Obama is NOT a Good President. So Why Is He Winning With Independents?

[Cuyo]

You do realize those claims have been shout down several times.

Which ones?

All but the DADT one I think.

Sooooo... What of my three links?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...winning-with-independents-22.html#post4922143

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which ones?

All but the DADT one I think.

Sooooo... What of my three links?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...winning-with-independents-22.html#post4922143

As I said I am waiting on Chris, I will deal with you later.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

2 questions.
1. Who was president in 2007? and
2. What was that thing you were saying earlier about how stooooopid liberals are?

Bush
Who was a jr senator in a democratic controlled congress in 2007?

Liberals are stupid.

OH and my source says since 2007

Your source is several years old and covers more of the Bush presidency than it does Obama's. If you ran the numbers from 2009 onward you'd see much better numbers.

In fact, if you started it when this 'Source' was created, you'd most likely see positive numbers.

Actually it's not here is a graph that is within the link

Published Feb 3 2012

 

[Cuyo]

All but the DADT one I think.

Sooooo... What of my three links?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...winning-with-independents-22.html#post4922143

As I said I am waiting on Chris, I will deal with you later.

There's no 'dealing' with Chris or myself. This isn't a debate. You're wrong, the end.

 

[The T]

Sooooo... What of my three links?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...winning-with-independents-22.html#post4922143

As I said I am waiting on Chris, I will deal with you later.

There's no 'dealing' with Chris or myself. This isn't a debate. You're wrong, the end.

Interesting proclimation...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sooooo... What of my three links?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...winning-with-independents-22.html#post4922143

As I said I am waiting on Chris, I will deal with you later.

There's no 'dealing' with Chris or myself. This isn't a debate. You're wrong, the end.

As I said chris needs to provide some links to support his claim Then I will deal with you and I have busted your claim about the source I just posted.
It's not several years old,

 

[Big Fitz]

Sooooo... What of my three links?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...winning-with-independents-22.html#post4922143

As I said I am waiting on Chris, I will deal with you later.

There's no 'dealing' with Chris or myself. This isn't a debate. You're wrong, the end.

I deride your proclamation.

Gonna start putting us in the gulag with all the cool people yet?

 

[Big Fitz]

Bush
Who was a jr senator in a democratic controlled congress in 2007?

Liberals are stupid.

OH and my source says since 2007

Your source is several years old and covers more of the Bush presidency than it does Obama's. If you ran the numbers from 2009 onward you'd see much better numbers.

In fact, if you started it when this 'Source' was created, you'd most likely see positive numbers.

Actually it's not here is a graph that is within the link

Published Feb 3 2012

gads... that graph again? Didn't we just get done debunking that thing?

 

[Cuyo]

As I said I am waiting on Chris, I will deal with you later.

There's no 'dealing' with Chris or myself. This isn't a debate. You're wrong, the end.

As I said chris needs to provide some links to support his claim Then I will deal with you and I have busted your claim about the source I just posted.
It's not several years old,

Ok, hear that whooshing sound? You've missed the point.

Fine, I'm wrong about the age of the article. Who cares? That's really not important. The rest of the position - eg, the relevant ones - ring true.

Chris has stated

GDP has been growing since 2009.
Americans net worth is up $9 trillion dollars since 2009.
Auto sales are up.
Retail sales are up.
Home sales are up.
Unemployment is down.
GM was saved, and is now the number one automaker in the world.

And you bizarrely stated that they've all been debunked (except for the 'DADT one...')

So what part has been debunked, and how?

Take you're time.

I will wait.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your source is several years old and covers more of the Bush presidency than it does Obama's. If you ran the numbers from 2009 onward you'd see much better numbers.

In fact, if you started it when this 'Source' was created, you'd most likely see positive numbers.

Actually it's not here is a graph that is within the link

Published Feb 3 2012

gads... that graph again? Didn't we just get done debunking that thing?

I'm using it to show Cuyo that the source I used is not several years old as he claimed.

 

[Cuyo]

Actually it's not here is a graph that is within the link

Published Feb 3 2012

gads... that graph again? Didn't we just get done debunking that thing?

I'm using it to show Cuyo that the source I used is not several years old as he claimed.

That source is dubious. That graph is the only reference anywhere in the article for anything beyond 2010. In fact there's a 'Comment' on the article dated October 21, 2009.

I never heard of this 'source' before but something doesn't add up.

 

[whitehall]

This is symbolic of the left's willingness to believe propaganda. This is an editorial by a media source called "The Independent View". It is not necessarily the view of independents.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

gads... that graph again? Didn't we just get done debunking that thing?

I'm using it to show Cuyo that the source I used is not several years old as he claimed.

That source is dubious. That graph is the only reference anywhere in the article for anything beyond 2010. In fact there's a 'Comment' on the article dated October 21, 2009.

I never heard of this 'source' before but something doesn't add up.

The graph was published Feb 3 2012 meaning the source is not several years old

I never heard of this 'source' before but something doesn't add up

Ever heard of editing? The webmaster or site owner may revise the information as time goes by. It does happen.

 

[Cuyo]

I'm using it to show Cuyo that the source I used is not several years old as he claimed.

That source is dubious. That graph is the only reference anywhere in the article for anything beyond 2010. In fact there's a 'Comment' on the article dated October 21, 2009.

I never heard of this 'source' before but something doesn't add up.

The graph was published Feb 3 2012 meaning the source is not several years old

I never heard of this 'source' before but something doesn't add up

Ever heard of editing? The webmaster or site owner may revise the information as time goes by. It does happen.

The figure you cited - 'Economy losing 11,000 jobs per day!' - Appears to cover the period of December 2007 - September 2009.

Since the start of this deep recession back in December of 2007 some 7.2 million jobs have been lost in the official BLS reports. The official non-farm employment has dropped from 138 million to 130 million. Think of it this way, for 21 months we have lost on average over 11,000 jobs per day.

Like I said, this is not Obama's economy the author is talking about. Whether or not the article was subsequently edited, the 11,000/day figure was not updated.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That source is dubious. That graph is the only reference anywhere in the article for anything beyond 2010. In fact there's a 'Comment' on the article dated October 21, 2009.

I never heard of this 'source' before but something doesn't add up.

The graph was published Feb 3 2012 meaning the source is not several years old

Ever heard of editing? The webmaster or site owner may revise the information as time goes by. It does happen.

The figure you cited - 'Economy losing 11,000 jobs per day!' - Appears to cover the period of December 2007 - September 2009.

Since the start of this deep recession back in December of 2007 some 7.2 million jobs have been lost in the official BLS reports. The official non-farm employment has dropped from 138 million to 130 million. Think of it this way, for 21 months we have lost on average over 11,000 jobs per day.

Like I said, this is not Obama's economy the author is talking about. Whether or not the article was subsequently edited, the 11,000/day figure was not updated.

No this is Carters economy

 

[Cuyo]

As I said I am waiting on Chris, I will deal with you later.

There's no 'dealing' with Chris or myself. This isn't a debate. You're wrong, the end.

I deride your proclamation.


Gonna start putting us in the gulag with all the cool people yet?

Why do you think you can debate factual data? Causation, fine, but what happened, happened. It's not up for interpretation.

 

[Cuyo]

The graph was published Feb 3 2012 meaning the source is not several years old

Ever heard of editing? The webmaster or site owner may revise the information as time goes by. It does happen.

The figure you cited - 'Economy losing 11,000 jobs per day!' - Appears to cover the period of December 2007 - September 2009.

Since the start of this deep recession back in December of 2007 some 7.2 million jobs have been lost in the official BLS reports. The official non-farm employment has dropped from 138 million to 130 million. Think of it this way, for 21 months we have lost on average over 11,000 jobs per day.

Like I said, this is not Obama's economy the author is talking about. Whether or not the article was subsequently edited, the 11,000/day figure was not updated.

No this is Carters economy

What's with the snarky bullshit? You just got ***** slapped by your own source. You think you can make negate that with a grotesquely unsupported Carter reference?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The figure you cited - 'Economy losing 11,000 jobs per day!' - Appears to cover the period of December 2007 - September 2009.



Like I said, this is not Obama's economy the author is talking about. Whether or not the article was subsequently edited, the 11,000/day figure was not updated.

No this is Carters economy

What's with the snarky bullshit? You just got ***** slapped by your own source. You think you can make negate that with a grotesquely unsupported Carter reference?

You swung and slapped yourself. obama has been president for three years nothing he has done has worked so it's his failing economy./

 

[Cuyo]

No this is Carters economy

What's with the snarky bullshit? You just got ***** slapped by your own source. You think you can make negate that with a grotesquely unsupported Carter reference?

You swung and slapped yourself. obama has been president for three years nothing he has done has worked so it's his failing economy./

Ahh yes, very clever, what you did there. You took what just happened... To YOU... And claimed that it happened... To ME! Brilliant! I used to do something like that in grade school.

Maybe the economy sucks because it was shedding 11,000 jobs a day when Obama took office (Thanks for the link, btw)? Hell of an improvement since then. But you'll never see it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What's with the snarky bullshit? You just got ***** slapped by your own source. You think you can make negate that with a grotesquely unsupported Carter reference?

You swung and slapped yourself. obama has been president for three years nothing he has done has worked so it's his failing economy./

Ahh yes, very clever, what you did there. You took what just happened... To YOU... And claimed that it happened... To ME! Brilliant! I used to do something like that in grade school.

Maybe the economy sucks because it was shedding 11,000 jobs a day when Obama took office? Hell of an improvement since then. But you'll never see it.

Are you still dingy from hitting yourself> This is obama's economy the man child needs to take responsibility