Face it Conservorinos..Obama's doing a good job.

[Uncensored2008]

False. Nothing about job growth necessitates a manufactuing base of any kind.
Why are 'forward thinking' people like you so stuck in the 50s?

50's?

They're stuck in 1917.

This is all the "GLORIOUS PEOPLES REVOLUTION" to the left.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I agree. The Right will find fault w/ anything he does.

You've got cum on you chin, Scheiß Maus.

 

[Synthaholic]

Funny, how on another board, when I point this exact problem with figuring true unemployment, during the Bush era, many there..yourself included, laughed that off.

Sure we did, monkey boi.

So who were you on AWE? Kimmy?

Are you the new forum moron?

 

[Sallow]

Funny, how on another board, when I point this exact problem with figuring true unemployment, during the Bush era, many there..yourself included, laughed that off.

Sure we did, monkey boi.

So who were you on AWE? Kimmy?

Are you the new forum moron?

Sorta.

Insults first. Gets upset when he/she gets insulted back. Then starts ranting that there is no intelligent debate.

No much to see here.

Typical marshmallow..with a very soft center.

 

[Sallow]

No. The one who fails to recall it correctly is YOU. The one eating words would be you. No doubt about it. But, it is possible that you merely suffer from a convenient (wrong) memory.

In that limited sense, I actually regret calling you a "liar." But you ARE, nonetheless, wrong.

The point of the discussion at the other place was (and, yes, this is based on my own memory: I don't save all this stuff) that the COMPARISON of unemployment rates was bullshit if AT ONE POINT (like say, during the Clinton Administration) the "numbers" are limited to JUST the guys presently seeking but unable to find work BUT AT THE OTHER POINT (i.e., during the Bush Administration) the numbers ALSO, suddenly, "include" those who have lost hope and given up.

I called bullshit on you guys for not being willing to ADMIT that the comparisons were fishy.

What's NOW funny is that, when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly you guys recognize that the comparisons are bogus. How convenient.

You may have a faulty memory. So, you should stop pretending that you have a pretty good one. Carby is a liar. Track record.

Um...okay.

Not going to get in a pissing match over a he said she said thing.

Bottom line the way unemployment is presented is the exact same way it was during the Bush administration. Many economists were saying it was far worse..and I for one believed them. Part of the reason it's made some dramatic bounces after 2009, is that people who were not counted as unemployed, started looking for work again..and tried to get benefits. Some of these people were using property they owned like ATMs, to keep from going on unemployment or trying to start businesses. A good many of them also moved back in with their parents. The latest monthly issue of AARP had an article about that.

I would agree that the way unemployment gets scored should change..but I question the motivations behind some who say that change should occur right now.

You DID get into a pissing match about he said/he said.

That aside, I am not disputing that the numbers -- as presented -- are cooked in the same way now as they were in the prior administration. What I previously said was that the comparisons being offered as between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration compared different things.

It wold be helpful to an honest present day public discussion of our economic problems if everyone would get on the same ******* page in the use of terms. HOWEVER, if your concern is that such a "change" (now) would make President Obama look bad UNFAIRLY, then I sympathize and agree with you. The remedy is to make sure that the figures used for comparisons between his numbers and those of the past utilize the same economic factors. Thus, if we wish to discuss the "unemployment figures," we should use the SAME definition of "unemployment" for present purposes as for past purposes.

Well I would agree with most of this..and would like to point out that President Obama took the wars being funded as "Supplemental Emergency Spending" and put it back into the General budget. He got hammered for the numbers. Politically that was a stupid thing to do..but in terms of facing the reality of the true deficit/budget..it was the right way to go.

You can take it from there..

 

[Claudette]

Well, to all those singing OL'BO's praises:

I think he sucks big time as the POTUS.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Ahh, stabbing an ally in the back , meeting with a group who has terror -ties is a work in progress for libs. [/B]

Heh.

Tax cut were "shoved" down the throats of Americans too..and with greater consequences. I like when stuff passes that actually helps Americans NOT DIE. Unlike Conservatives..who want the people not in the Elite club to die quickly..like Jan Brewer..when she directly caused the deaths of 2 red blooded Americans.

Commies hate Americans.

You are right commies hate Americans, then why do the liberals love commies?

 

[Sallow]

Ahh, stabbing an ally in the back , meeting with a group who has terror -ties is a work in progress for libs. [/B]

Heh.

Tax cut were "shoved" down the throats of Americans too..and with greater consequences. I like when stuff passes that actually helps Americans NOT DIE. Unlike Conservatives..who want the people not in the Elite club to die quickly..like Jan Brewer..when she directly caused the deaths of 2 red blooded Americans.

Commies hate Americans.

You are right commies hate Americans, then why do the liberals love commies?

Which is why Kennedy and Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam..and Kennedy was assassinated by a commie.

<= This way to the hyperbole.

 

[Synthaholic]

Um...okay.

Not going to get in a pissing match over a he said she said thing.

Bottom line the way unemployment is presented is the exact same way it was during the Bush administration. Many economists were saying it was far worse..and I for one believed them. Part of the reason it's made some dramatic bounces after 2009, is that people who were not counted as unemployed, started looking for work again..and tried to get benefits. Some of these people were using property they owned like ATMs, to keep from going on unemployment or trying to start businesses. A good many of them also moved back in with their parents. The latest monthly issue of AARP had an article about that.

I would agree that the way unemployment gets scored should change..but I question the motivations behind some who say that change should occur right now.

You DID get into a pissing match about he said/he said.

That aside, I am not disputing that the numbers -- as presented -- are cooked in the same way now as they were in the prior administration. What I previously said was that the comparisons being offered as between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration compared different things.

It wold be helpful to an honest present day public discussion of our economic problems if everyone would get on the same ******* page in the use of terms. HOWEVER, if your concern is that such a "change" (now) would make President Obama look bad UNFAIRLY, then I sympathize and agree with you. The remedy is to make sure that the figures used for comparisons between his numbers and those of the past utilize the same economic factors. Thus, if we wish to discuss the "unemployment figures," we should use the SAME definition of "unemployment" for present purposes as for past purposes.

Well I would agree with most of this..and would like to point out that President Obama took the wars being funded as "Supplemental Emergency Spending" and put it back into the General budget. He got hammered for the numbers. Politically that was a stupid thing to do..but in terms of facing the reality of the true deficit/budget..it was the right way to go.

You can take it from there..

You give him too much credit.

 

[Sallow]

You DID get into a pissing match about he said/he said.

That aside, I am not disputing that the numbers -- as presented -- are cooked in the same way now as they were in the prior administration. What I previously said was that the comparisons being offered as between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration compared different things.

It wold be helpful to an honest present day public discussion of our economic problems if everyone would get on the same ******* page in the use of terms. HOWEVER, if your concern is that such a "change" (now) would make President Obama look bad UNFAIRLY, then I sympathize and agree with you. The remedy is to make sure that the figures used for comparisons between his numbers and those of the past utilize the same economic factors. Thus, if we wish to discuss the "unemployment figures," we should use the SAME definition of "unemployment" for present purposes as for past purposes.

Well I would agree with most of this..and would like to point out that President Obama took the wars being funded as "Supplemental Emergency Spending" and put it back into the General budget. He got hammered for the numbers. Politically that was a stupid thing to do..but in terms of facing the reality of the true deficit/budget..it was the right way to go.

You can take it from there..

You give him too much credit.

Just doing my best to be reasonable..

 

[Synthaholic]

Well I would agree with most of this..and would like to point out that President Obama took the wars being funded as "Supplemental Emergency Spending" and put it back into the General budget. He got hammered for the numbers. Politically that was a stupid thing to do..but in terms of facing the reality of the true deficit/budget..it was the right way to go.

You can take it from there..

You give him too much credit.

Just doing my best to be reasonable..

Reasonable is a Liberal thing.

 

[Avatar4321]

You give him too much credit.

Just doing my best to be reasonable..

Reasonable is a Liberal thing.

Right....

 

[Dot Com]

You've got cum on you chin, Scheiß Maus.

typical content-free post from the above rightie.

You give him too much credit.

Just doing my best to be reasonable..

Reasonable is a Liberal thing.

Liberals don't call the gov't illegitimate, when they lose elections, w/ the exception of Bu$h II being "installed" by the courts.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You've got cum on you chin, Scheiß Maus.

typical content-free post from the above rightie.

Just doing my best to be reasonable..

Reasonable is a Liberal thing.

Liberals don't call the gov't illegitimate, when they lose elections, w/ the exception of Bu$h II being "installed" by the courts.

Ok... that's rich.

Loon alert!

 

[Liability]

You DID get into a pissing match about he said/he said.

That aside, I am not disputing that the numbers -- as presented -- are cooked in the same way now as they were in the prior administration. What I previously said was that the comparisons being offered as between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration compared different things.

It wold be helpful to an honest present day public discussion of our economic problems if everyone would get on the same ******* page in the use of terms. HOWEVER, if your concern is that such a "change" (now) would make President Obama look bad UNFAIRLY, then I sympathize and agree with you. The remedy is to make sure that the figures used for comparisons between his numbers and those of the past utilize the same economic factors. Thus, if we wish to discuss the "unemployment figures," we should use the SAME definition of "unemployment" for present purposes as for past purposes.

Well I would agree with most of this..and would like to point out that President Obama took the wars being funded as "Supplemental Emergency Spending" and put it back into the General budget. He got hammered for the numbers. Politically that was a stupid thing to do..but in terms of facing the reality of the true deficit/budget..it was the right way to go.

You can take it from there..

You give him too much credit.

If anybody give you ANY credit, they are beyond stupid, Simpleholic.

Notice how Sallow offers a pithy one liner but fails to even attempt to provide support (much less a link).

As bad as he is at that kind of thing, he still has you beat a million to one.

It was a bullshit political move by the President anyway. What he wanted to do was to make it appear that the cost of fighting wars is a part of the normal budgetary "process." In fact, of course, such budgeting had normally been put into a supplemental bill NOT (as he falsely maintained) to hide the true costs of the war, but to properly reflect the fact that such costs are not part of the normal budgetary process. Nobody thereby was hiding or even attempting to hide the cost of the war. That was just President Obama being a sanctimonious asshat liar. Ho hum.

If the normal budget was X and the Supplemental War budget was Y, then every ******* person in the universe knew the total budget was X+Y. ****. One would have to be as stupid as Simpleholic NOT to see that.

 

[Shoobis1]

Despite the rants of the right..President Obama's proved time and time again he can handle it..and with a great amount of grace. He's got it down when it comes to the ridiculous hyperbole..and he does it with style. Although he sometimes infuriates me with his olive branches to the right..gotta say..he's got a lock on keeping his enemies close.

And while I don't think he's charmed, indeed, alot of the work has been tough, he's been able to keep above the fray.

So 2012 looks like it's going to be a lock. Even my conservative friends are grudgingly admitting to that.

2012 is anything but a lock. It's way too early to say that. Let's wait and see who the other candidate is, at least!

Obama has been doing better lately, and it's because he's appealing to independents rather than the far-left wing of the Democratic Party. This has helped his approval ratings and has helped the country. Still, IMO Obama is a bit shaky. There are a lot of things where he doesn't seem totally competent. He'll do for now, but I'll keep looking for someone better.

 

[Synthaholic]

Well I would agree with most of this..and would like to point out that President Obama took the wars being funded as "Supplemental Emergency Spending" and put it back into the General budget. He got hammered for the numbers. Politically that was a stupid thing to do..but in terms of facing the reality of the true deficit/budget..it was the right way to go.

You can take it from there..

You give him too much credit.

If anybody give you ANY credit, they are beyond stupid, Simpleholic.

Notice how Sallow offers a pithy one liner but fails to even attempt to provide support (much less a link).

As bad as he is at that kind of thing, he still has you beat a million to one.

It was a bullshit political move by the President anyway. What he wanted to do was to make it appear that the cost of fighting wars is a part of the normal budgetary "process." In fact, of course, such budgeting had normally been put into a supplemental bill NOT (as he falsely maintained) to hide the true costs of the war, but to properly reflect the fact that such costs are not part of the normal budgetary process. Nobody thereby was hiding or even attempting to hide the cost of the war. That was just President Obama being a sanctimonious asshat liar. Ho hum.

If the normal budget was X and the Supplemental War budget was Y, then every ******* person in the universe knew the total budget was X+Y. ****. One would have to be as stupid as Simpleholic NOT to see that.

It's not my fault that your reputation as a liar follows you everywhere.

Want to fix it? Stop being a liar.

 

[Liability]

You give him too much credit.

If anybody give you ANY credit, they are beyond stupid, Simpleholic.

Notice how Sallow offers a pithy one liner but fails to even attempt to provide support (much less a link).

As bad as he is at that kind of thing, he still has you beat a million to one.

It was a bullshit political move by the President anyway. What he wanted to do was to make it appear that the cost of fighting wars is a part of the normal budgetary "process." In fact, of course, such budgeting had normally been put into a supplemental bill NOT (as he falsely maintained) to hide the true costs of the war, but to properly reflect the fact that such costs are not part of the normal budgetary process. Nobody thereby was hiding or even attempting to hide the cost of the war. That was just President Obama being a sanctimonious asshat liar. Ho hum.

If the normal budget was X and the Supplemental War budget was Y, then every ******* person in the universe knew the total budget was X+Y. ****. One would have to be as stupid as Simpleholic NOT to see that.

It's not my fault that your reputation as a liar follows you everywhere.

Want to fix it? Stop being a liar.

I have no such reputation,* as you knew when you just lied.

If your worthless life depended on it, you couldn't point to one single "lie" I have supposedly told.

No, Simpleholic. You are just lashing out mindlessly in your prissy petty way because you know you have nothing to support your childish spew here.

There is nothing that will ever repair your pitiable reputation since you are too much of an asshole to realize that you have already fatally shot your own credibility.

Now, hurry back with some proof. You won't. You can't. You are just a liar. End of story.


_____________________
* unless you count the word of a couple of other scummy liars such as you. But since you have absolutely no credibility, your words and the words of those other dishonest fuckwads are just as useless.

 

[Uncensored2008]

2012 is anything but a lock. It's way too early to say that. Let's wait and see who the other candidate is, at least!

If the elections were held today, Obama would lose.

Things can change, but Obama has less than a year and a half, and a lot of ground to cover.

In addition, he continues to play to the far left and thumb his nose at the center. That spells defeat for him. After '94, Clinton moved to the center. Obama has been petulant and thus far has demanded that he well remain on the fringe left.

I don't see him recovering.

 

[driveby]

Despite the rants of the right..President Obama's proved time and time again he can handle it..and with a great amount of grace. He's got it down when it comes to the ridiculous hyperbole..and he does it with style. Although he sometimes infuriates me with his olive branches to the right..gotta say..he's got a lock on keeping his enemies close.

And while I don't think he's charmed, indeed, alot of the work has been tough, he's been able to keep above the fray.

So 2012 looks like it's going to be a lock. Even my conservative friends are grudgingly admitting to that.

Yep, he's doing a good job of sticking his nose in state business with lawsuits and his racial, marxist, pro union opinions.......