One Graph Says It All.

[The Rabbi]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

 

[occupied]

Two lines on a graph do not, in fact, say it all.

 

[Mr. H.]

This'n here speaketh volume...

 

[The Rabbi]

Two lines on a graph do not, in fact, say it all.

Yes they do. But you'd have to be able to read one to tell.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Two lines on a graph do not, in fact, say it all.

Yes they do. But you'd have to be able to read one to tell.

You are not out to inform but to persuade.

The overwhelming majority of Americans repudiate your tactics.

Step along.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

"So this is the only TV show in America where I am quite confident that you, the audience, will share my excitement when I tell you that coming up in our next segment, we have the best graph ever. Best graph ever."
-Rachel Maddow

And I can clearly read that graph you posted. It shows, once again, the white conservatard scumbag better off from the start due to his white privilege, which pervades every single aspect of his life, even the economic conditions during his presidency. His bar goes up, up, up due to continued white privilege, and due to his higher starting point. President Obama, on the other hand, begins at a decidedly lower point, and his line goes down, down, down, due to the lack of white privilege, due to white racism, white oppression, and white anger at the very idea of an African-American serving his nation as its leader.

Apparently you don't quite understand the graph you yourself posted, so I'll make it simple for you: The economy during President Obama's term has been driven into the ground by white racists determined to see him fail. Despite this, it still hasn't completely tanked. Nice try, neo-Nazis.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Hey kids! What time is it? It's Spurious Correlations Time!

[

 

[NYcarbineer]

Two lines on a graph do not, in fact, say it all.

Yes they do. But you'd have to be able to read one to tell.

You can start by proving that the US economy of 1982 is sufficiently similar to the US economy of 2009.

Without that proof your comparison has no merit.

 

[007]

Two lines on a graph do not, in fact, say it all.

Yes they do. But you'd have to be able to read one to tell.

You can start by proving that the US economy of 1982 is sufficiently similar to the US economy of 2009.

Without that proof your comparison has no merit.

No... all we need to know is that Reagan had two degrees in economics, and obama is a little radical community organizer with zero experience at jack shit.

obama is a ideologue that has no fucking CLUE what he's doing as far as how to run a NATION. All he knows is how bad he wants to turn America into a communist shit hole, and he's doing it.

 

[kiwiman127]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Say Rabbi, could you explain your graph? Exactly what is it saying? Does it go about explaining the difference in severity of the economic downturn or how many workers were effected or how many lives were dramatically changed?
Thanks in advance!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes they do. But you'd have to be able to read one to tell.

You can start by proving that the US economy of 1982 is sufficiently similar to the US economy of 2009.

Without that proof your comparison has no merit.

No... all we need to know is that Reagan had two degrees in economics, and obama is a little radical community organizer with zero experience at jack shit.

obama is a ideologue that has no fucking CLUE what he's doing as far as how to run a NATION. All he knows is how bad he wants to turn America into a communist shit hole, and he's doing it.

So you honestly believe that if John McCain had been elected in 2008, the lines on those two charts would be parallel?

lol, you're profoundly retarded.

 

[KNB]

Do they include the Mujaheddin in that job growth graph? Reagan created jobs for thousands of Muslim terrorists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One graph that says it all...

...AIDs cases in the US after Reagan is elected President:

 

[Indeependent]

Bi-partisan...Illegals, off-shoring, business-visas.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do they include the Mujaheddin in that job growth graph? Reagan created jobs for thousands of Muslim terrorists.

Seriously what they need to do with those two graphs is factor in the difference between the number of cyclical labor intensive manufacturing operations in the US in 1982 vs. 2009.

That would be for starters.

Secondly they need to factor in the difference between the number of GOVERNMENT jobs created during the Reagan presidency vs. the number of government jobs lost during the Obama presidency.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's some graphs for you

Eating beef causes you to be hit by lightning.

Nicolas Cage in films causes women to become editors of the Harvard Law Review.

Margarine causes divorces!

It's easier to get a sociology doctorate when space shuttles take off.

You can have honey or pot, but not both

the high price of potato chips leads people to alcohol.

 

[The Rabbi]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Hey kids! What time is it? It's Spurious Correlations Time!

[

^^Can't read graph.

 

[The Rabbi]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Say Rabbi, could you explain your graph? Exactly what is it saying? Does it go about explaining the difference in severity of the economic downturn or how many workers were effected or how many lives were dramatically changed?
Thanks in advance!

Pretty simple, even for you.
Reagan's policies involved permanently changing tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and reducing regulation growth.
Obama's policies involved temporary targeted tax credits, massive deficit spending, and crony capitalism.
We see which policy produced actual growth.

You understand that the more severe the downturn, the more robust the recovery, right?
Economist's View: Why There Is No ?V? Rebound This Time

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, a bunch of leftist know nothings chiming in to prove my point they cannot read a chart.

 

[Mr. H.]

Libs can't read graphs so they wont get it.

Hey kids! What time is it? It's Spurious Correlations Time!

[

And since Republicans don't believe in science, that graphic is proof that the blood of those innocents is on the hands of Liberals.