Are conservatives backing the wrong party?

[captaingeech]

So, let's see if I get this right....

The OP makes a claim, supported by nothing more than a piece form a biased far left wing apparatchik from CCCPNBC, yet the rest of us, per item #3 in the silly OP, are supposed to refute the obvious propaganda with verifiable facts?

Mmmmmmmmmmkaaay.

I cited my source. She cited her source. Her source in turn cited their sources. The only one here not citing a source... is you.

 

[Oddball]

Right....One leftist loon cites another leftist loon, and that's "proof".

You really suck at this, dude.

 

[captaingeech]

Right....One leftist loon cites another leftist loon, and that's "proof".

You really suck at this, dude.

I provided my sources:

PolitiFact | Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs

www.presidentialdebt.org

presidential debts cites:


Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis Historical Income Tables - People - U.S Census Bureau
Population Estimates Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
US & World Population Clock

Now explain to me how the U.S. census bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis are leftist loon cites. If you are suggesting that facts have a liberal bias, then I must agree with you.

Now, provide a source that contradicts my cited facts, or (here's a thought) actually look at my sources and explain to me why they are innaccurate.

 

[Oddball]

Presidents don't create jack squat.....Entrepreneurs and businesspeople create jobs.

The best any politician can do is get their know-nothing ass out of the way.

As for running up the gubmint debt, congress has a big hand in that as well.

 

[Christopher]

First of all, you didn't back up your opinion with any facts just now. Secondly, Maddow reported on a chart created by presidentialdebt.org. If you want to challenge the data, you should be targeting this website, not Maddow. It would be even better if you looked up the facts for yourself, and used hard evidence on which to base your argument.

But since you did not, it creates the impression that you are unable to do so.

Opinion...?? And let me guess, any links stating that Maddow is indeed a winger, you would dismiss... It is about as well known that she is an ideological extremist entertainer, just like Michael Savage is on the other side.

The fact is, I do not cite any winger links from either side, choosing to stay with sources which are generally considered to be mainstream and factual. You do not see me citing Fox opinion pieces, nor citing MSNBC opinion pieces. You do not see me citing blogs as fact.

And the fact that Maddow herself uses winger sources should tell you something. I suggest using the actual non-polished data from the governmental sources themselves if you want to produce jobs or economic data.

Until you use any credible information, source, or data, you will not be taken seriously at all. What next? reaganbushdebt.org like one of our other resident lying wingers tries to use?

I'm not seeing you cite any sources whatsoever. This makes it seem like you have no facts to back up your claims. Prove me wrong.

I'll give you a leg up:
Rachel Maddow created a chart using information from www.presidentialdebt.org
In turn, www.presidentialdebt.org cites the following as its sources
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis Historical Income Tables - People - U.S Census Bureau
Population Estimates Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

It is the interpretation of facts where things get tricky and Maddow spins facts to suit her position quite often, just as there are those on the right who do as well.

Any number of facts can be used in support of a particular position, yet if the entire context and explanations that accompany these facts are not provided, the real truth can be lost. For instance, instead of just providing a chart showing debt per president, a thorough analysis should be provided to show all the major reasons for the debt increases under each president.

Instead, Maddow incorrectly attributes all blame for the largest debt increases on Republican presidents not to mention she incorrectly assumes it was all because of tax cuts, without providing the full context of what actually caused the debt and that Congress had as much if not more blame to share in this.

 

[Frankly]

Not one meaningful substantial Conservative response. Hmmm.

BTW, I am as liberal as they get and that woman annoys me. She is as biased for liberals as Fox News is for conservatives.

She did make a valid point though and I would love to see a Republican based response.

"Voodoo Economics" hehehe. That's funny

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not one meaningful substantial Conservative response. Hmmm.

BTW, I am as liberal as they get and that woman annoys me. She is as biased for liberals as Fox News is for conservatives.

She did make a valid point though and I would love to see a Republican based response.

"Voodoo Economics" hehehe. That's funny

Are all Progressives ******* retards?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-backing-the-wrong-party-3.html#post2549932

 

[Defiant1]

Not one meaningful substantial Conservative response. Hmmm.

BTW, I am as liberal as they get and that woman annoys me. She is as biased for liberals as Fox News is for conservatives.

She did make a valid point though and I would love to see a Republican based response.

"Voodoo Economics" hehehe. That's funny

Are all Progressives ******* retards?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-backing-the-wrong-party-3.html#post2549932

I don't think so. I they were fuckable they would have some usefulness.

 

[geauxtohell]

"Pro-life conservatives" are definitely backing the wrong party. I am not saying they would be better represented by the DEMs, just that they are not being represented at all by the GOP.

They should form their own party and see if they gain sufficient momentum to overturn Roe. It's the only way it's going to happen.

 

[Truthmatters]

I ask this question only in light of two recent pieces of information I stumbled upon:

PolitiFact | Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs

Rachel Maddow Show

(this one gets good about 6 min. in when she shows the chart)

1.Please focus the discussion on jobs and the deficit, otherwise the arguments might stray too far from the original point.
2. Please view the above links before responding to make your response as relevant to the discussion as possible
3. Please support your arguments with evidence, and don't let this degrade into name calling. You embarrass only yourself.

You are really a oneder.

Sorry couldnt resist

 

[Jon]

Yes, conservatives are supporting the wrong party. So are liberals. Next question.

 

[daveman]

1.Please focus the discussion on jobs and the deficit, otherwise the arguments might stray too far from the original point.
2. Please view the above links before responding to make your response as relevant to the discussion as possible
3. Please support your arguments with evidence, and don't let this degrade into name calling. You embarrass only yourself.

Sheesh. You could have had just one rule:

"Everybody must agree with me."

 

[captaingeech]

Opinion...?? And let me guess, any links stating that Maddow is indeed a winger, you would dismiss... It is about as well known that she is an ideological extremist entertainer, just like Michael Savage is on the other side.

The fact is, I do not cite any winger links from either side, choosing to stay with sources which are generally considered to be mainstream and factual. You do not see me citing Fox opinion pieces, nor citing MSNBC opinion pieces. You do not see me citing blogs as fact.

And the fact that Maddow herself uses winger sources should tell you something. I suggest using the actual non-polished data from the governmental sources themselves if you want to produce jobs or economic data.

Until you use any credible information, source, or data, you will not be taken seriously at all. What next? reaganbushdebt.org like one of our other resident lying wingers tries to use?

I'm not seeing you cite any sources whatsoever. This makes it seem like you have no facts to back up your claims. Prove me wrong.

I'll give you a leg up:
Rachel Maddow created a chart using information from www.presidentialdebt.org
In turn, www.presidentialdebt.org cites the following as its sources
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis Historical Income Tables - People - U.S Census Bureau
Population Estimates Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

It is the interpretation of facts where things get tricky and Maddow spins facts to suit her position quite often, just as there are those on the right who do as well.

Any number of facts can be used in support of a particular position, yet if the entire context and explanations that accompany these facts are not provided, the real truth can be lost. For instance, instead of just providing a chart showing debt per president, a thorough analysis should be provided to show all the major reasons for the debt increases under each president.

Instead, Maddow incorrectly attributes all blame for the largest debt increases on Republican presidents not to mention she incorrectly assumes it was all because of tax cuts, without providing the full context of what actually caused the debt and that Congress had as much if not more blame to share in this.

You make some very good points. I think the best support for that argument would be an example when a democratic majority in Congress pushed something through that added significantly to the national debt without the support of a Republican administration. Even then, it would need the president's signature though. I'm trying to find an example like that, so any help you can lend me would be appreciated.

 

[captaingeech]

I ask this question only in light of two recent pieces of information I stumbled upon:

PolitiFact | Congresswoman says Democratic presidents create more private-sector jobs

Rachel Maddow Show

(this one gets good about 6 min. in when she shows the chart)

1.Please focus the discussion on jobs and the deficit, otherwise the arguments might stray too far from the original point.
2. Please view the above links before responding to make your response as relevant to the discussion as possible
3. Please support your arguments with evidence, and don't let this degrade into name calling. You embarrass only yourself.

First of all your chart is BOGUS. There is absolutely no way that Jimmy Carter had a 2.43% increase in employment during his 4 years.

I know I "survived" the Carter years. Unemployment was at 10%--mortgage interest rates were at 20%. Inflation was over 10%. THOSE ARE THE FACTS of the Carter administration. In fact during Carter they actually invented what was called the "misery" index--.

Barack Obama is well on track to beat the "worst" economic record of Jimmy Carter--with his spending.

No one can borrow and spend their way to prosperity. It doesn't work. It didn't during FDR either. It was WW2 that brought us out of the great depression and nothing else.

I would like to see the sources of your information. I rely on politifact as one of my favorite sources of information, and if they got this wrong I would really like to know. Can you show me what Carter's jobs numbers were at the beginning and end of his administration? I'm not trying to pick an argument. I actually would appreciate any contradicting information, provided you show me your source.

 

[captaingeech]

Presidents don't create jack squat.....Entrepreneurs and businesspeople create jobs.

The best any politician can do is get their know-nothing ass out of the way.

As for running up the gubmint debt, congress has a big hand in that as well.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "With about 2.0 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service, is the Nation's largest employer."

Federal Government

 

[Christopher]

I'm not seeing you cite any sources whatsoever. This makes it seem like you have no facts to back up your claims. Prove me wrong.

I'll give you a leg up:
Rachel Maddow created a chart using information from www.presidentialdebt.org
In turn, www.presidentialdebt.org cites the following as its sources
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis Historical Income Tables - People - U.S Census Bureau
Population Estimates Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

It is the interpretation of facts where things get tricky and Maddow spins facts to suit her position quite often, just as there are those on the right who do as well.

Any number of facts can be used in support of a particular position, yet if the entire context and explanations that accompany these facts are not provided, the real truth can be lost. For instance, instead of just providing a chart showing debt per president, a thorough analysis should be provided to show all the major reasons for the debt increases under each president.

Instead, Maddow incorrectly attributes all blame for the largest debt increases on Republican presidents not to mention she incorrectly assumes it was all because of tax cuts, without providing the full context of what actually caused the debt and that Congress had as much if not more blame to share in this.

You make some very good points. I think the best support for that argument would be an example when a democratic majority in Congress pushed something through that added significantly to the national debt without the support of a Republican administration. Even then, it would need the president's signature though. I'm trying to find an example like that, so any help you can lend me would be appreciated.

Sorry for the late reply, I have been away on business for a while.

The fact is that Maddow did incorrectly attribute all blame for increased debt on tax cuts during Republican terms. She is being dishonest. Not that it is the first time.

One of the largest, if not the largest issue with controlling the debt has to do with entitlement spending. I have not researched it too much, but I tend to think Democrats played a large part in the starting of many entitlement programs. You know, like the health care bill.