth, beginning in Feb. 2010. During that 22-month period, the number of jobs grew by almost 3.16 million, or about 143,000 per month.​

Have private-sector jobs grown by 3 million in 22 months?

yet to this day 1 million have been dropped from unemployment counts. How convenient.

 

[Seawytch]

You know...I gotta say I really love this meme that President Obama, who has presided over 22 months of job gains is doing poorly (according to the RWers), but Walker, whose state lost 11,500 jobs in November, is doing a great job.

Dont you get it?

If I go out and earn $100 dollars and then spend $200 dollars and someone asks how I am doing financially and I tell them "great, I earned $100 this week"....am I being honest and offering accurate information?

Yes, there were X amount of people hired....but at the same time, there were X+Y people that lost their jobs.

So this was not an issue of jobs created by this administration...This is an issue of people replacing other less productive people...and additional ones being laid off.

Yeah, like hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. Wait, I thought RWers liked that sort of thing. Such an enigma ya'll are...truly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Repeating wrong information no matter how many times it's repeated do not make it true.

Saying something isn't true without evidence to the contrary is...what RWers do.

We found that the U.S. economy has seen 22 consecutive months of private-sector job growth, beginning in Feb. 2010. During that 22-month period, the number of jobs grew by almost 3.16 million, or about 143,000 per month.​

Have private-sector jobs grown by 3 million in 22 months?

yet to this day 1 million have been dropped from unemployment counts. How convenient.

Let's not go there it will bust up that sweet dream of the obama drones.

 

[PixieStix]

Since his administration has fewer regulations than the Bush administration after three years, Bush must have had "seriously massive" amounts of regulations and not just "massive".

Come on guys. Don't just believe right wing talking points without checking them out. Makes you look like "sheeple".

dude you are a moron. Obamacare and the Financial Regulatory Bill. These things are massive new Regulations. I don't just "believe the right wing talking points" I do my own research, I actually work in an Industry Directed effected by his new Regulations. So perhaps you are the one just believing Talking points. Obama's.

your Hero Obama Just sat on National TV and spun a Bunch of pure Horse shit again. he sounded Great doing it, But it takes more than Reading a Teleprompter and Saying one thing while you do another, to actually lead.

There are not "massive new regulations"..they are common sense policy put into place to keep HMOs from booting people from insurance THEY PAID FOR and keep Wallstreet flimflam men from creating financial instruments that HAVE NO VALUE.

Gosh..it's like the whole financial collapse never happened for you guys.

Regulating our nation out of business is now common sense? Really?

Americans are endlessly paying taxes--on their income, on their property, on almost anything they purchase. But the heavy burden that the U.S. government places on its citizens does not stop there. It continues with a slew of hidden taxes imposed by an ever-larger number of government regulations. These regulatory taxes do not appear on any balance sheet, yet cost Americans about $1 trillion every year. The regulatory burden on Americans continued to surge during 2009, with record increases in costs thanks to both the Bush and Obama Administrations. Given ongoing regulatory initiatives at several agencies, it is very likely that this surge will continue. It is more important than ever that policymakers implement regulatory reforms, including stronger regulatory review procedures by an independent Congressional Regulation Office.
Red Tape Rising: Regulation in the Obama Era

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I mean seriously are the American People Gullible enough to but this Crap?

They've been buying these polished turds for decades. It isn't going to change any time soon.

 

[Jarhead]

You know...I gotta say I really love this meme that President Obama, who has presided over 22 months of job gains is doing poorly (according to the RWers), but Walker, whose state lost 11,500 jobs in November, is doing a great job.

Dont you get it?

If I go out and earn $100 dollars and then spend $200 dollars and someone asks how I am doing financially and I tell them "great, I earned $100 this week"....am I being honest and offering accurate information?

Yes, there were X amount of people hired....but at the same time, there were X+Y people that lost their jobs.

So this was not an issue of jobs created by this administration...This is an issue of people replacing other less productive people...and additional ones being laid off.

Yeah, like hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. Wait, I thought RWers liked that sort of thing. Such an enigma ya'll are...truly.

Diversion from the truth..

Here is what is happening...

Company A gets stimulus money.
Company B does not.

Company A now has an unfair advantage...they have the cpaital to underdcut the competition...they have the capital to build up inventory and meet immediate needs whereas company B, who was struggling WITH company A before the stimulus, now has copmpetiion who has an advantage.

So whereas company A and B used to be competing on equal ground, now company B can not compete. So company B lays off...

Company A now has less competition, the capital to meet the demand and so they need to hire.

SO company B lays off 20...and company A hires 10...

And what does the administration say?

10 new jobs created thanks to the stimulus.

You just refuse to look at such logic.

 

[daveman]

Dont you get it?

If I go out and earn $100 dollars and then spend $200 dollars and someone asks how I am doing financially and I tell them "great, I earned $100 this week"....am I being honest and offering accurate information?

Yes, there were X amount of people hired....but at the same time, there were X+Y people that lost their jobs.

So this was not an issue of jobs created by this administration...This is an issue of people replacing other less productive people...and additional ones being laid off.

Yeah, like hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. Wait, I thought RWers liked that sort of thing. Such an enigma ya'll are...truly.

Diversion from the truth..

Here is what is happening...

Company A gets stimulus money.
Company B does not.

Company A now has an unfair advantage...they have the cpaital to underdcut the competition...they have the capital to build up inventory and meet immediate needs whereas company B, who was struggling WITH company A before the stimulus, now has copmpetiion who has an advantage.

So whereas company A and B used to be competing on equal ground, now company B can not compete. So company B lays off...

Company A now has less competition, the capital to meet the demand and so they need to hire.

SO company B lays off 20...and company A hires 10...

And what does the administration say?

10 new jobs created thanks to the stimulus.

You just refuse to look at such logic.

You forgot to mention that Company A is a Dem donor, and a union shop.

 

[freedombecki]

I mean I just have to ask. I sat through the whole state of the Union and really listened. Once again I found myself hearing things that sound great to me from a Man who seems to say one thing and do another.

Are Americans really going to fall for this Illusionist who says one thing while doing another?

He talked about lowering Regulations when he has presided over a massive increase in Regulations.

He Talked about Lowering Taxes, when he wants to Raise them.

He Talked about Energy Security when he blocks Development of our own Resources and Puts off the Keystone Pipe Line for Partisan Political Reasons.

He Talks about working together when he has been one of the most Partisan Presidents ever.

He accuses Republicans of not acting on Jobs when no less than 30 Bills passed in the House are Dead in the Senate because his party controls it.

He opened the speech talking about Iraq and then Telling us were all safer and America is more Respected because of what the Generation that fought there did for us all, when he and his Party Have spent the last 9 Years telling US Iraq made the world hate us, and made us less safe.

I mean seriously are the American People Gullible enough to but this Crap?

Obama thinks his honeyed smarm will fool most of the people most of the time.

Thanks to people like you, Charles Main, Americans will give Obama the:
​

<<<GONG!>>>
that he deserves.
​

 

[Ed Spacer]

​

Most of the libs here havent had to face a hardship.or make it on their own.

Huh? Please dude everyone Faces Hardship. Even Libs. It's how we react to it that matters. Libs want you to react by looking for a hand out from the Government, Conservatives want you to react by looking for a way to help yourself.

Should rephrase myself.what my point was,is that alot of the lib posters have had free college education,handouts,etc,at our expense. Myself?i earned my way through,no grants or college handouts.worked three jobs and paid for my eight years for my masters. Or,they live with their mommies and daddies. Trust me,once the dependant chain is broken,attitudes change drastically.

 

[Jarhead]

Yeah, like hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. Wait, I thought RWers liked that sort of thing. Such an enigma ya'll are...truly.

Diversion from the truth..

Here is what is happening...

Company A gets stimulus money.
Company B does not.

Company A now has an unfair advantage...they have the cpaital to underdcut the competition...they have the capital to build up inventory and meet immediate needs whereas company B, who was struggling WITH company A before the stimulus, now has copmpetiion who has an advantage.

So whereas company A and B used to be competing on equal ground, now company B can not compete. So company B lays off...

Company A now has less competition, the capital to meet the demand and so they need to hire.

SO company B lays off 20...and company A hires 10...

And what does the administration say?

10 new jobs created thanks to the stimulus.

You just refuse to look at such logic.

You forgot to mention that Company A is a Dem donor, and a union shop.

why they got stimulus money is irrelevant.

The fact that some companies got stimulus money while their competitors did not is the iussue at hand.

If company A needs stimulus money it is for one of two reaons

1) Becuase their industry is hurting
2) they have a failed business model

Now...if it is 1, then either all should get or none should get. Otherwise it is creating success for one company at the expense of another...which results in, at best, a wash.

If it is 2, then the stimulus is rewarding a company with a failed business model and that will result in either the ultimate loss of the funds or a temporary sign of success for the company...which is disingenuous at best.

Thus why stimuli such as the recovery act dont work. A universal stimulus, such as a tax break to all, may work....and it doesnt give anyone an unfair advantage...but cherry picking the "winners' is not the type of stimulus that will work.....

But the bottom line....

The satimulus created jobs for companies that receieved the money....but killed jobs for their competitors.

Thus why we hear X amount of jobs created but number of employed nearly 2 million less than before the stimulus.

 

[drsmith1072]

Oh wow! Another deflecting leftist propagandist denier. How quaint. Beam me up Scotty!

Says the troll who has nothing valid to offer. He presented his opinions and made claims. I disagreed with his opinions, presented counter arguments when necessary and asked him for substance to support his claims.

If you have a problem with that then that is something you need to address on your own time.

Basically, his game is to get off some "one-liners".

I liked your post by the way. I would argue that Obama has increased regulations. After we saw what happened on Wall Street, it was high time that regulations were increased.

The problem is that when you write regulations, you either have to be so nuanced that the regulations become toothless or so broad that they affect everybody. The monied interests on Wall Street have the money to adapt to get around the regs. Mom and Pop businesses on Main Street can't be so nimble. As always a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel.

I would argue that the regulations are there but they are necessary since we've seen that the free market will take advantage of every loophole.

I know in some areas regulations have increased but that does not show that obama has drastically incresed the over all number of regulations. That is I asked someon who claimed that he did to prove his argument. He listed only two instances where increased regulations were imposed and that in no way shape or form proves that the overall number of regulations has increased.

BTW I still remember back when rightwingers on this very board tried to blame barney frank for stopping legislation that they claim would have increased regulation on freddie and fannie and prevented the crisis. So I guess arguing in favor of increased regulation is "ok" as long as they can blame democrats for preventing it. LOL

 

[daveman]

Diversion from the truth..

Here is what is happening...

Company A gets stimulus money.
Company B does not.

Company A now has an unfair advantage...they have the cpaital to underdcut the competition...they have the capital to build up inventory and meet immediate needs whereas company B, who was struggling WITH company A before the stimulus, now has copmpetiion who has an advantage.

So whereas company A and B used to be competing on equal ground, now company B can not compete. So company B lays off...

Company A now has less competition, the capital to meet the demand and so they need to hire.

SO company B lays off 20...and company A hires 10...

And what does the administration say?

10 new jobs created thanks to the stimulus.

You just refuse to look at such logic.

You forgot to mention that Company A is a Dem donor, and a union shop.

why they got stimulus money is irrelevant.

The fact that some companies got stimulus money while their competitors did not is the iussue at hand.

If company A needs stimulus money it is for one of two reaons

1) Becuase their industry is hurting
2) they have a failed business model

Now...if it is 1, then either all should get or none should get. Otherwise it is creating success for one company at the expense of another...which results in, at best, a wash.

If it is 2, then the stimulus is rewarding a company with a failed business model and that will result in either the ultimate loss of the funds or a temporary sign of success for the company...which is disingenuous at best.

Thus why stimuli such as the recovery act dont work. A universal stimulus, such as a tax break to all, may work....and it doesnt give anyone an unfair advantage...but cherry picking the "winners' is not the type of stimulus that will work.....

But the bottom line....

The satimulus created jobs for companies that receieved the money....but killed jobs for their competitors.

Thus why we hear X amount of jobs created but number of employed nearly 2 million less than before the stimulus.

None of that matters to the Faithful. GOBAMA!!

 

[Jarhead]

You forgot to mention that Company A is a Dem donor, and a union shop.

why they got stimulus money is irrelevant.

The fact that some companies got stimulus money while their competitors did not is the iussue at hand.

If company A needs stimulus money it is for one of two reaons

1) Becuase their industry is hurting
2) they have a failed business model

Now...if it is 1, then either all should get or none should get. Otherwise it is creating success for one company at the expense of another...which results in, at best, a wash.

If it is 2, then the stimulus is rewarding a company with a failed business model and that will result in either the ultimate loss of the funds or a temporary sign of success for the company...which is disingenuous at best.

Thus why stimuli such as the recovery act dont work. A universal stimulus, such as a tax break to all, may work....and it doesnt give anyone an unfair advantage...but cherry picking the "winners' is not the type of stimulus that will work.....

But the bottom line....

The satimulus created jobs for companies that receieved the money....but killed jobs for their competitors.

Thus why we hear X amount of jobs created but number of employed nearly 2 million less than before the stimulus.

None of that matters to the Faithful. GOBAMA!!

No...it doesnt.

That is why everytime I present this...and this is probably the fourth or fifth time....no one on the left wants to debate it...or even acknowledge it.

Why?

Becuase it makes sense....and it ruins their belief that the stimulus was a success.

 

[Jarhead]

Says the troll who has nothing valid to offer. He presented his opinions and made claims. I disagreed with his opinions, presented counter arguments when necessary and asked him for substance to support his claims.

If you have a problem with that then that is something you need to address on your own time.

Basically, his game is to get off some "one-liners".

I liked your post by the way. I would argue that Obama has increased regulations. After we saw what happened on Wall Street, it was high time that regulations were increased.

The problem is that when you write regulations, you either have to be so nuanced that the regulations become toothless or so broad that they affect everybody. The monied interests on Wall Street have the money to adapt to get around the regs. Mom and Pop businesses on Main Street can't be so nimble. As always a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel.

I would argue that the regulations are there but they are necessary since we've seen that the free market will take advantage of every loophole.

I know in some areas regulations have increased but that does not show that obama has drastically incresed the over all number of regulations. That is I asked someon who claimed that he did to prove his argument. He listed only two instances where increased regulations were imposed and that in no way shape or form proves that the overall number of regulations has increased.

BTW I still remember back when rightwingers on this very board tried to blame barney frank for stopping legislation that they claim would have increased regulation on freddie and fannie and prevented the crisis. So I guess arguing in favor of increased regulation is "ok" as long as they can blame democrats for preventing it. LOL

That is factually incorrect.

Rightwingers on this board complained that Barney Frank refused to heed to the warnings about the impending implosion of FM and FM.

We did not want more regulations on them. We wnated the existing regulations to be enforced....in particular...the regulations that give the federal government the right to monitor their activities seeing as they are federally subsidized.

He refused to do so...and when it was done, he slammed the findings as false and not worthy of consideration.....and I am sure you saw the clip of hiim doing so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, like hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs. Wait, I thought RWers liked that sort of thing. Such an enigma ya'll are...truly.

Diversion from the truth..

Here is what is happening...

Company A gets stimulus money.
Company B does not.

Company A now has an unfair advantage...they have the cpaital to underdcut the competition...they have the capital to build up inventory and meet immediate needs whereas company B, who was struggling WITH company A before the stimulus, now has copmpetiion who has an advantage.

So whereas company A and B used to be competing on equal ground, now company B can not compete. So company B lays off...

Company A now has less competition, the capital to meet the demand and so they need to hire.

SO company B lays off 20...and company A hires 10...

And what does the administration say?

10 new jobs created thanks to the stimulus.

You just refuse to look at such logic.

You forgot to mention that Company A is a Dem donor, and a union shop.

That would be obvious from the fact that Company A got stimulus money.