Proof That The Right Has Truth On Its Side

[Dale Smith]

Sorry, Camp....but whomever wrote that knocked your dick in the dirt and your lame tactic of simply attacking one of the issues (and even that was lame) just exposes you for being the limp-wristed Fabian socialist that you are. You and your kind are nothing but useful idiots to the globalists that use you like a cheap hooker. Fact!

OK, after the lecture, did you find anything specifically inaccurate or refutations in my comment or any of the ones that followed? I followed the post you quoted with a critique of three more of the ten listed by PC for a total of four of them. I figured I would wait to get specific challenges before going on to the other six.

There was nothing in your fool-fueled rant that was even remotely germane to the situation which is typical because you have no clue as to what is actually going on.......can't make it any clearer than that.

So in other words, you have no refutation or challenge to my post, but in your opinion, it was not germane to the "situation" as you call it.

The poster gave a challenge in listing 10 numbered items that the poster claims were true. I responded to her exact claims made in her post in her own thread. That is what makes my response germane. A direct response to her posting, refuting the very concept or thesis of her thread by refuting her claims one by one.

Nothing to challenge because you can't defend the indefensible........can I be any clearer??

Ya, you can stop the opinionated rhetoric and detail what was inaccurate about the post or any of the ones that followed. It's like this Dale, when you write a thesis and inaccuracies are found the thesis becomes invalid if you are unable to rectify the inaccuracies. The entire thesis becomes contaminated. You declaring something is indefensible without specifying what it is specifically what it is that is indefensible without an explanation is nothing more than deflection and evasion.

You have a big ol bag of nothing but leftwing hyperbole based on nothing but feelings....the actual reality of the situation be damned. Your partisan view of what we are facing is typical and it is flawed in so many ways. My mission here is to try and get everyone that is stuck in this left versus right paradigm to snap out of it....but some of you are hopelessly mired in this shit.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

A smart person would never say what you just posted.

Really? one just did.

Daws apparently doesn't realize the amount of national debt, constant need for budget cuts, and a lack of quality care associated with socialized medicine. Anyone that thinks government can do it better really isn't operating with a ful deck.

Total bullshit.

As much as you love socialized medicine and want to hold onto that view that my response is "bullshit" the reality tells a completely different story. Even years later, since England made the decision to initiated the NHS system, the government there still manages to face those same recurring problems often associated with a government healthcare system - increasing debt, health care cuts, and a struggle to maintain quality care. Engiand is even going as far as looking into the need to once again look to the possibility they may need to privatize healthcare.



Cancer drugs fund cuts 23 treatments - BBC News

Thousands of cancer patients to be denied treatment


Increasing numbers of NHS providers are now facing financial difficulties. In 2011/12, 24 per cent of trusts and foundation trusts overspent. The latest figures for 2014/15 suggest this is likely to increase to between 40 to 50 per cent.
Trusts in deficit


In England the Health and Social Care Act is pushing the NHS towards becoming a full-scale market where private companies bid to provide services. Although Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have generally avoided taking this path, they are still under pressure to privatise services – this pressure is being increased as budgets get tighter.

The NHS in England has been told to find £20bn of cuts by 2015. The government is portraying the cuts as efficiency savings that would be reinvested in patient care. But this is a myth; the treasury took back £1bn of the £1.4bn saved by the NHS in the past year.
Fighting cuts and privatisation in the NHS - UNISON

So what happened? Did they go broke? The article appears to be from 2014. Couldn't find an update.

Tge point has been made pretty clear that, even utilizing 2014 and 2015 figures, a national government healthcare system has seen the same issues of increasing debt, resulting in the need to discuss more cuts, reducing the availability or provision of treatment drugs, and struggling to find quality care. The government system has never seen an improvement to quality care that the patients need. Why else are they entertaining the need for privatization?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Please don't take away their hopes that Hitler was right. They hold on to those stories much like others do of Loch Ness and Bigfoot.

Hitler was a conservative.

Hitler was as much a conservative as he was a supporter of the Jewish culture. You can hang on to your stories all you want, it wont make them true.

Didn't he support a strong military? Didn't he hate pacifism?

Are those liberal traits?

He developed a strong military because he believed he was part of the Third Reich. I'd be quite surprised if you know what was representative by that term, and what Hitler believed by referring to Nazi Germany as such.

somehow----you show up in 'alerts" are responding to me (???) (rosie)
Reich refers to THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. The emperor of the FIRST
REICH WAS CONSTANTINE. ----- HITLER of the "royal house" OF
CONSTANTINE------ (oy vey ) I bet you do not know who authored the first
version of the NUREMBURG LAWS

Rosie. I've had the same happen to me. If you happen to be a much earlier post as part of a long list of replies, your name will still come up even if the post was directly in response to you.

I appreciate your response. The Third Reich was a historical reflection to a list of empires established in conquest. Persian Empire being the first in connecting a multiple world regions, including the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, India, Europe, and the Mediterranean world. The second conquest being that of the Romans which lay claim on a vast majority of Europe, a part of the Middle East, and Northern Africa in encompassing the Mediterranean region. Hitler believed he would build a military force under the belief he would successfully establish the third such Empire to encorproate the same Mediterrianean region as well as extending into parts of Asia, to be referred to in Hitler's perception as the THIRD Reich. Contrary to the views of the previous poster, NY Carbineer and not in reflection of your comment, such a German build up of force, establishing and breaking treaties, and his "blitzkrieg" across Europe, was more geared to his conquering self dominating achievements than some crazy belief it was because he was conservative.

Hitler used the government to influence the German youth through indoctrinating the schools into sharing and supporting government views he was in control of promoting.... hardly conservative at all. The promoting of government views and influencing the youth is found more through liberal professors and colleges in this country with their hopes to shape and change the young minds into promoting and supporting their ideological views.

 

[daws101]

Really? one just did.

Daws apparently doesn't realize the amount of national debt, constant need for budget cuts, and a lack of quality care associated with socialized medicine. Anyone that thinks government can do it better really isn't operating with a ful deck.

Total bullshit.

As much as you love socialized medicine and want to hold onto that view that my response is "bullshit" the reality tells a completely different story. Even years later, since England made the decision to initiated the NHS system, the government there still manages to face those same recurring problems often associated with a government healthcare system - increasing debt, health care cuts, and a struggle to maintain quality care. Engiand is even going as far as looking into the need to once again look to the possibility they may need to privatize healthcare.



Cancer drugs fund cuts 23 treatments - BBC News

Thousands of cancer patients to be denied treatment


Increasing numbers of NHS providers are now facing financial difficulties. In 2011/12, 24 per cent of trusts and foundation trusts overspent. The latest figures for 2014/15 suggest this is likely to increase to between 40 to 50 per cent.
Trusts in deficit


In England the Health and Social Care Act is pushing the NHS towards becoming a full-scale market where private companies bid to provide services. Although Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have generally avoided taking this path, they are still under pressure to privatise services – this pressure is being increased as budgets get tighter.

The NHS in England has been told to find £20bn of cuts by 2015. The government is portraying the cuts as efficiency savings that would be reinvested in patient care. But this is a myth; the treasury took back £1bn of the £1.4bn saved by the NHS in the past year.
Fighting cuts and privatisation in the NHS - UNISON

So what happened? Did they go broke? The article appears to be from 2014. Couldn't find an update.

Tge point has been made pretty clear that, even utilizing 2014 and 2015 figures, a national government healthcare system has seen the same issues of increasing debt, resulting in the need to discuss more cuts, reducing the availability or provision of treatment drugs, and struggling to find quality care. The government system has never seen an improvement to quality care that the patients need. Why else are they entertaining the need for privatization?

Why not, the English are far better and far less paranoid about considering all the possibilities then "we"are.
As "merican"as you claim to be why do you give a fuck what a country that is far more liberal then this one does?
Kinda goes against that rugged individualism shit you clowns constantly spew.

 

[Dale Smith]

You forgot to mention which of these you found untrue:

1. "Intense verbal attacks on police officers labeling them racists who hunt down young black men.

2. A porous southern border where narcotics and human smuggling continue unabated.

3. A stagnant economy where workers have little bargaining power.

4. A growing jihadist terror threat that the Democratic Party refuses to define...not even using the words 'Islamic Terrorism'

5. A Democratic President who, after he announces the beheading of an American citizen by ISIS, goes out to play golf.




6. A culture that now demands political correctness even if it goes against sincerely held religious beliefs.

7. A legal system that may actually harm a business owner if he or she refuses to participate in a gay marriage, or Catholic nuns who don't want to distribute birth control.

8. A press corp that embraces Liberalism and uses its constitutional privilege to diminish non-Liberals who have the temerity to speak out.

9. An education system dominated by Leftist teachers and administrators who impose their view of the world on defenseless children.

10. And a grievance industry promoted by the media thus allowing anti-American zealots to define this country as evil and oppressive, i.e., that America is the real problem in the world."

All of them are either untrue or distortions.
Number #1 is false because it insinuates law enforcement as a whole is being attacked. Limited and selected incidents are being publicized and protested. The numerous indictments, prosecutions, and convictions of bad cops is proof that there is cause for demanding justice regarding unjustified police killings of citizens. The comment qualifies as a distortion and of being factually incorrect. When you pin a large and inclusive group to a comment or comments made by a few random people, you create a misleading distortion.

That isn't what the sponsors of BLM are saying...they are pretty much indicting all law enforcement whether YOU see it that way or not.

 

[Dale Smith]

You forgot to mention which of these you found untrue:

1. "Intense verbal attacks on police officers labeling them racists who hunt down young black men.

2. A porous southern border where narcotics and human smuggling continue unabated.

3. A stagnant economy where workers have little bargaining power.

4. A growing jihadist terror threat that the Democratic Party refuses to define...not even using the words 'Islamic Terrorism'

5. A Democratic President who, after he announces the beheading of an American citizen by ISIS, goes out to play golf.




6. A culture that now demands political correctness even if it goes against sincerely held religious beliefs.

7. A legal system that may actually harm a business owner if he or she refuses to participate in a gay marriage, or Catholic nuns who don't want to distribute birth control.

8. A press corp that embraces Liberalism and uses its constitutional privilege to diminish non-Liberals who have the temerity to speak out.

9. An education system dominated by Leftist teachers and administrators who impose their view of the world on defenseless children.

10. And a grievance industry promoted by the media thus allowing anti-American zealots to define this country as evil and oppressive, i.e., that America is the real problem in the world."

#2 is factually incorrect because of the use of the word "unabated". Not only is it factually untrue, it is an insult to the men and women who serve us on the border and ignores the progress they have made in the last seven years.

You are wrong on this as well. Border patrol has even admitted that they have had to turn illegals go and just two years ago helped them get on buses to be taken to other cities.....how do you not know that?

 

[Dale Smith]

[QUOTE="PoliticalChic, post: 13732601, member: 1


You forgot to mention which of these you found untrue:

1. "Intense verbal attacks on police officers labeling them racists who hunt down young black men.

2. A porous southern border where narcotics and human smuggling continue unabated.

3. A stagnant economy where workers have little bargaining power.

#3 The economy is not stagnant. That is just a plain lie. Maybe in your opinion, it has not improved enough, but that does not interpret into "stagnant". As far as workers losing bargaining power, that can be blamed on the Senate refusing to advise and consent to nominees to head the agencies tasked with protecting workers.[/QUOTE]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

 

[Dale Smith]

4. A growing jihadist terror threat that the Democratic Party refuses to define...not even using the words 'Islamic Terrorism'

One of insidious and insulting of your untrue claims. Because the administration chooses not to use a term that is viewed as insulting and unfair to the global Islamic community you find it as relevant to the war our military is waging, giving no credit to the importance of diplomatic and coalition benefits of not using your preferred term.
Now explain how an enemy being defeated on the battlefield is a "growing threat". Still a significant threat, but your used the word "growing".

But yet this administration has no problem with calling pro-2nd amendment citizens, those that are pro-life, those that are against gay marriage, those that are for third party candidates, returning Vets, anti-U.N as potential extremists but yet can't bring themselves to use the word "muslim" when talking about jihadists that even the FBI says have terrorist cells within this country? So far you are 0 for 4.....,

 

[Dale Smith]

You forgot to mention which of these you found untrue:

1. "Intense verbal attacks on police officers labeling them racists who hunt down young black men.

2. A porous southern border where narcotics and human smuggling continue unabated.

3. A stagnant economy where workers have little bargaining power.

4. A growing jihadist terror threat that the Democratic Party refuses to define...not even using the words 'Islamic Terrorism'

5. A Democratic President who, after he announces the beheading of an American citizen by ISIS, goes out to play golf.




6. A culture that now demands political correctness even if it goes against sincerely held religious beliefs.

7. A legal system that may actually harm a business owner if he or she refuses to participate in a gay marriage, or Catholic nuns who don't want to distribute birth control.

8. A press corp that embraces Liberalism and uses its constitutional privilege to diminish non-Liberals who have the temerity to speak out.

9. An education system dominated by Leftist teachers and administrators who impose their view of the world on defenseless children.

10. And a grievance industry promoted by the media thus allowing anti-American zealots to define this country as evil and oppressive, i.e., that America is the real problem in the world."

All of them are either untrue or distortions.
Number #1 is false because it insinuates law enforcement as a whole is being attacked. Limited and selected incidents are being publicized and protested. The numerous indictments, prosecutions, and convictions of bad cops is proof that there is cause for demanding justice regarding unjustified police killings of citizens. The comment qualifies as a distortion and of being factually incorrect. When you pin a large and inclusive group to a comment or comments made by a few random people, you create a misleading distortion.

Sorry, Camp....but whomever wrote that knocked your dick in the dirt and your lame tactic of simply attacking one of the issues (and even that was lame) just exposes you for being the limp-wristed Fabian socialist that you are. You and your kind are nothing but useful idiots to the globalists that use you like a cheap hooker. Fact!

OK, after the lecture, did you find anything specifically inaccurate or refutations in my comment or any of the ones that followed? I followed the post you quoted with a critique of three more of the ten listed by PC for a total of four of them. I figured I would wait to get specific challenges before going on to the other six.

There was nothing in your fool-fueled rant that was even remotely germane to the situation which is typical because you have no clue as to what is actually going on.......can't make it any clearer than that.

So in other words, you have no refutation or challenge to my post, but in your opinion, it was not germane to the "situation" as you call it.

The poster gave a challenge in listing 10 numbered items that the poster claims were true. I responded to her exact claims made in her post in her own thread. That is what makes my response germane. A direct response to her posting, refuting the very concept or thesis of her thread by refuting her claims one by one.

So far, all I have seen are responses to the first 4 questions are you were woefully inadequate with your replies....care to point me to your answers to the other 6 questions? Bet I will be able to refute those as well...

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I appreciate your response. The Third Reich was a historical reflection to a list of empires established in conquest. Persian Empire being the first in connecting a multiple world regions, including the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, India, Europe, and the Mediterranean world. The second conquest being that of the Romans which lay claim on a vast majority of Europe, a part of the Middle East, and Northern Africa in encompassing the Mediterranean region. Hitler believed he would build a military force under the belief he would successfully establish the third such Empire to encorproate the same Mediterrianean region as well as extending into parts of Asia, to be referred to in Hitler's perception as the THIRD Reich.

Man, that's a load of HORSESHIT, and you're slinging it just like Chica does!

The 1st Reich was the Holy Roman Empire from about ~800 or ~960 to 1806 AD (Papal dependent). The 2nd Reich was the period of the German Empire from 1871-1918. And I think you can guess about the period of the 3rd Reich, 1933-1945.

 

[Never3ndr]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Daws apparently doesn't realize the amount of national debt, constant need for budget cuts, and a lack of quality care associated with socialized medicine. Anyone that thinks government can do it better really isn't operating with a ful deck.

Total bullshit.

As much as you love socialized medicine and want to hold onto that view that my response is "bullshit" the reality tells a completely different story. Even years later, since England made the decision to initiated the NHS system, the government there still manages to face those same recurring problems often associated with a government healthcare system - increasing debt, health care cuts, and a struggle to maintain quality care. Engiand is even going as far as looking into the need to once again look to the possibility they may need to privatize healthcare.



Cancer drugs fund cuts 23 treatments - BBC News

Thousands of cancer patients to be denied treatment


Increasing numbers of NHS providers are now facing financial difficulties. In 2011/12, 24 per cent of trusts and foundation trusts overspent. The latest figures for 2014/15 suggest this is likely to increase to between 40 to 50 per cent.
Trusts in deficit


In England the Health and Social Care Act is pushing the NHS towards becoming a full-scale market where private companies bid to provide services. Although Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have generally avoided taking this path, they are still under pressure to privatise services – this pressure is being increased as budgets get tighter.

The NHS in England has been told to find £20bn of cuts by 2015. The government is portraying the cuts as efficiency savings that would be reinvested in patient care. But this is a myth; the treasury took back £1bn of the £1.4bn saved by the NHS in the past year.
Fighting cuts and privatisation in the NHS - UNISON

So what happened? Did they go broke? The article appears to be from 2014. Couldn't find an update.

Tge point has been made pretty clear that, even utilizing 2014 and 2015 figures, a national government healthcare system has seen the same issues of increasing debt, resulting in the need to discuss more cuts, reducing the availability or provision of treatment drugs, and struggling to find quality care. The government system has never seen an improvement to quality care that the patients need. Why else are they entertaining the need for privatization?

Why not, the English are far better and far less paranoid about considering all the possibilities then "we"are.
As "merican"as you claim to be why do you give a fuck what a country that is far more liberal then this one does?
Kinda goes against that rugged individualism shit you clowns constantly spew.

You liberals sure get all thrown in a tizzy when confronted with facts. I don't support government healthcare and I gave very valid reasons why. I can't help it if you are unable in a likewise manner support your argument with facts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's keep the record straight:

My contention is that Nazis and Fascists are just as much Leftists as Communists and Socialists.

The aims and methods are consubstantial.....and differ only in degree.





Write this down, laminate it for your wallet...and memorize it:
Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, and Fascism are all Leftists political doctrines.....

...not a rightwing credenda among 'em.


Rightwing?
This:
Defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognition that the individual as the most important element of society.

Can I get an 'amen'?

Oh----ok ------that is where you go wrong. ------but, AGAIN---the issue may be
where you go wrong. In the region in which I grew up in the USA------being a
DEMOCRAT meant------"probably a minority group member" -----"pro union"
"anti Mc Carthy" "not anti feeding the poor" "might be accused of being a
"n*&&er lover" or "joo lover"-----by the local wasps and not eligible to join the
local restricted Golf club.

I admit that the groups did change character in the 1960s -------when HIPPIES
blurred the lines and became totalitarian supporters of characters like POL POT----
but voted democrat

I've never gone wrong.

This is my contention, and the fact:
My contention is that Nazis and Fascists are just as much Leftists as Communists and Socialists.

The aims and methods are consubstantial.....and differ only in degree.


The problem was exacerbated in the 60s but began far earlier.


Progressives, Liberals, Democrats authorized the idea of a 'Master Race' long before Hitler did.
...:"the Master Race."

It brings the Nazis to mind.
And it was the plan at the heart of Progressivism, as well.


".... the American experience with eugenics, the “policy science” of creating a master race.
.... it was all the rage in the Progressive Era. Eugenicswas not a fringe movement; it was at the core ofruling-class politics, education, and culture. It was responsible for many of the early experiments in labor regulation. It was the driving force behind marriage licenses,minimum wages,restrictions on opportunities for women, and immigration quotas and controls.

The more I’ve looked into the subject, the more I’m convinced that it is not possible fully to understand the birth of the 20th century Leviathan without an awareness of eugenics. Eugenics was the original sin of the modern state that knows no limits to its power."
Why the Holocaust Should Matter to You | Jeffrey Tucker




Fact is, the Nazis learned eugenics from the American Progressives...

"Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German official and scientists.

Hitler studied American eugenics laws....
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics



Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his“The Case for Sterilization.”
(Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)

German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.


Do you need me to provide the quote where Bill's wife demands to be called a 'Progressive'?


Let's hear no more nonsense about Nazism being rightwing.

Let's hear no more bullshit that's it's not.

Barnard vulgarity.

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.

Hardly , it's best expresses the content of the garbage you post.
People with an aversion to profanity usually have far worse emotional and mental problems.

1. "Hardly , it's best expresses..."
That would be "Hardly, it best expresses...."
Do I make you nervous?

2. It expresses nothing but your upbringing....and, as you began and ended that way, your inability to express any actual point of view.

3. And, btw,,,,both points I've just made about you are the very same I've always had about you.
You are, and always will be, a gutter-level Liberal.
Don't ever change.

 

[NYcarbineer]

....as opposed to Leftist drones, like this one: This was a recent post by an infected Leftist....


"All You Have To Know About Obama

• Best president in over 50 years
• Saved country from Bush Financial Collapse
• Killed America's Enemy #1
• Won 2 landslide elections
• Prevented Iran from amassing nuclear weapons
• Corruption-free administration, compared to Reagan's most corrupt.
• Restored respect for America globally

You still suck at this, and that's why once again I'm kicking your ass up and down the forum."
All You Have To Know About Obama



All lies, bluster and DNC talking points.



Now for truth.

On 3/9, Bill O'Reilly provided a memo which outlined some of the offenses of this President, that has led to the disaffection in the electorate:

1. "Intense verbal attacks on police officers labeling them racists who hunt down young black men.

2. A porous southern border where narcotics and human smuggling continue unabated.

3. A stagnant economy where workers have little bargaining power.

4. A growing jihadist terror threat that the Democratic Party refuses to define...not even using the words 'Islamic Terrorism'

5. A Democratic President who, after he announces the beheading of an American citizen by ISIS, goes out to play golf.




6. A culture that now demands political correctness even if it goes against sincerely held religious beliefs.

7. A legal system that may actually harm a business owner if he or she refuses to participate in a gay marriage, or Catholic nuns who don't want to distribute birth control.

8. A press corp that embraces Liberalism and uses its constitutional privilege to diminish non-Liberals who have the temerity to speak out.

9. An education system dominated by Leftist teachers and administrators who impose their view of the world on defenseless children.

10. And a grievance industry promoted by the media thus allowing anti-American zealots to define this country as evil and oppressive, i.e., that America is the real problem in the world."
O'Reilly: Media Trying to Demean Trump & Supporters With 'Fascist' Talk





And that is, I would say, a pretty well supported explanation of why so many Americans see an avenger in Donald Trump, one who will "stop the madness, and give voice to the millions of angry Americans."


Good job by O'Reilly: succinct, factual and illustrative.

A couple months ago you said there was no such thing as the Right:

There Is No "Far Right" In This Country

 

[PoliticalChic]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

"We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period."

Really?

. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession



Hence, Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

no thanks----BROAD GENERALIZATIONS -----east is east and west is west and
never the twain shall meet------are IDIOT PLATITUDES.

Stalin was left and Adolf was right----------your universe makes no sense

Wrong again.

Stalin and Hitler were both Leftists.

Please don't take away their hopes that Hitler was right. They hold on to those stories much like others do of Loch Ness and Bigfoot.

Hitler self-identified as anti-Marxist, anti- Democratic socialist, anti-liberal, anti-Communist.

We don't need third hand mythology from you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

"We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period."

Really?

. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession



Hence, Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot.

So you acknowledge the damage done by the Republicans taking over the House in 2010.

 

[daws101]

Total bullshit.

As much as you love socialized medicine and want to hold onto that view that my response is "bullshit" the reality tells a completely different story. Even years later, since England made the decision to initiated the NHS system, the government there still manages to face those same recurring problems often associated with a government healthcare system - increasing debt, health care cuts, and a struggle to maintain quality care. Engiand is even going as far as looking into the need to once again look to the possibility they may need to privatize healthcare.



Cancer drugs fund cuts 23 treatments - BBC News

Thousands of cancer patients to be denied treatment


Increasing numbers of NHS providers are now facing financial difficulties. In 2011/12, 24 per cent of trusts and foundation trusts overspent. The latest figures for 2014/15 suggest this is likely to increase to between 40 to 50 per cent.
Trusts in deficit


In England the Health and Social Care Act is pushing the NHS towards becoming a full-scale market where private companies bid to provide services. Although Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have generally avoided taking this path, they are still under pressure to privatise services – this pressure is being increased as budgets get tighter.

The NHS in England has been told to find £20bn of cuts by 2015. The government is portraying the cuts as efficiency savings that would be reinvested in patient care. But this is a myth; the treasury took back £1bn of the £1.4bn saved by the NHS in the past year.
Fighting cuts and privatisation in the NHS - UNISON

So what happened? Did they go broke? The article appears to be from 2014. Couldn't find an update.

Tge point has been made pretty clear that, even utilizing 2014 and 2015 figures, a national government healthcare system has seen the same issues of increasing debt, resulting in the need to discuss more cuts, reducing the availability or provision of treatment drugs, and struggling to find quality care. The government system has never seen an improvement to quality care that the patients need. Why else are they entertaining the need for privatization?

Why not, the English are far better and far less paranoid about considering all the possibilities then "we"are.
As "merican"as you claim to be why do you give a fuck what a country that is far more liberal then this one does?
Kinda goes against that rugged individualism shit you clowns constantly spew.

You liberals sure get all thrown in a tizzy when confronted with facts. I don't support government healthcare and I gave very valid reasons why. I can't help it if you are unable in a likewise manner support your argument with facts.

what facts?
You posted some small exceptions the overall success of "socialized" medicine
Nothing more and as always you attempt to inflate the effect.
Did you conveniently forget how the cost of "private" care had skyrocketed to the point of madness
Before obama was elected?
Facts ! LOL

 

[Never3ndr]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

"We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period."

Really?

. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession



Hence, Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot.

I'm glad you googled numbers that show something to agree with you that didn't even cite its sources (lol). Now, to be sure, median household income has remain relatively stable during Obama's years...which is actually pretty awesome considering the recession that we suffered. As far as an actual breakdown of some numbers:

We will say that the recession started in 2007 and ended in 2010 (I'm using the full period of the recession to show just how drastic and devastating that it was). Using this we see that median household income went from $57,357 to $53,507 a drop of 6.71%. During the rest of his years that we have data for (2010 - 2014) the median household income went from $53,507 to $53,657. A slight increase, but pretty negligible.

Real Median Household Income in the United States

What we see here is that Obama first stabilized the economy and, then, at least according to median income, we can allow that it "stagnated". However, if you couple this knowledge with the knowledge that our real GDP has increased (in my previous link) you realize that the American economy, as a whole, has actually been increasing...so why have we seen the median household incomes "stagnate" during his later years? Simple, income inequality. We have people making more money, but we also have more people that are impoverished. There are a lot of people that are working low skilled jobs with either no opportunity for educating themselves, or an unwillingness to educate themselves. It actually makes a great case for increasing taxes to increase assistance to the impoverished to provide more schooling and / or support for them.

Back to topic, even if you allow that Obama's economy has "stagnated" in his later years (which I don't agree with, but, for simplicity I'll allow here since it ends up being irrelevant), you still see that he brought our economy out from a huge recession into a relatively stable following period, which we commonly refer to as "recovery".

So, outside of googling more unsourced numbers that you can find to agree with your opinion, exactly how do you honestly think that Obama, who brought us from recessions to recovery, has stagnated our economy...we literally went from falling economical numbers to stable or increasing numbers.

At this point I don't think you are maliciously lying...that would be too generous. You must simply be an idiot. Just because you read something that agrees with your opinion doesn't make it true.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The economy is beyond stagnant and so are the wages. A staggering 71 percent of those that even have a job make less than 50k a year. 51 percent make less than 30K a year and 28 percent make less than 20 K a year. We have 93 million people on some type of "gubermint" subsidy....how and the fuck can you even attempt to claim that things are "looking up"?

I'm not sure if you are confused about either the definition of stagnant or the comparison period.

For clarity, the comparison period is 2008-present (Obama's years) and the definition of stagnant is "characterized by lack of development, advancement, or progressive movement".

Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot. We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period. Now, I won't argue that maybe we have "stagnated" within this recovery period, however indicating that Obama's years haven't been beneficial for the economy is about as truthful as saying being shot in the leg didn't hurt.

As reference for economic growth:

U.S. Real GDP - annual growth rate 1990-2015 | Timeline

"We literally went from being in a recession into a recovery period."

Really?

. "Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession
. ...the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey ....indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted)median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession



Hence, Using these commonly understood comparison years and definition...you are either maliciously lying or an idiot.

I'm glad you googled numbers that show something to agree with you that didn't even cite its sources (lol). Now, to be sure, median household income has remain relatively stable during Obama's years...which is actually pretty awesome considering the recession that we suffered. As far as an actual breakdown of some numbers:

We will say that the recession started in 2007 and ended in 2010 (I'm using the full period of the recession to show just how drastic and devastating that it was). Using this we see that median household income went from $57,357 to $53,507 a drop of 6.71%. During the rest of his years that we have data for (2010 - 2014) the median household income went from $53,507 to $53,657. A slight increase, but pretty negligible.

Real Median Household Income in the United States

What we see here is that Obama first stabilized the economy and, then, at least according to median income, we can allow that it "stagnated". However, if you couple this knowledge with the knowledge that our real GDP has increased (in my previous link) you realize that the American economy, as a whole, has actually been increasing...so why have we seen the median household incomes "stagnate" during his later years? Simple, income inequality. We have people making more money, but we also have more people that are impoverished. There are a lot of people that are working low skilled jobs with either no opportunity for educating themselves, or an unwillingness to educate themselves. It actually makes a great case for increasing taxes to increase assistance to the impoverished to provide more schooling and / or support for them.

Back to topic, even if you allow that Obama's economy has "stagnated" in his later years (which I don't agree with, but, for simplicity I'll allow here since it ends up being irrelevant), you still see that he brought our economy out from a huge recession into a relatively stable following period, which we commonly refer to as "recovery".

So, outside of googling more unsourced numbers that you can find to agree with your opinion, exactly how do you honestly think that Obama, who brought us from recessions to recovery, has stagnated our economy...we literally went from falling economical numbers to stable or increasing numbers.

At this point I don't think you are maliciously lying...that would be too generous. You must simply be an idiot. Just because you read something that agrees with your opinion doesn't make it true.

Caught you lying.
This: "....that didn't even cite its sources (lol)."

Of course it did.

I proved the link.


More:
"New estimates derived from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession. During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098). So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama "recovery" began.

Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare.
So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family.

Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009." Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession