Obama'sAdministration

[FL Turbo]

Obama's Administration
15 Facts That Even Obama's Biggest Supporters Should Be Able To Admit
Are True

Conservatives and liberals may disagree on reasons, motivations, and
excuses for Barack Obama's performance, but the facts are still facts.
There may be many reasons that a pro football coach goes 1-15, but
everyone can agree that his record is still 1-15, right? Well, here
are some basic facts about how the country is faring with Barack Obama
in the White House. Take a look at the numbers, sans commentary, and
make your own judgment about whether Barack Obama deserves another
term in office.

1) Real median household income is down $4300 since Obama took office.

2) The percentage of unemployed workers who've been out of a job for
more than a year is over 30%.

3) The country has had the longest streak of +8% unemployment since
the Depression under Obama: 39 months and counting.

4) In 2011 under Barack Obama, nearly one out of every seven Americans
was on food stamps. That's a 70 percent increase from 2007.

5) Fifty percent of new college graduates are underemployed or
unemployed.

6) U.S. home ownership is at a decade long low. So is the number of
Americans who say their home is worth more than they paid for it. Home
prices are the lowest they've been since 2002.

7) Barack Obama ended NASA's manned space program.

8) Going into this election cycle, Barack Obama had raised more money
from Wall Street than any President in history. He has also raised
more money from Wall Street than all of the GOP presidential
contenders combined in this election cycle.

9) Under Barack Obama's leadership, the last time Harry Reid and the
Senate Democrats passed a budget was April 9, 2009.

10) Barack Obama's budget was defeated 414-0 in the House and 99-0 in
the Senate.

11) When he was running for President in 2008, Barack Obama pledged
not to raise taxes on families making less than 250,000 dollars per
year. He broke that promise with the tanning salon tax and with
Obamacare, which raises almost 500 billion dollars in new taxes, a
significant portion of which would be paid by people making less than
250,000 dollars per year.

12) When Barack Obama took office, gas was $1.95 per gallon. Today gas
is $3.72 per gallon.

13) In February of this year, the federal government had a 229 billion
dollar deficit. That was the largest deficit in the history of the
United States.

14) America lost its AAA credit rating (which it had held since 1917)
on Obama's watch despite the fact that Timothy Geithner publicly said
there was "no risk" of that happening.

15) Barack Obama added more to the debt in just 38 months than George
Bush did in two full terms as President.


--------------------------------------------------------------
If you voted for Obama to prove you weren't a Raaaaqavicist, you have
to vote for the Repo candidate to prove you aren't Stupid.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 01:07:51 -0500, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
wrote:

>Obama's Administration
>15 Facts That Even Obama's Biggest Supporters Should Be Able To Admit
>Are True
>
>Conservatives and liberals may disagree on reasons, motivations, and
>excuses for Barack Obama's performance, but the facts are still facts.
>There may be many reasons that a pro football coach goes 1-15, but
>everyone can agree that his record is still 1-15, right?

Thank you for exposing the obvious flaw in your reasoning so early in
the post. You want to pin the blame on the coach with no examination
of the actual reasons for the team's poor performance. This is the
typical right-wing bumper sticker mentality. You can win the
argument if you can prevent your opponent from actually thinking.

[brewmaster]

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that Bush fucked things up so bad that the self-proclaimed 3rd best president in history couldn't improve things at all over a full term in office?

[brewmaster]

I'm not making up a position for you PP, just wondering what your point is.

[da pickle]

Turbo may intend for the reader to "assume" that he is trying to "pin
the blame on the coach" (which Pepe apparently assumes) but that is not
what the post means (IMO). Turbo specifically says, folks on both sides
may disagree on the "reasons" (i.e. one might "pin the blame" on anyone
anyone wants to pin it on) but there are no "actual reasons" ... only
assumed ones.

It is interesting to see what people "assume" in these types of
presentations. The recent explosion by the Vice President about "They
just don't get us!" is a recent example of this phenomena.

[Mossingen]

I'm glad he axed the NASA program. He should axe NASA entirely because it
is a huge waste of money. Some of that is just ridiculous to suggest that
the President has control over (e.g., the price of a gallon of gas,
employment for college kids).

It sounds like you got this list from one of Hannity's guests. I forget his
name, but he's some smug-sounding economist who trots out these facts on
Hannity's radio show, predicting gloom and doom.

I'd like to ask him and you, if you went back in time and you were President
Obama on inauguration day, what would you have done differently? Even
fiscal conservatives like mo charles did not object to the massive spending,
at least to the extent that it bailed out the investment banks and saved
everyone's retirement accounts. What about GM? Let it collapse?

The debt is troubling, but I'd like for at least one conservative to
actually say what he would have done differently and what the consequences
would have been. They would have been dire if the government did nothing
and let it collapse (as I recommended). Instead of ankle-biting now about
NASA and $3.70 gas prices, you'd be talking about real problems in this
country and the possibility of the collapse of the social structure.

Here's a stat for you: When President Obama took office, the DOW was
7,949.09. After his third full year in office, it was 12,720.48. If you,
Hannity, and the other conservatives had any faith in this country you would
have invested in industrial stocks and made 60% under Obama. The industrial
strength of the country is fine despite the debt. Why is that?

[Mossingen]

brewmaster wrote:


> I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that Bush fucked
> things up so bad that the self-proclaimed 3rd best president in history
> couldn't improve things at all over a full term in office?

DOW on inauguration day: 7,949.09
DOW three years later: 12,720.48

That is an increase of 60% under Obama.

[Mossingen]

Yes, but in the list that Francis presented it had things like cutting the
NASA manned space program. That's cutting wasteful government spending, is
it not? It's odd that such a thing would be included.

If I was a partisan and could scour government statistics in order to make a
sitting President look bad, I doubt that I would have any trouble doing that
with any President during any term. For the most part, the stats in the
list are not that dire. Not desirable, but hardly cause for hand-wringing
when the DOW is up over 60% during the same time period.

[ramashiva]

On May 21, 7:51 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:

> brewmaster wrote:

> > I don't understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that Bush fucked
> > things up so bad that the self-proclaimed 3rd best president in history
> > couldn't improve things at all over a full term in office?

> DOW on inauguration day:  7,949.09
> DOW three years later:  12,720.48

And of course, the moronic brownshirt fucks NEVER acknowledge that
BEFORE Obama was inaugurated, the deficit for FY 2009 (October 2008 to
October 2009) was projected to be $1.3 trillion. That was baked into
the cake before Obama ever took office. Since it has been impossible
to get ANY tax increases or spending cuts through Congress, there has
been absolutely nothing that Obama could have done to reduce the
deficits in subsequent years.

> That is an increase of 60% under Obama.

Osama bin Laden is dead.

General Motors is alive.

Mitt Romney is toast.


William "The Life" Coleman (ramashiva)

[da pickle]

James, the "industrial strength" of our country is not "fine" ... in my
opinion.

I wish I could say that someone will save us, but it is as unlikely as
saying someone should have saved the Roman Empire. They come ... they
go. We are not gone yet, but we will go ... they all do.

You are correct, the "social structure" is well on the way to "collapse"
... are you interested in how it might be diverted from that collapse?
I am.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 03:59:37 -0700 (PDT), brewmaster
<agilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 21, 2012 12:04:06 AM UTC-7, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 01:07:51 -0500, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Obama's Administration
>> >15 Facts That Even Obama's Biggest Supporters Should Be Able To Admit
>> >Are True
>> >
>> >Conservatives and liberals may disagree on reasons, motivations, and
>> >excuses for Barack Obama's performance, but the facts are still facts.
>> >There may be many reasons that a pro football coach goes 1-15, but
>> >everyone can agree that his record is still 1-15, right?
>>
>> Thank you for exposing the obvious flaw in your reasoning so early in
>> the post. You want to pin the blame on the coach with no examination
>> of the actual reasons for the team's poor performance. This is the
>> typical right-wing bumper sticker mentality. You can win the
>> argument if you can prevent your opponent from actually thinking.
>
>I don't understand what you are saying.

I'm saying Turbo's argument doesn't hold water.

>Are you saying that Bush fucked things up so bad that the self-proclaimed 3rd best president in history couldn't improve things at all over a full term in office?

I wasn't asserting that, but it's absolutely a possibility that can't
be dismissed based on Turbo's poor excuse for an argument.

[Pepe Papon]

I was assuming that Turbo was trying to make some kind of point. If
his point was not to blame Obama, then it's hard to fathom what he was
getting at.

[Pepe Papon]

The economy wasn't hemorrhaging jobs at an increasing rate when Obama
stepped in, and that rate didn't reverse when he took office. The
economy also didn't start growing, and jobs didn't start being added
during his term.

The right wing's big economic argument depends on disingenuously
blaming Obama for the job losses from January-July, 2009. That's
like hiring a guy to fix a dam and then blaming him for the water that
escapes during construction.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:49:15 -0500, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>I'd like to ask him and you, if you went back in time and you were President
>Obama on inauguration day, what would you have done differently?

More tax cuts for the rich, of course. After all, it's worked so
well in the past.

> Even
>fiscal conservatives like mo charles did not object to the massive spending,
>at least to the extent that it bailed out the investment banks and saved
>everyone's retirement accounts. What about GM? Let it collapse?

That's what Mitt Romney would have done, although he's now trying to
take credit for not letting it collapse. Romnesia!

>The debt is troubling, but I'd like for at least one conservative to
>actually say what he would have done differently and what the consequences
>would have been. They would have been dire if the government did nothing
>and let it collapse (as I recommended). Instead of ankle-biting now about
>NASA and $3.70 gas prices, you'd be talking about real problems in this
>country and the possibility of the collapse of the social structure.

Clearly, we can save the social structure by giving the rich
additional tax cuts so that more and more wealth flows into fewer
hands. Nothing says "stable social structure" like a good,
old-fashioned plutocracy.

[Mossingen]

The DOW is a good indicator that smart money has confidence in industrial
stocks. That's a good thing.

Why would Francis give is esoteric stats like "The percentage of unemployed

workers who've been out of a job for

more than a year is over 30%" yet fail to mention the DOW?

> I wish I could say that someone will save us, but it is as unlikely as
> saying someone should have saved the Roman Empire. They come ... they
> go. We are not gone yet, but we will go ... they all do.
>
> You are correct, the "social structure" is well on the way to "collapse"
> ... are you interested in how it might be diverted from that collapse?
> I am.

Yes, of course I am. But when a person like Francis posts a bunch of
cherry-picked government stats as a scare tactic, I'd like for that person
to articulate how he disagrees with Obama's path on things that matter, not
spout a bunch of bullshit about NASA manned space missions.

I'm more inclined than ever to vote for Ron Paul.

[TruthSeeker]

Poor analogy. It's more like the guy gets the bid to fix the dam by
promising to have it fixed in two years. Then three and a half years
later when it still isn't fixed, he asks to be re-hired for four more years.

But when I read the OP I had no doubt that the Obama supporters would
just try to blame it on Republicans. That's what politicians do.



--
TruthSeeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[TruthSeeker]

On 5/21/12 4:49 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:49:15 -0500, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
> wrote:

>> Even
>> fiscal conservatives like mo charles did not object to the massive spending,
>> at least to the extent that it bailed out the investment banks and saved
>> everyone's retirement accounts. What about GM? Let it collapse?
>
> That's what Mitt Romney would have done, although he's now trying to
> take credit for not letting it collapse. Romnesia!

False claim. What Romney proposed was what should have been done, a
normal court Chapter Eleven proceeding where the company reorganizes and
stays in business. But that would have cost the unions some of their
perks. Obama had the government do the bailout to protect the unions,
and make sure that the while stockholders and bondholders lost the
unions did not.

[FL Turbo]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:49:15 -0500, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:

I got it from an article in townhall.com, written by a VRWC blogger
named John Hawkins.

>I'd like to ask him and you, if you went back in time and you were President
>Obama on inauguration day, what would you have done differently? Even
>fiscal conservatives like mo charles did not object to the massive spending,
>at least to the extent that it bailed out the investment banks and saved
>everyone's retirement accounts. What about GM? Let it collapse?
>

Sure.
Let GM go through bankruptcy proceedings.
Don't prop it up artificially and make them push losers like the Volt,
just because the Demo DC Overlords want to promote electric cars.
Don't forget that the guv forced the closures of a lot of dealerships
in the process, and gave the auto unions ownership interests.

>The debt is troubling, but I'd like for at least one conservative to
>actually say what he would have done differently and what the consequences
>would have been. They would have been dire if the government did nothing
>and let it collapse (as I recommended). Instead of ankle-biting now about
>NASA and $3.70 gas prices, you'd be talking about real problems in this
>country and the possibility of the collapse of the social structure.
>

Don't forget that those 2 particular failures were only 2 out of the
15 items where Obama and the Dems have been miserable failures.

>Here's a stat for you: When President Obama took office, the DOW was
>7,949.09. After his third full year in office, it was 12,720.48. If you,
>Hannity, and the other conservatives had any faith in this country you would
>have invested in industrial stocks and made 60% under Obama. The industrial
>strength of the country is fine despite the debt. Why is that?
>

My SWAG is that most of the QE stimulant money ended up in the hands
of 1%ers who used the money to buy stocks rather than to invest in new
and expanded business.
(It's only a SWAG, of course)

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=DJIA&insttype=Index&freq=2&show=&time=13
When you look at the 10 year record of the DJIA, you can see that the
market didn't even exceed the top of the level in '07.
I spose Obama can now claim that "the stock market is now almost up to
the same level as 5 year ago"

[FL Turbo]

If you hire a guy to fix the dam, and it's still leaking 3 1/2 years
later, do you extend his contract for another 4 years in the Hope that
he will be able to stop the leak later?
I sure wouldn't.
YMMV

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Clave]

"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:kcqdnc3kv9ZMTifS...@giganews.com...

What a shame the results of management's poor decisions weren't written off
against labor.

Jim

[Mossingen]

FL Turbo wrote:


>> The debt is troubling, but I'd like for at least one conservative to
>> actually say what he would have done differently and what the
>> consequences would have been. They would have been dire if the
>> government did nothing and let it collapse (as I recommended). Instead
>> of ankle-biting now about NASA and $3.70 gas prices, you'd be talking
>> about real problems in this country and the possibility of the collapse
>> of the social structure.
>>
> Don't forget that those 2 particular failures were only 2 out of the
> 15 items where Obama and the Dems have been miserable failures.

You avoided the difficult, uncomfortable question. Would you have allowed
the investment banks to fail and wipe out every working person's retirement
accounts?

> My SWAG is that most of the QE stimulant money ended up in the hands
> of 1%ers who used the money to buy stocks rather than to invest in new
> and expanded business.
> (It's only a SWAG, of course)

Now, why would you guess that, as opposed to giving the President any credit
at all for a sterling statistic that indicates economic strength, but you
blame the President for the ankle-biting bullshit you trotted out above?

> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=DJIA&insttype=Index&freq=2&show=&time=13
> When you look at the 10 year record of the DJIA, you can see that the
> market didn't even exceed the top of the level in '07.
> I spose Obama can now claim that "the stock market is now almost up to
> the same level as 5 year ago"

Who gives a shit? Your point was to trot out statistics that are accurate
during his administration. The team is 1-15, remember? Don't blame the guy
who was coaching 5 years ago.

You can't admit that maybe the team is really 10-6.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:39:04 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/21/12 4:43 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 07:59:42 -0700 (PDT), ramashiva
>> <ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The right wing's big economic argument depends on disingenuously
>> blaming Obama for the job losses from January-July, 2009. That's
>> like hiring a guy to fix a dam and then blaming him for the water that
>> escapes during construction.
>
>Poor analogy. It's more like the guy gets the bid to fix the dam by
>promising to have it fixed in two years. Then three and a half years
>later when it still isn't fixed, he asks to be re-hired for four more years.

The analogy is spot-on. Are you really going to deny that the
Republicans like to cite the unemployment numbers and the job loss
numbers? Or did you somehow manage to miss the fact that my post was
a reference to arguments of that nature?

Your version of the analogy is beyond flawed to the point where it has
no merit whatsoever. Newsflash: The dam was fixed 6 months after
Obama took office.

>But when I read the OP I had no doubt that the Obama supporters would
>just try to blame it on Republicans. That's what politicians do.

I'm sure you did. That accounts for your complete failure to grasp
the point.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:16:00 -0500, FL Turbo <noe...@notime.com>
wrote:

>>The right wing's big economic argument depends on disingenuously
>>blaming Obama for the job losses from January-July, 2009. That's
>>like hiring a guy to fix a dam and then blaming him for the water that
>>escapes during construction.
>
>If you hire a guy to fix the dam, and it's still leaking 3 1/2 years
>later, do you extend his contract for another 4 years in the Hope that
>he will be able to stop the leak later?
>I sure wouldn't.

It's a good thing that there hasn't been a leak since 2009.

[Pepe Papon]

The bailout, which Romney opposed, has been successful. He went on to
claim that the success of the bailout proved him right. That kind of
logic is worthy of Truthtweaker.

[Truthseeker]

On 5/22/12 1:13 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:39:04 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>>> The right wing's big economic argument depends on disingenuously
>>> blaming Obama for the job losses from January-July, 2009. That's
>>> like hiring a guy to fix a dam and then blaming him for the water that
>>> escapes during construction.

>> Poor analogy. It's more like the guy gets the bid to fix the dam by
>> promising to have it fixed in two years. Then three and a half years
>> later when it still isn't fixed, he asks to be re-hired for four more years.

> The analogy is spot-on. Are you really going to deny that the
> Republicans like to cite the unemployment numbers and the job loss
> numbers? Or did you somehow manage to miss the fact that my post was
> a reference to arguments of that nature?

And Democrats don't?

The Republicans are campaigning primarily on the fact that after more
than three years the economy still sucks, especially unemployment and
underemployment. Those "job growth" numbers the Democrats are pointing
to are downright anemic.

> Your version of the analogy is beyond flawed to the point where it has
> no merit whatsoever. Newsflash: The dam was fixed 6 months after
> Obama took office.

You need a better news-flasher. The dam still isn't fixed. And Obama
has the "audacity" to "hope" that we'll keep him on another four years
despite his dismal performance.

Obama is a great illustration that being a great campaigner and orator
doesn't make someone a good leader. He's sure not the first of those
that we've seen.



--
Truthseeker

[Mossingen]

Truthseeker wrote:


> Obama is a great illustration that being a great campaigner and orator
> doesn't make someone a good leader. He's sure not the first of those
> that we've seen.

People who invested heavily in the DOW since his inauguration probably don't
feel that way.

[TruthSeeker]

You keep harping on the DOW. Even though it hasn't even recovered to
it's 2008 levels. What recovery there has been in the stockmarket has
helped, but it is only one economic indicator out of many, and most of
them are dismal. Most working people don't own stocks, and those that
do via pension funds and such don't focus on that much. They focus on
whether they have a job, or their friends have jobs, or their kinfolk,
and whether their pay has been keeping up with the cost of living.


--
TruthSeeker

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:49:32 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/22/12 1:13 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:39:04 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>>> The right wing's big economic argument depends on disingenuously
>>>> blaming Obama for the job losses from January-July, 2009. That's
>>>> like hiring a guy to fix a dam and then blaming him for the water that
>>>> escapes during construction.
>
>>> Poor analogy. It's more like the guy gets the bid to fix the dam by
>>> promising to have it fixed in two years. Then three and a half years
>>> later when it still isn't fixed, he asks to be re-hired for four more years.
>
>> The analogy is spot-on. Are you really going to deny that the
>> Republicans like to cite the unemployment numbers and the job loss
>> numbers? Or did you somehow manage to miss the fact that my post was
>> a reference to arguments of that nature?
>
>And Democrats don't?

No, Democrats do not manage to miss the point that my post was a
reference to arguments of that nature.

>The Republicans are campaigning primarily on the fact that after more
>than three years the economy still sucks, especially unemployment and
>underemployment. Those "job growth" numbers the Democrats are pointing
>to are downright anemic.

Which was not the point I was addressing.

>> Your version of the analogy is beyond flawed to the point where it has
>> no merit whatsoever. Newsflash: The dam was fixed 6 months after
>> Obama took office.
>
>You need a better news-flasher. The dam still isn't fixed. And Obama
>has the "audacity" to "hope" that we'll keep him on another four years
>despite his dismal performance.

In other words, the analogy went over your head. This is typical of
you. The analogy was specifically designed to address the
Republicans' disingenuousness in blaming Obama for job losses that
occurred in the first 6 months of his term. You dismissed it as a
poor analogy by pretending it was designed to address a different
point.

The dam is fixed. The economy is no longer losing jobs. If you want
to make a different point, such as the weakness of the recovery, then
create an appropriate analogy instead of trying to twist one that
wasn't designed to address that point.

>Obama is a great illustration that being a great campaigner and orator
>doesn't make someone a good leader. He's sure not the first of those
>that we've seen.

Your assessment of his leadership is merely your subjective opinion.
I've expressed disappointment in his leadership, but to me, he's a
so-so leader at worst. I think it's safe to say that he falls short
of being a great leader, but then, so do most presidents.

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:14:42 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/22/12 3:17 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>> Truthseeker wrote:
>>
>>> Obama is a great illustration that being a great campaigner and orator
>>> doesn't make someone a good leader. He's sure not the first of those
>>> that we've seen.
>
>> People who invested heavily in the DOW since his inauguration probably don't
>> feel that way.
>
>You keep harping on the DOW. Even though it hasn't even recovered to
>it's 2008 levels.

Why would its 2008 levels be relevant? If you invested in the Dow on
the day Obama took office, you've done very well.

>What recovery there has been in the stockmarket has
>helped, but it is only one economic indicator out of many, and most of
>them are dismal. Most working people don't own stocks, and those that
>do via pension funds and such don't focus on that much. They focus on
>whether they have a job, or their friends have jobs, or their kinfolk,
>and whether their pay has been keeping up with the cost of living.

No, most of them are not dismal. The cherry-picked ones are dismal.
The economy has gone from losing jobs at a rapidly increasing rate to
adding jobs at an increasing rate. GDP growth has gone from negative
to positive. Those are both very important indicators.

And of course, you're intentionally failing to take into account
factors beyond the president's control such as the global economy
including the Europe crisis, the backlog of foreclosures depressing
the housing market, and the toxic assets still on the books of the
banks.

[Dutch]

I heard that he was advised by everyone around him to just drop a big
bomb on Osama's compound. He said he wanted to be sure they got him, and
he trusted the Seals could do the job. That was risky, and showed
leadership.

Under the present circumstances, including the messes he inherited and
the unprecedented intransigent Republican dipshits in Congress, he's
doing a fantastic job, and will do better in his second term.

[Mossingen]

I keep harping on it because it shows a disconnect in right-wing talking
points that you seem unable to acknowledge or explain. Francis cited all
the stats that he attributes to Obama's "failure" yet the country's core
industrial strength is strong, and has grown a tremendous amount under this
President.

Most working people don't own stocks? Not sure what you mean here. Maybe
most working people who have minimum wage jobs at McDonald's, but I'd
venture to say that most working people with retirement savings are invested
in some sort of mutual fund. They don't focus on it, as you say, because
they are doing well. You know, like Forrest Gump said, one less thing.

[Truthseeker]

On 5/23/12 1:59 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:14:42 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/12 3:17 PM, Mossingen wrote:

>>> People who invested heavily in the DOW since his inauguration probably don't
>>> feel that way.
>>
>> You keep harping on the DOW. Even though it hasn't even recovered to
>> it's 2008 levels.
>
> Why would its 2008 levels be relevant? If you invested in the Dow on
> the day Obama took office, you've done very well.

That's true of every market following a recession. Mossingen keeps
putting it out as a positive indicator of Obama's performance.

>> What recovery there has been in the stockmarket has
>> helped, but it is only one economic indicator out of many, and most of
>> them are dismal. Most working people don't own stocks, and those that
>> do via pension funds and such don't focus on that much. They focus on
>> whether they have a job, or their friends have jobs, or their kinfolk,
>> and whether their pay has been keeping up with the cost of living.
>
> No, most of them are not dismal. The cherry-picked ones are dismal.
> The economy has gone from losing jobs at a rapidly increasing rate to
> adding jobs at an increasing rate.

"Rapidly increasing rate?" Even that graph on Obama's campaign
commercial shows otherwise: some feeble increases in rate, followed by
decreases, a roller coaster with the last three months all decreasing.

> GDP growth has gone from negative
> to positive. Those are both very important indicators.

And GDP always goes from negative to positive following recessions.
It's part of the definition. This positive rate has been the weakest in
a long time.

> And of course, you're intentionally failing to take into account
> factors beyond the president's control such as the global economy
> including the Europe crisis, the backlog of foreclosures depressing
> the housing market, and the toxic assets still on the books of the
> banks.

I've done no such thing. Much of the economic cycles are beyond the
control of any President. That doesn't stop you from blaming Bush, of
course.

And no matter who's at fault the poor recovery is going to make it
difficult for Obama to be re-elected. This is the time of year when
many people's perception of the economy (as it affects their voting) is
fixed, and at this time the trends are downward.



--
Truthseeker

[Truthseeker]

On 5/23/12 1:53 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

...

>> Obama is a great illustration that being a great campaigner and orator
>> doesn't make someone a good leader. He's sure not the first of those
>> that we've seen.

> Your assessment of his leadership is merely your subjective opinion.

And in other news, the sky is blue.

> I've expressed disappointment in his leadership, but to me, he's a
> so-so leader at worst. I think it's safe to say that he falls short
> of being a great leader, but then, so do most presidents.

We're pretty close on our assessment. I don't consider him a "failed
President" like Carter. "Disappointing" pretty much sums it up.

FWIW I don't think McCain would have been a great leader either. I'm
pretty sure that had he been elected he'd be a one-termer, no President
was going to get this economy strong again by now. We'll never know
what kind of job he would have done, though.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:02:09 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/23/12 1:59 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:14:42 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/22/12 3:17 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>>>> People who invested heavily in the DOW since his inauguration probably don't
>>>> feel that way.
>>>
>>> You keep harping on the DOW. Even though it hasn't even recovered to
>>> it's 2008 levels.
>>
>> Why would its 2008 levels be relevant? If you invested in the Dow on
>> the day Obama took office, you've done very well.
>
>That's true of every market following a recession.

So, you tacitly admit that the recession ended under Obama. That
pretty much invalidates the whole, "Obama's economic policies have
been a disaster" argument.

> Mossingen keeps
>putting it out as a positive indicator of Obama's performance.

A perfectly reasonable counter to all the other cherry-picked
statistics being put out as negative indicators of his performance.

>>> What recovery there has been in the stockmarket has
>>> helped, but it is only one economic indicator out of many, and most of
>>> them are dismal. Most working people don't own stocks, and those that
>>> do via pension funds and such don't focus on that much. They focus on
>>> whether they have a job, or their friends have jobs, or their kinfolk,
>>> and whether their pay has been keeping up with the cost of living.
>>
>> No, most of them are not dismal. The cherry-picked ones are dismal.
>> The economy has gone from losing jobs at a rapidly increasing rate to
>> adding jobs at an increasing rate.
>
>"Rapidly increasing rate?" Even that graph on Obama's campaign
>commercial shows otherwise: some feeble increases in rate, followed by
>decreases, a roller coaster with the last three months all decreasing.

Read the paragraph again, nice and slowly, this time for
comprehension.

>> GDP growth has gone from negative
>> to positive. Those are both very important indicators.
>
>And GDP always goes from negative to positive following recessions.
>It's part of the definition. This positive rate has been the weakest in
>a long time.

Again, the recession ended under Obama by your own admission.

>> And of course, you're intentionally failing to take into account
>> factors beyond the president's control such as the global economy
>> including the Europe crisis, the backlog of foreclosures depressing
>> the housing market, and the toxic assets still on the books of the
>> banks.
>
>I've done no such thing. Much of the economic cycles are beyond the
>control of any President. That doesn't stop you from blaming Bush, of
>course.

Then the economic argument against Obama has no validity. Bush is a
red herring in this conversation.

>And no matter who's at fault the poor recovery is going to make it
>difficult for Obama to be re-elected. This is the time of year when
>many people's perception of the economy (as it affects their voting) is
>fixed, and at this time the trends are downward.

That's a prediction, not an argument.

[Pepe Papon]

You are correct that he's been very strong and decisive on military
actions. Domestically, he did manage to get health reform through
Congress, but the passive role he took in constructing the law was
very disappointing. Maybe this is just one particular thing that
left a lasting impression, and he's been a lot stronger overall than
I've given him credit for.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:08:51 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>
>FWIW I don't think McCain would have been a great leader either. I'm
>pretty sure that had he been elected he'd be a one-termer, no President
>was going to get this economy strong again by now.

At least you admit this, which invalidates in all Republican arguments
about his "failed leadership", "failed policies", or his "disastrous
presidency". As I mentioned in a previous post, this was discussed
and acknowledged here on RGP prior to the election although all the
right-wingers here have developed a severe case of Romnesia about it.

[Truthseeker]

On 5/23/12 1:27 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:02:09 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>> That's true of every market following a recession.
>
> So, you tacitly admit that the recession ended under Obama. That
> pretty much invalidates the whole, "Obama's economic policies have
> been a disaster" argument.

Don't go Jerry on me again. Of course the recession ended under Obama,
I've never claimed otherwise. What I point to is the weakness of the
recovery.

...

>>> No, most of them are not dismal. The cherry-picked ones are dismal.
>>> The economy has gone from losing jobs at a rapidly increasing rate to
>>> adding jobs at an increasing rate.

>> "Rapidly increasing rate?" Even that graph on Obama's campaign
>> commercial shows otherwise: some feeble increases in rate, followed by
>> decreases, a roller coaster with the last three months all decreasing.

> Read the paragraph again, nice and slowly, this time for
> comprehension.

Look at the statistics again, and take your time, this time for

comprehension.

>>> GDP growth has gone from negative
>>> to positive. Those are both very important indicators.
>>
>> And GDP always goes from negative to positive following recessions.
>> It's part of the definition. This positive rate has been the weakest in
>> a long time.
>
> Again, the recession ended under Obama by your own admission.

Not that straw man yet again. I never claimed otherwise. It is irrelevant.

>>> And of course, you're intentionally failing to take into account
>>> factors beyond the president's control such as the global economy
>>> including the Europe crisis, the backlog of foreclosures depressing
>>> the housing market, and the toxic assets still on the books of the
>>> banks.
>>
>> I've done no such thing. Much of the economic cycles are beyond the
>> control of any President. That doesn't stop you from blaming Bush, of
>> course.
>
> Then the economic argument against Obama has no validity. Bush is a
> red herring in this conversation.

Talk about cherry-pick, you blame Republicans for the very things you
excuse Democrats for.

Please note that I am not blaming the poor economy on Obama. I've been
pointing out how it is going to affect the votes of many voters. That's
not the same thing, you know. McCain was not responsible for the
economic panic of 2008, but it torpedoed his chances anyway.

>> And no matter who's at fault the poor recovery is going to make it
>> difficult for Obama to be re-elected. This is the time of year when
>> many people's perception of the economy (as it affects their voting) is
>> fixed, and at this time the trends are downward.

> That's a prediction, not an argument.

It's an observation. I did not predict who would win in November, I
pointed out well-known factors that influence elections.

[Truthseeker]

OK, let me try to shed some light here. You and I apparently agree that
the poor state of the economy should not be blamed on Obama. A
President can have only a limited effect on the economy, so we'd still
be in the doldrums no matter who was President.

What matters regarding his re-election is that many voters DO hold the
President responsible for the economy,and expect him to "fix it" and
"create jobs." That's why no President has been re-elected since the
Great Depression with unemployment over 7.5% in the months preceding the
election.

No amount of campaign razzle-dazzle is likely to be able to overcome
that. Which makes this statement an observation that I'm sure the Obama
campaign is aware of, even if you can't accept it: The economic
conditions make his re-election difficult.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:48:09 -0600, Truthseeker

<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/23/12 1:27 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:02:09 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> That's true of every market following a recession.
>>
>> So, you tacitly admit that the recession ended under Obama. That
>> pretty much invalidates the whole, "Obama's economic policies have
>> been a disaster" argument.
>
>Don't go Jerry on me again.

Don't use that cheap, "You're going Jerry" tactic again to try and
dismiss what I said.

> Of course the recession ended under Obama,
>I've never claimed otherwise. What I point to is the weakness of the
>recovery.

Which has nothing to do with the analogy I made in my OP, which you
tried to argue was a poor one.

>...
>>>> No, most of them are not dismal. The cherry-picked ones are dismal.
>>>> The economy has gone from losing jobs at a rapidly increasing rate to
>>>> adding jobs at an increasing rate.
>
>>> "Rapidly increasing rate?" Even that graph on Obama's campaign
>>> commercial shows otherwise: some feeble increases in rate, followed by
>>> decreases, a roller coaster with the last three months all decreasing.
>
>> Read the paragraph again, nice and slowly, this time for
>> comprehension.
>
>Look at the statistics again, and take your time, this time for
>comprehension.

In other words, you didn't read the paragraph for comprehension. Or
you did and you're just stupid. Let me help you. "Rapidly
increasing rate" describes the job losses prior to Obama taking
office. It does not describe the rate of job gains, as you are
pretending it did. Again, this is why debating with you is so
tedious.

>>>> GDP growth has gone from negative
>>>> to positive. Those are both very important indicators.
>>>
>>> And GDP always goes from negative to positive following recessions.
>>> It's part of the definition. This positive rate has been the weakest in
>>> a long time.
>>
>> Again, the recession ended under Obama by your own admission.
>
>Not that straw man yet again. I never claimed otherwise. It is irrelevant.

What straw man? I understand how hard it is for you to follow a train
of thought, but nowhere did I ever suggest that YOU said the recession
didn't end. The OP wasn't about YOU, and so my subsequent defense of
that OP were about YOU only to the extent that your failure to grasp
the point of the OP. I apologize if this is too complex for you.

>>>> And of course, you're intentionally failing to take into account
>>>> factors beyond the president's control such as the global economy
>>>> including the Europe crisis, the backlog of foreclosures depressing
>>>> the housing market, and the toxic assets still on the books of the
>>>> banks.
>>>
>>> I've done no such thing. Much of the economic cycles are beyond the
>>> control of any President. That doesn't stop you from blaming Bush, of
>>> course.
>>
>> Then the economic argument against Obama has no validity. Bush is a
>> red herring in this conversation.
>
>Talk about cherry-pick, you blame Republicans for the very things you
>excuse Democrats for.

WTF are you babbling about? The post you replied to presents no data
at all, much less cherry-picked data. Your reply is a complete non
sequitur.

>Please note that I am not blaming the poor economy on Obama. I've been
>pointing out how it is going to affect the votes of many voters. That's
>not the same thing, you know. McCain was not responsible for the
>economic panic of 2008, but it torpedoed his chances anyway.

None of which had anything to do with the point under discussion.

[Pepe Papon]

Which has nothing to do with the point that Republicans are being
dishonest in their attacks on him.

[da pickle]

On 5/24/2012 2:28 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>> No amount of campaign razzle-dazzle is likely to be able to overcome
>> that. Which makes this statement an observation that I'm sure the Obama
>> campaign is aware of, even if you can't accept it: The economic
>> conditions make his re-election difficult.
>
> Which has nothing to do with the point that Republicans are being
> dishonest in their attacks on him.

Pepe, you still seem to believe it is NOT "worse" than it needed to be
(and is going to continue to be increasingly worse in the future); even
if it would have still been "really bad" if John McCain had been elected
instead of Obama. It may have been even "worse" under a McCain
administration than it has been under Obama.

The problem is that the federal government continues to "kick the can
down the road" and make things worse and worse and worse. It is not
JUST Obama that is the problem. But actions by the "government" during
the Obama administration have (IMO) continued us closer and closer to
the "tipping point" after which there will be no putting the cat back in
the sack.

The country is going in the "wrong direction" and it continues to
proceed in that direction.

--------------------------
Isn’t It Ironic?

The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is
pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture,
asks us to “Please Do Not Feed the Animals” because the animals may grow
dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.

Please don’t make me answer the question; are you equating “food stamp
recipients” as animals!

http://www.sunnyroseman.com/ironic/

[TruthSeeker]

And in other news, the sky is blue.

What do you think about the dishonest attacks the Democrats are making
on Romney? Or are you OK with those?

Or ... could it be ... that you don't think there have been any
dishonest attacks on Romney?



--
TruthSeeker

[TruthSeeker]

On 5/24/12 1:26 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:48:09 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 5/23/12 1:27 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:02:09 -0600, Truthseeker
>>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>>> That's true of every market following a recession.
>>>
>>> So, you tacitly admit that the recession ended under Obama. That
>>> pretty much invalidates the whole, "Obama's economic policies have
>>> been a disaster" argument.
>>
>> Don't go Jerry on me again.
>
> Don't use that cheap, "You're going Jerry" tactic again to try and
> dismiss what I said.

Why not? When you act like Jerry I'll call you on it.

>> Of course the recession ended under Obama,
>> I've never claimed otherwise. What I point to is the weakness of the
>> recovery.
>
> Which has nothing to do with the analogy I made in my OP, which you
> tried to argue was a poor one.
>
>> ...
>>>>> No, most of them are not dismal. The cherry-picked ones are dismal.
>>>>> The economy has gone from losing jobs at a rapidly increasing rate to
>>>>> adding jobs at an increasing rate.
>>
>>>> "Rapidly increasing rate?" Even that graph on Obama's campaign
>>>> commercial shows otherwise: some feeble increases in rate, followed by
>>>> decreases, a roller coaster with the last three months all decreasing.
>>
>>> Read the paragraph again, nice and slowly, this time for
>>> comprehension.
>>
>> Look at the statistics again, and take your time, this time for
>> comprehension.
>
> In other words, you didn't read the paragraph for comprehension. Or
> you did and you're just stupid. Let me help you. "Rapidly
> increasing rate" describes the job losses prior to Obama taking
> office. It does not describe the rate of job gains, as you are
> pretending it did. Again, this is why debating with you is so
> tedious.

"adding jobs at an increasing rate." The only word not repeated there
is "rapidly." Which does not obscure the fact that the rate of adding
jobs has not been increasing, it's been an up-and-down roller coaster
and is currently going DOWN (even Obama's own campaign commercial shows
that).

As jobs are always added during a recovery, crowing about such feeble
numbers is pretty desperate.

>>>>> GDP growth has gone from negative
>>>>> to positive. Those are both very important indicators.
>>>>
>>>> And GDP always goes from negative to positive following recessions.
>>>> It's part of the definition. This positive rate has been the weakest in
>>>> a long time.
>>>
>>> Again, the recession ended under Obama by your own admission.
>>
>> Not that straw man yet again. I never claimed otherwise. It is irrelevant.
>
> What straw man? I understand how hard it is for you to follow a train
> of thought, but nowhere did I ever suggest that YOU said the recession
> didn't end. The OP wasn't about YOU, and so my subsequent defense of
> that OP were about YOU only to the extent that your failure to grasp
> the point of the OP. I apologize if this is too complex for you.

Yet you said "by your own admission," going Jerry on me again.



--
TruthSeeker

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:00:10 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/24/12 1:26 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:48:09 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/23/12 1:27 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 12:02:09 -0600, Truthseeker
>>>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That's true of every market following a recession.
>>>>
>>>> So, you tacitly admit that the recession ended under Obama. That
>>>> pretty much invalidates the whole, "Obama's economic policies have
>>>> been a disaster" argument.
>>>
>>> Don't go Jerry on me again.
>>
>> Don't use that cheap, "You're going Jerry" tactic again to try and
>> dismiss what I said.
>
>Why not? When you act like Jerry I'll call you on it.

That's just another one your content-free tactics of dismissing a post
you don't like.

>>>>>> No, most of them are not dismal. The cherry-picked ones are dismal.
>>>>>> The economy has gone from losing jobs at a rapidly increasing rate to
>>>>>> adding jobs at an increasing rate.
>>>
>>>>> "Rapidly increasing rate?" Even that graph on Obama's campaign
>>>>> commercial shows otherwise: some feeble increases in rate, followed by
>>>>> decreases, a roller coaster with the last three months all decreasing.
>>>
>>>> Read the paragraph again, nice and slowly, this time for
>>>> comprehension.
>>>
>>> Look at the statistics again, and take your time, this time for
>>> comprehension.
>>
>> In other words, you didn't read the paragraph for comprehension. Or
>> you did and you're just stupid. Let me help you. "Rapidly
>> increasing rate" describes the job losses prior to Obama taking
>> office. It does not describe the rate of job gains, as you are
>> pretending it did. Again, this is why debating with you is so
>> tedious.
>
>"adding jobs at an increasing rate." The only word not repeated there
>is "rapidly."

Oh, that's all? You say this as if the word is somehow insignificant.

>Which does not obscure the fact that the rate of adding
>jobs has not been increasing, it's been an up-and-down roller coaster
>and is currently going DOWN (even Obama's own campaign commercial shows
>that).

I hadn't seen the most recent charts, but until 2 months ago, the rate
had been on an upward trend for almost a year.

>
>As jobs are always added during a recovery, crowing about such feeble
>numbers is pretty desperate.

Nobody's "crowing". If you think that's what I'm doing, that would
be an indication of - surprise, surprise - you missing the point.

>>>>>> GDP growth has gone from negative
>>>>>> to positive. Those are both very important indicators.
>>>>>
>>>>> And GDP always goes from negative to positive following recessions.
>>>>> It's part of the definition. This positive rate has been the weakest in
>>>>> a long time.
>>>>
>>>> Again, the recession ended under Obama by your own admission.
>>>
>>> Not that straw man yet again. I never claimed otherwise. It is irrelevant.
>>
>> What straw man? I understand how hard it is for you to follow a train
>> of thought, but nowhere did I ever suggest that YOU said the recession
>> didn't end. The OP wasn't about YOU, and so my subsequent defense of
>> that OP were about YOU only to the extent that your failure to grasp
>> the point of the OP. I apologize if this is too complex for you.
>
>Yet you said "by your own admission," going Jerry on me again.

I give up. You've obviously missed the point yet again, and I'm tired
of trying to explain it to you. Since you're probably not as stupid
as you're coming across, it's apparent that you don't want to get it.
Your "going Jerry" dance is, as usual, devoid of content.

[Pepe Papon]

Be specific.

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 07:56:27 -0500, da pickle
<jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/24/2012 2:28 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>>> No amount of campaign razzle-dazzle is likely to be able to overcome
>>> that. Which makes this statement an observation that I'm sure the Obama
>>> campaign is aware of, even if you can't accept it: The economic
>>> conditions make his re-election difficult.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with the point that Republicans are being
>> dishonest in their attacks on him.
>
>Pepe, you still seem to believe it is NOT "worse" than it needed to be
>(and is going to continue to be increasingly worse in the future); even
>if it would have still been "really bad" if John McCain had been elected
>instead of Obama. It may have been even "worse" under a McCain
>administration than it has been under Obama.

Is it within your ability to make a post without telling me what I
believe?

>The problem is that the federal government continues to "kick the can
>down the road" and make things worse and worse and worse. It is not
>JUST Obama that is the problem. But actions by the "government" during
>the Obama administration have (IMO) continued us closer and closer to
>the "tipping point" after which there will be no putting the cat back in
>the sack.
>
>The country is going in the "wrong direction" and it continues to
>proceed in that direction.

The country has been going in the wrong direction for a decade, and
it's not because of Obama. Romney proposes to steer it further in
the wrong direction.

[da pickle]

On 5/25/2012 1:59 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>> The country is going in the "wrong direction" and it continues to
>> proceed in that direction.
>
> The country has been going in the wrong direction for a decade, and
> it's not because of Obama.

?????????????????????

[Truthseeker]

On 5/25/12 12:56 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:00:10 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/12 1:26 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>>>> So, you tacitly admit that the recession ended under Obama. That
>>>>> pretty much invalidates the whole, "Obama's economic policies have
>>>>> been a disaster" argument.

>>>> Don't go Jerry on me again.

>>> Don't use that cheap, "You're going Jerry" tactic again to try and
>>> dismiss what I said.

>> Why not? When you act like Jerry I'll call you on it.

> That's just another one your content-free tactics of dismissing a post
> you don't like.

It's pointing out when you use the disingenuous tactic of claiming
someone is admitting something that was not in dispute, and using that
"admission" to imply acceptance of your erroneous point. Jerry is the
most prolific user of that, but when you do it I'll call you on it.

...

>> "adding jobs at an increasing rate." The only word not repeated there
>> is "rapidly."

> Oh, that's all? You say this as if the word is somehow insignificant.

It's insignificant in this case. The rate is not increasing at all, let
alone rapidly.

>> Which does not obscure the fact that the rate of adding
>> jobs has not been increasing, it's been an up-and-down roller coaster
>> and is currently going DOWN (even Obama's own campaign commercial shows
>> that).
>
> I hadn't seen the most recent charts, but until 2 months ago, the rate
> had been on an upward trend for almost a year.

The rate has been both up and down for two years, and the most recent
months have been down again. Even Obama's own campaign commercial graph
shows that (I suspect that they're hoping people won't notice and just
believe the narration).

>> As jobs are always added during a recovery, crowing about such feeble
>> numbers is pretty desperate.

> Nobody's "crowing". If you think that's what I'm doing, that would
> be an indication of - surprise, surprise - you missing the point.

Good Grief. The Obama campaign is crowing, as are some of the earlier
posters in this thread. It isn't always about you.

...

>>>>> Again, the recession ended under Obama by your own admission.
>>>>
>>>> Not that straw man yet again. I never claimed otherwise. It is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> What straw man? I understand how hard it is for you to follow a train
>>> of thought, but nowhere did I ever suggest that YOU said the recession
>>> didn't end. The OP wasn't about YOU, and so my subsequent defense of
>>> that OP were about YOU only to the extent that your failure to grasp
>>> the point of the OP. I apologize if this is too complex for you.
>>
>> Yet you said "by your own admission," going Jerry on me again.
>
> I give up. You've obviously missed the point yet again,

You still miss the point. The recession ending a couple of years ago is
not in dispute. What is germane is how feeble and sluggish the recovery
has been, the worst since WWII. But you don't want to face that fact so
you keep using the Jerry tactic of "see -- you admit that the recession
ended under Obama." As if that's all that matters.

> and I'm tired of trying to explain it to you.

That's part of your problem ... you just think you need to explain your
position some more, you never consider that your position might be wrong.

> Since you're probably not as stupid
> as you're coming across, it's apparent that you don't want to get it.
> Your "going Jerry" dance is, as usual, devoid of content.

The truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it?


--
Truthseeker

[Truthseeker]

You do understand that you are just expressing your opinion here, right?
A pretty foolish one at that, IMO.

[Truthseeker]

On 5/25/12 12:59 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 08:53:38 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/12 1:28 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:55:14 -0600, Truthseeker
>>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>>> No amount of campaign razzle-dazzle is likely to be able to overcome
>>>> that. Which makes this statement an observation that I'm sure the Obama
>>>> campaign is aware of, even if you can't accept it: The economic
>>>> conditions make his re-election difficult.
>>
>>> Which has nothing to do with the point that Republicans are being
>>> dishonest in their attacks on him.
>>
>> And in other news, the sky is blue.
>>

>> What do you think about the dishonest attacks the Democrats are makingA

>> on Romney? Or are you OK with those?
>>
>> Or ... could it be ... that you don't think there have been any
>> dishonest attacks on Romney?
>
> Be specific.

Are you really admitting that you can't think of any? Do you really not
understand how ridiculously partisan that is?



--
Truthseeker

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:06:59 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/25/12 12:56 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:00:10 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/24/12 1:26 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>>>>>> So, you tacitly admit that the recession ended under Obama. That
>>>>>> pretty much invalidates the whole, "Obama's economic policies have
>>>>>> been a disaster" argument.
>
>>>>> Don't go Jerry on me again.
>
>>>> Don't use that cheap, "You're going Jerry" tactic again to try and
>>>> dismiss what I said.
>
>>> Why not? When you act like Jerry I'll call you on it.
>
>> That's just another one your content-free tactics of dismissing a post
>> you don't like.
>
>It's pointing out when you use the disingenuous tactic of claiming
>someone is admitting something that was not in dispute, and using that
>"admission" to imply acceptance of your erroneous point. Jerry is the
>most prolific user of that, but when you do it I'll call you on it.

I don't know how many times I have to point out to you that you've
failed to follow the train of thought. Once again, the OP was NOT
about YOU. The discussion was NOT about YOU. It was about the
disingenuousness of the Republican talking points. Get it yet?

>...
>>> "adding jobs at an increasing rate." The only word not repeated there
>>> is "rapidly."
>
>> Oh, that's all? You say this as if the word is somehow insignificant.
>
>It's insignificant in this case. The rate is not increasing at all, let
>alone rapidly.
>
>>> Which does not obscure the fact that the rate of adding
>>> jobs has not been increasing, it's been an up-and-down roller coaster
>>> and is currently going DOWN (even Obama's own campaign commercial shows
>>> that).
>>
>> I hadn't seen the most recent charts, but until 2 months ago, the rate
>> had been on an upward trend for almost a year.
>
>The rate has been both up and down for two years, and the most recent
>months have been down again. Even Obama's own campaign commercial graph
>shows that (I suspect that they're hoping people won't notice and just
>believe the narration).

You must have somehow missed it when I said, " I hadn't seen the most

recent charts, but until 2 months ago, the rate had been on an upward
trend for almost a year."

>>> As jobs are always added during a recovery, crowing about such feeble
>>> numbers is pretty desperate.
>
>> Nobody's "crowing". If you think that's what I'm doing, that would
>> be an indication of - surprise, surprise - you missing the point.
>
>Good Grief. The Obama campaign is crowing, as are some of the earlier
>posters in this thread. It isn't always about you.

When I'm the one making the point, dumbass, yes, it *is* about me. It
was *my* point that was being discussed.

>...
>>>>>> Again, the recession ended under Obama by your own admission.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that straw man yet again. I never claimed otherwise. It is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> What straw man? I understand how hard it is for you to follow a train
>>>> of thought, but nowhere did I ever suggest that YOU said the recession
>>>> didn't end. The OP wasn't about YOU, and so my subsequent defense of
>>>> that OP were about YOU only to the extent that your failure to grasp
>>>> the point of the OP. I apologize if this is too complex for you.
>>>
>>> Yet you said "by your own admission," going Jerry on me again.
>>
>> I give up. You've obviously missed the point yet again,
>
>You still miss the point. The recession ending a couple of years ago is
>not in dispute. What is germane is how feeble and sluggish the recovery
>has been, the worst since WWII. But you don't want to face that fact so
>you keep using the Jerry tactic of "see -- you admit that the recession
>ended under Obama." As if that's all that matters.

It's impossible for me to be missing the point, since it was *my*
point that was under discussion. There could hardly be a better
illustration of *you* missing the point, which you do on a regular
basis.

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:09:21 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/25/12 12:59 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 07:56:27 -0500, da pickle
>> <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The problem is that the federal government continues to "kick the can
>>> down the road" and make things worse and worse and worse. It is not
>>> JUST Obama that is the problem. But actions by the "government" during
>>> the Obama administration have (IMO) continued us closer and closer to
>>> the "tipping point" after which there will be no putting the cat back in
>>> the sack.
>
>>> The country is going in the "wrong direction" and it continues to
>>> proceed in that direction.
>
>> The country has been going in the wrong direction for a decade, and
>> it's not because of Obama. Romney proposes to steer it further in
>> the wrong direction.
>
>You do understand that you are just expressing your opinion here, right?

Oh, really? Thanks for clearing that. This is the level of deep
insightfulness that I've come to expect from you.

> A pretty foolish one at that, IMO.

Your opinion is about as worthless as any.

[Pepe Papon]

OK, then, you've got nothing.

[TruthSeeker]

On 5/25/12 3:14 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:06:59 -0600, Truthseeker
> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>> It's pointing out when you use the disingenuous tactic of claiming
>> someone is admitting something that was not in dispute, and using that
>> "admission" to imply acceptance of your erroneous point. Jerry is the
>> most prolific user of that, but when you do it I'll call you on it.

> I don't know how many times I have to point out to you that you've
> failed to follow the train of thought. Once again, the OP was NOT
> about YOU. The discussion was NOT about YOU. It was about the
> disingenuousness of the Republican talking points. Get it yet?

This is one of your problems: you don't understand that you don't
control the point. I didn't respond to the OP. I made a specific
response to a particular post. You can respond to that or not as you
wish, but you don't get to insist that people only respond about what
you want to talk about.

>> ...

>>> I hadn't seen the most recent charts, but until 2 months ago, the rate
>>> had been on an upward trend for almost a year.
>>
>> The rate has been both up and down for two years, and the most recent
>> months have been down again. Even Obama's own campaign commercial graph
>> shows that (I suspect that they're hoping people won't notice and just
>> believe the narration).
>
> You must have somehow missed it when I said, " I hadn't seen the most
> recent charts, but until 2 months ago, the rate had been on an
> upward trend for almost a year."

You must have missed my saying "The rate has been up and down for two
years." You claim was false in both respects.

>>>> As jobs are always added during a recovery, crowing about such feeble
>>>> numbers is pretty desperate.
>>
>>> Nobody's "crowing". If you think that's what I'm doing, that would
>>> be an indication of - surprise, surprise - you missing the point.
>>
>> Good Grief. The Obama campaign is crowing, as are some of the earlier
>> posters in this thread. It isn't always about you.
>
> When I'm the one making the point, dumbass, yes, it *is* about me. It
> was *my* point that was being discussed.

BWAAHAAHAA!!! Here we see again the problem: Pepe thinks he controls
the point, and that no one is allowed to broaden the discussion or bring
in other related points. He actually says right out that it's all about
him.

>> ...

>>> I give up. You've obviously missed the point yet again,

>> You still miss the point. The recession ending a couple of years ago is
>> not in dispute. What is germane is how feeble and sluggish the recovery
>> has been, the worst since WWII. But you don't want to face that fact so
>> you keep using the Jerry tactic of "see -- you admit that the recession
>> ended under Obama." As if that's all that matters.

> It's impossible for me to be missing the point, since it was *my*
> point that was under discussion. There could hardly be a better
> illustration of *you* missing the point, which you do on a regular
> basis.

And here again! What delicious hubris. Keep digging, Pepe.

Let me clear this up with a little summary. I have no interest in
debating the Republican's blaming Obama for job losses during his first
six months in office. That's "man bites dog," it's not news. It's just
something all campaigns do, Democratic and Republican. I joined the
discussion to point out the disconnect in the Obama campaign "pointing
with pride" to recent job growth numbers, even though they are the worst
of any recovery in the last 60 years and the rate is going back down.

Now, I understand that the President in office doesn't actually have
much control over job growth or losses. But when a politician makes it
an issue by taking credit for job growth, it's fair game to point out
how anemic the growth is.

And that's MY point. The one I'm addressing. Pepe, you can either stop
whining and respond to that, or move on. Your choice.


--
TruthSeeker

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:28:53 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/25/12 3:14 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:06:59 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> It's pointing out when you use the disingenuous tactic of claiming
>>> someone is admitting something that was not in dispute, and using that
>>> "admission" to imply acceptance of your erroneous point. Jerry is the
>>> most prolific user of that, but when you do it I'll call you on it.
>
>> I don't know how many times I have to point out to you that you've
>> failed to follow the train of thought. Once again, the OP was NOT
>> about YOU. The discussion was NOT about YOU. It was about the
>> disingenuousness of the Republican talking points. Get it yet?
>
>This is one of your problems: you don't understand that you don't
>control the point. I didn't respond to the OP. I made a specific
>response to a particular post. You can respond to that or not as you
>wish, but you don't get to insist that people only respond about what
>you want to talk about.

You're very confused, as is so often the case. You made a response to
a post of mine, which started this little exchange. The first post
in a thread or subthread is commonly referred to as the "OP". So,
yes, you did respond to the OP of this subthread, by definition.

Your response was to a point *I* made, where you erroneously stated
that it was a poor analogy. The entire subthread has stemmed from
that attempt to rebut a point that *I* made. If you've tried to make
it about something else, that simply proves that you're unable to
follow a train of thought, as I've tried point out to you many times.

>>> ...
>
>>>> I hadn't seen the most recent charts, but until 2 months ago, the rate
>>>> had been on an upward trend for almost a year.
>>>
>>> The rate has been both up and down for two years, and the most recent
>>> months have been down again. Even Obama's own campaign commercial graph
>>> shows that (I suspect that they're hoping people won't notice and just
>>> believe the narration).
>>
>> You must have somehow missed it when I said, " I hadn't seen the most
>> recent charts, but until 2 months ago, the rate had been on an
>> upward trend for almost a year."
>
>You must have missed my saying "The rate has been up and down for two
>years." You claim was false in both respects.

It's baffling how you could jump to such a conclusion. Not that this
sort of thing is in any way unusual for you.

>>>>> As jobs are always added during a recovery, crowing about such feeble
>>>>> numbers is pretty desperate.
>>>
>>>> Nobody's "crowing". If you think that's what I'm doing, that would
>>>> be an indication of - surprise, surprise - you missing the point.
>>>
>>> Good Grief. The Obama campaign is crowing, as are some of the earlier
>>> posters in this thread. It isn't always about you.
>>
>> When I'm the one making the point, dumbass, yes, it *is* about me. It
>> was *my* point that was being discussed.
>
>BWAAHAAHAA!!! Here we see again the problem: Pepe thinks he controls
>the point, and that no one is allowed to broaden the discussion or bring
>in other related points. He actually says right out that it's all about
>him.

No, you idiot. I've already explained this above.

By the way, amidst all your accusations of me "going Jerry", it's
ironic how you've been making a habit of going all Beldin on me. I
point out how you tried to make it all about you, and the next thing I
know, you're accusing me of making it all about me. I point out your
propensity for making straw man arguments, and the next thing I know,
you're trying to throw the straw man accusation back at me.

>>> ...
>
>>>> I give up. You've obviously missed the point yet again,
>
>>> You still miss the point. The recession ending a couple of years ago is
>>> not in dispute. What is germane is how feeble and sluggish the recovery
>>> has been, the worst since WWII. But you don't want to face that fact so
>>> you keep using the Jerry tactic of "see -- you admit that the recession
>>> ended under Obama." As if that's all that matters.
>
>> It's impossible for me to be missing the point, since it was *my*
>> point that was under discussion. There could hardly be a better
>> illustration of *you* missing the point, which you do on a regular
>> basis.
>
>And here again! What delicious hubris. Keep digging, Pepe.

You are truly a moron. And on top of that, you're a douche bag. A
dishonest one, at that. Why don't you do us both a favor and just
STFU? Don't respond to my posts anymore. I have no patience for your
special brand of stupidity.

Oh, and don't forget to declare victory.

[TruthSeeker]

On 5/27/12 1:10 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:28:53 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>> This is one of your problems: you don't understand that you don't
>> control the point. I didn't respond to the OP. I made a specific
>> response to a particular post. You can respond to that or not as you
>> wish, but you don't get to insist that people only respond about what
>> you want to talk about.

> You're very confused, as is so often the case. You made a response to
> a post of mine, which started this little exchange. The first post
> in a thread or subthread is commonly referred to as the "OP". So,
> yes, you did respond to the OP of this subthread, by definition.

The "OP" is the first post in a thread. You don't create new OPs with
thread drift. So your definition is wrong.

> Your response was to a point *I* made, where you erroneously stated
> that it was a poor analogy. The entire subthread has stemmed from
> that attempt to rebut a point that *I* made. If you've tried to make
> it about something else, that simply proves that you're unable to
> follow a train of thought, as I've tried point out to you many times.

Again, you don't get to control what other people write.

>>>> ...
>>
>>>>> I hadn't seen the most recent charts, but until 2 months ago, the rate
>>>>> had been on an upward trend for almost a year.
>>>>
>>>> The rate has been both up and down for two years, and the most recent
>>>> months have been down again. Even Obama's own campaign commercial graph
>>>> shows that (I suspect that they're hoping people won't notice and just
>>>> believe the narration).
>>>
>>> You must have somehow missed it when I said, " I hadn't seen the most
>>> recent charts, but until 2 months ago, the rate had been on an
>>> upward trend for almost a year."
>>
>> You must have missed my saying "The rate has been up and down for two

>> years." Your claim was false in both respects.

>
> It's baffling how you could jump to such a conclusion. Not that this
> sort of thing is in any way unusual for you.

Just look at the charts. The one in the Obama ad will do nicely.

...

>>> When I'm the one making the point, dumbass, yes, it *is* about me. It
>>> was *my* point that was being discussed.
>>
>> BWAAHAAHAA!!! Here we see again the problem: Pepe thinks he controls
>> the point, and that no one is allowed to broaden the discussion or bring
>> in other related points. He actually says right out that it's all about
>> him.
>
> No, you idiot. I've already explained this above.
>
> By the way, amidst all your accusations of me "going Jerry", it's
> ironic how you've been making a habit of going all Beldin on me. I
> point out how you tried to make it all about you, and the next thing I
> know, you're accusing me of making it all about me. I point out your
> propensity for making straw man arguments, and the next thing I know,
> you're trying to throw the straw man accusation back at me.

When the shoe fits ...

...

>>> It's impossible for me to be missing the point, since it was *my*
>>> point that was under discussion. There could hardly be a better
>>> illustration of *you* missing the point, which you do on a regular
>>> basis.
>>
>> And here again! What delicious hubris. Keep digging, Pepe.
>
> You are truly a moron. And on top of that, you're a douche bag. A
> dishonest one, at that. Why don't you do us both a favor and just
> STFU? Don't respond to my posts anymore. I have no patience for your
> special brand of stupidity.

All you have to do is stop insisting on the last word, Pepe. And stop
digging yourself into a frenzy of meaningless attempted insults. You
just show again that "You can't handle the truth."

> Oh, and don't forget to declare victory.

I don't do that, that's something you and Jerry do.

A reminder: all you have to do is not insist on the last word. But you
will, you can't help yourself.

[VegasJerry]

And in this case, rightly so.

Jerry

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 01:28:58 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/27/12 1:10 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:28:53 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> This is one of your problems: you don't understand that you don't
>>> control the point. I didn't respond to the OP. I made a specific
>>> response to a particular post. You can respond to that or not as you
>>> wish, but you don't get to insist that people only respond about what
>>> you want to talk about.
>
>> You're very confused, as is so often the case. You made a response to
>> a post of mine, which started this little exchange. The first post
>> in a thread or subthread is commonly referred to as the "OP". So,
>> yes, you did respond to the OP of this subthread, by definition.
>
>The "OP" is the first post in a thread. You don't create new OPs with
>thread drift. So your definition is wrong.

You're wrong, as usual.

>> Your response was to a point *I* made, where you erroneously stated
>> that it was a poor analogy. The entire subthread has stemmed from
>> that attempt to rebut a point that *I* made. If you've tried to make
>> it about something else, that simply proves that you're unable to
>> follow a train of thought, as I've tried point out to you many times.
>
>Again, you don't get to control what other people write.

No, but I get to point out that what you write is non-responsive. I
get to point out that you've failed to follow a train of thought. I
get to point out that, when you've lost an argument, you keep
changing the argument until you find one that suits you.

[Truthseeker]

You're the one who can't think of a single attack on Romney that is
dishonest. You didn't even have to name one, just admit that they
exist. But you say I've got nothing. Priceless.

Can you even understand that you've demonstrated my claim ... that you
don't think that there have been any dishonest attacks on Romney? Do
you really not realize how partisan that is?

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 12:20:13 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>On 5/25/12 3:16 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 14:11:08 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>>>> Or ... could it be ... that you don't think there have been any
>>>>> dishonest attacks on Romney?
>
>>>> Be specific.
>
>>> Are you really admitting that you can't think of any? Do you really not
>>> understand how ridiculously partisan that is?
>
>> OK, then, you've got nothing.
>
>You're the one who can't think of a single attack on Romney that is
>dishonest. You didn't even have to name one, just admit that they
>exist. But you say I've got nothing. Priceless.

You're the one who brought it up. I'm not playing your stupid game.
Do you have something or not?