70 facts about the economy Obama probably doesn't want you to see (Harry Reid, unemployed)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here are 10 of the 70 facts but you can see the rest from the link to the 10. I am pretty sure that the crap with Harry Reid these days is done to cover up this things. So many non-issues the Dems keep pushing are done to cover up these truths. I nearly forgot to say that although these 10 come from the Blaze you can see the other 60 from another source.
I am right leaning but I am embarrassed by {R} partisans that lose all objectivity when it comes to Obama. For example, what would a {R} POTUS do about our trade deficit with China ? Answer, not a dam thing except rail against China's currency manipulation that gives them advantage. How many years have we been hearing that song and dance from both parties? Lets say Romney wins the WH and the economy booms under the great leadership of the {R} party, the trade deficit that Obama broke of course would be broken. When the economy is better there is more Wallmart shoppers spending more money, right Roy?
Then the monkeys throwing poop that is on Colburns site, where was he when this was put into the bill? Did he read the bill? why did n't he filibuster? This is what I refer to as a bi partisan cluster **** and it is a joke that fingers are pointed at one side or the other.
I just wonder if Roy is so gullible that he thinks Romney or any {R} would stop Barnanke from monetizing the debt? If uncle Ben told Romney that the economy would slow or crash and UE would rise a percentage point, he would bend over faster then a hooker on 7th avenue.
I know some {R} partisans here think it will be all rainbows and unicorns when they regain the WH, I am betting more of the same.
I am right leaning but I am embarrassed by {R} partisans that lose all objectivity when it comes to Obama. For example, what would a {R} POTUS do about our trade deficit with China ? Answer, not a dam thing except rail against China's currency manipulation that gives them advantage. How many years have we been hearing that song and dance from both parties? Lets say Romney wins the WH and the economy booms under the great leadership of the {R} party, the trade deficit that Obama broke of course would be broken. When the economy is better there is more Wallmart shoppers spending more money, right Roy?
Then the monkeys throwing poop that is on Colburns site, where was he when this was put into the bill? Did he read the bill? why did n't he filibuster? This is what I refer to as a bi partisan cluster **** and it is a joke that fingers are pointed at one side or the other.
I just wonder if Roy is so gullible that he thinks Romney or any {R} would stop Barnanke from monetizing the debt? If uncle Ben told Romney that the economy would slow or crash and UE would rise a percentage point, he would bend over faster then a hooker on 7th avenue.
I know some {R} partisans here think it will be all rainbows and unicorns when they regain the WH, I am betting more of the same.
I don't know about the number of Walmart shoppers since we still spend as much as we ever did no matter who was President. I don't notice the crowds being much smaller these days than during the Bush days but we have very little choice of where else to go within 100 miles. Sometimes we do what we have to do and don't worry about who we spend with.
I will take it for granted that you know what present day declared filibusters amount to. I would really like to go back to the old days when men filibustered and the other side brought in the bunks and the catered food to break the procedure. This sissy crap of today is nothing but threats, that Dirty Harry used very well in the Bush days.
As for the rainbows and unicorns thing, I think that we may survive without Obamacare and surely can't with it. You tell me how that is wrong thinking. I may also say that when David Axelrod is as involved as he is now we will always be in trouble.
Did you take the trouble to read the 10 facts or did you just attack Coburn as the deliverer of them. You sound too much like a leaner doing the attack on the messenger to me.
I am sorry that you have the superior intelligence that allows you to look only at those links you think will agree with your thinking. Actually I think that many people who refuse to read links make fools of themselves trying to run down something that they haven't even seen.
If you can't understand that last sentence take a try at reading on the thread about the 300 pounder who wants to play football with 135 pounders. Most failed to look at the link until a mod entered and quoted from it. Oh hell, they knew what was there without looking.
Slackjaw, I am sorry that you have the superior intelligence that allows you to look only at those links you think will agree with your thinking. Actually I think that many people who refuse to read links make fools of themselves trying to run down something that they haven't even seen.
If you can't understand that last sentence take a try at reading on the thread about the 300 pounder who wants to play football with 135 pounders. Most failed to look at the link until a mod entered and quoted from it. Oh hell, they knew what was there without looking.
I won't try very hard to explain the Glorious Leader since we both know you know what I meant.
How many posts here really are discussing those 10 things? I see mostly attacks on the messenger that leaners are so good at.
I don't know any "Glorious Leader." Who are you talking about? Do you have a Glorious Leader? Interesting that you answer portions of posts which have disappeared. How much discussion are you facilitating about the 10 things rather than worrying about how many "leaners" are reading and responding to this thread? You didn't write the information in the link, did you? If you didn't, then you aren't the "messenger." You're just taking credit for the "message" yet not discussing the 10 things from your perspective and therefore giving it at least some credibility as "your own." What do YOU have to say about the information in the link? It's your thread.
The price of gas – When Obama took office, a gallon of gas cost you $1.85. Today, it’s up to $3.59 per gallon (July’s rise was 17 cents a gallon).
Exactly WHY do YOU think Obama wouldn't want you/us to see this? Everybody knows the price of gas and they know that Obama does not control the price of gas. WHY in YOUR OPINION would this information be something Obama "probably" wouldn't want people to see/know?
Slackjaw, I am sorry that you have the superior intelligence that allows you to look only at those links you think will agree with your thinking.
Never claimed superior intelligence, just claimed enough to know how worthless the economiccollapseblog is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Actually I think that many people who refuse to read links make fools of themselves trying to run down something that they haven't even seen.
I have seen them. The author of that site uses mostly the same ones over and over every year in similar blog posts. Gotta make a buck off those ad clicks, and thats the easiest way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Did you take the trouble to read the 10 facts
Sure, lets look at some of the "facts" and see how they reflect badly on Obama. Going to source article I see a nice shocking one:
Consumer debt in America has risen by a whopping 1700% since 1971.
Oooh! So lets think about this Roy, how does that hurt Obama? Has he been President since 1971? If we're looking at consumer debt going up = bad then how has consumer debt changed since Obama was President?
Oops. To look even farther back to when most of the rise of consumer debt happened:
So what do you think Roy? I'm not giving Obama credit for consumer debt going down nor do I think it going down is automatically a good thing when it does, but how exactly how do statistics on the rise in consumer debt since 1971 hurt Obama as your thread implies? That is exactly how that site works and exactly why most dismiss it, it cobbles together facts with no context then throws them out there for people who are willing to digest shallow scary numbers without thinking them thru. You bought it hook line and sinker, congrats.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
