- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 37,042
- Reaction score
- 17,950
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
This was the post I was responding to:
Then, Fenton and bubbabgone are contradicting each other. bubbabgone clearly said 'Obama negatively effected economic growth' due to unknown policies in energy while Fenton claims Obama has NOTHING to do with new Oil and Gas exploration. The results (facts) are that oil and gas production are up and natural gas prices are down -- which contradicts bubbabgone's claim that Obama policies on energy are negatively effecting the economy.
I find it both sad and funny that right-wingers hold beliefs that they are convinced are true but don't withstand simple researching of results. Another one of those beliefs -- we call them myths, about Reagan. Everyone on the right knows that Reagan presided over job creation on a scale never seen before or since. But what they know just isn’t so.
If we look at monthly job creation as a measure, to factor out the length difference in presidential terms, we get this:
So, when the general gum chewing public rates presidents, do you think that they have any idea that Carter's average monthly job creation was greater than Reagan's or that Bush II had essentially no job gains? No, their polled viewpoint reflect what they "know" even if what they no is completely wrong. That's something one doesn't get when polling historians.
Ya know, you should pay less attention to the cheerleaders who LIKE your comments in order to keep you all wound up.
I posted a response to your notion of Obama-as Electricity-magnate and as for your silly Obama-as-modern-day-J.Paul Getty, there's no daylight between me and Fenton.
The increase in oil exploration was on State & private land ... not Government owned. See the difference?
You sure are selective in what you post.