Oh I'm sorry. Did I miss some kind of rule that only you can play indignant and claim to "simply pointing out" some "facts" while claiming you're not actually making any argument?
I'm just playing your game Kush. I'm just pointing out a fact. Why does that bother you? As an american, you should be upset when America isn't doing its absolute best. Instead, you're okay with less than its best because it occured on the watch of a Democratic president.
What? Don't like your little game of "I'm just going to claim facts, make clear implications, and then rail at people for not taking my subjective contextual basis for how I judge those facts as absolute truth" actually being used against you?
"So what"?
So there are other "facts" other than the ones you presented that one can look at and come to a different conclussion in regards to whether or not "America [is doing] well". That the measurement of what "doing well" is can vary depending on what arbitrary criteria you wish to use to define it.
So what? So your facts aren't the only ones that exist, your reference point isn't the only one that is legitimate, and your implied assertions aren't magically absolute objective facts simply because you use facts to reach said conclussions.
Now you want to argue on the basis of projections?
Nope. Just stating facts. Just like you. I haven't "argued" anything, just like you haven't "given obama credit" for anything. I, just like you, were simply posting "facts". Interprit it as you wish. I'm simply pointing them out.
May I echo you again....why does that bother you?
If you expect me to treat your arguments based on a fraudulent method of debate where you just scream "FACTS FACTS FACTS" to try and distract people from the multitude of subjective factors and opinionated assertions you try to masquerade as facts as well as anything more than the dishonest tactic it is? Or that I'd react to them with anything better than your own tactics?
My post was simply demonstrating "facts", just like yours was. Why does that bother you so.