Blah, blah, blah. Let's see what you bring this time. Don't disappoint me! I really want you to bring it this time.
Sry, bud, but that post is just too overflowing with hack for me to really get into much detail.
The opening stanza that always comes before the failure to reply on the merits. I'll hold my breath just this one time, however.
You wrote another book that again doesn't cover anything new. I mean, heck, I can't even quote the whole thing to address it out of pity for the folks who are reading this thread for a laugh.
Not even a good diversion from the OP. Attacking the length of a post without attacking its substance is truly not an art form - but I'll let you go on thinking that it is.
Simply put, I spoke to the talking points, not the facts you mingled in there. The cherry picking of data presented can be a talking point. This is easily evidenced by simply stating the U3 went down to 7.8% without mentioning how many people dropped out of the workforce or mentioning how many jobs were added over the last 31 months without mentioning that the number doesn't even keep up with population increases.
Yeah, well - when you've looked at as many Employment Reports that I've looked at in my business of running a small fund, then I'll actually believe that your prose where you profess to understand the U3 data, carries some weight. Until then, just know that what you just mentioned is nothing more than a red herring wrapped in a non-sequitur, as there is absolutely nothing in the U3 segment that has the slightest to do with comparing national economic employment numbers.
Nice try - but you are going to have to do more homework to fool me with such filibustering blither.
It's also cute how you seem to think you are the only person creating threads here. Lumping threads together was referencing all threads, not just yours and we have covered these topics. The fact that you mock the discussion on this site doesn't speak well to the value of us bothering to reply to you.
I find it much more cute that you think you can push this line of non-sequitur reply past me as though it has any relevance whatsoever to the OP I posted. Claiming that I have lumped threads together is tantamount to you claiming that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, attempts to lump peanut butter and jelly together into one sandwich. It is a ridiculous statement that has no relevance to anything posted inside this thread.
The OP is crystal clear. I wrote it. Get over it.
I contains precisely what I've said it contains and I have no intention of repeating myself again. Either respond to the substance contained within the post, or simply admit that you've been lied to for four (4) and brainwashed into believing the ridiculous, that somehow this President has generated a failed record, when nothing could be farther from the truth. His record,
under the circumstanced outlined and detailed above in the OP, rather remarkable for anyone being intellectually honest about the matter. But, again, that does take some intellectual honesty to bring yourself to admit, now doesn't it?
The media has done a fine job of lauding the president's "accomplishments".
Really? Can you point me to thread or a link where somebody is talking about how the MSM has done a fabulous job of lauding the President's "accomplishments?"
Be very careful how you answer that question - because it is a trick question, designed to catch smart people like you - not telling the truth.
The problem you have there is that not everybody is fool enough to think they were all positives.
I think you and those who think like you, are having a really hard time coming to grips with that this thread is designed to accomplish. I've stated it outright now three (3) times, yet you seem to not have caught on. So, to explain it again, would mean that I define the purpose of this thread four (4) times, and I'm just not going to do that for you.
I'm not going to read for you.
The OP stands as being UN-addressed by you or anyone else in a direct fashion for that matter and the reason behind the thread is crystal clear and written in plain English for any intellectual honest person to consider - should they care to. Whether the do or not, is there business. I'm just making this thread available for the intellectual curious to ponder and juxtapose the reality of what this man has done in office thus far, against the
words offered by those who hate him and have publicly stated that there four (4) year mission in life was to see to it that Obama, is a one term President.
That fact that you are STILL ignoring the overwhelming evidence that there were Congressional Members who spent the past four (4) years of their life trying to unseat this man, is staggering in and of itself. But, you go right ahead and continue the pretense. This OP will be right here to remind you, of just how wrong you've been.
We know of them. We have debated them.
Still missing the point of this thread - are you not? Whether you've "debated" them or not is hardly the point of why this OP exists. Amazing that you can't simply READ the reason for the existence of the OP, as opposed to making up your own reasons for why you think it exists.
By and large, I disagree with most of his choice of legislative focuses. From the ACA he shoved down the throats of the American public to Lily Ledbetter Right to Sue act, we are aware of them.
Hmmmm. So, you disagreed with the President? Now, we are getting somewhere (hopefully).
Since when did your disagreement with the President on Lily Ledbetter, for example, all of a sudden translate into
Obama's entire Presidency has failed? Because, is you support the statements that other Republican Political Operatives have been intentionally dropping into ever media encounter they can, that "Obama is a failed President," then you have to have a
reason for making such a statement.
Now, how many people disagree with you on the "legislative focus" that you use to attack the President? How many of those people classify what he did as a genuine success and something that was important to their lives as Americans? How many of those people disagree with your assessment that the President has failed and how many of them would
read the OP and conclude as I conclude, that under the circumstances that this President was faced with upon taking office, that his accomplishments are nothing short of historic and positive for the country?
You see - your opinion does not alter history, when it comes to whether or not a piece of legislation was successful or not. What determines that are the facts. And, the facts don't agree with your opinion.
Now, I fully understand that you don't like that logic, but that's sound logic nonetheless. Either Lily Ledbetter helped somebody and people agree, which they do, then who are you to conclude that in summation, that Obama's Presidency is a failure, merely because you don't agree with the legislation?
THAT is why the OP exists. To make the clear distinction between Republican Opinion and Historical Fact.
Got it? Now, let's move on.
In the next few chapters of your book, you talk about the value of personal opinion and then proceed to claim ignorance makes folks disagree with you.
Well, whenever you dare quote me, you had better provide a link to my exact words in proper context. So, I'll give you an opportunity to explain yourself using my words, as this last sentence of yours make no sense whatsoever and I don't dare answer something that makes no sense. So, go right ahead and link it all up for me, so I can see the context.
You even cite Maggie, who is a well-respected and incredibly intelligent poster here.
That's interesting. How can one develop the reputation of being "well respected" when the very first thing this "well respected" individual did was make a personal attack about someone being on drugs? How do you "respect" someone like that? Oh, don't answer - I know how. The same way you respect Mitt Romney, who lies to your face all day long, while you never dare to correct him on it - right? I'm so certain of it.
It's pretty entertaining to read these even if it is a baseless assumption. Turns out you aren't the smartest person around and it's quite possible and even highly likely that informed folks with high IQ scores will disagree with you and your quest to praise Obama and spin everything into a positive.
Reading you, is what I find entertaining. You just called MaggieD, into your reply, yet you completely missed the retort that she throw my way. You then failed to acknowledge the fact that she was summarily corrected and taken to task on the matter of Health Care as an Economic Imperative for out nation. You have even bothered to address any of the response sent her way, you just decided instead to pick and choose what you deem as being "well respected" as if somehow, she has no responsibility to remain civil.
I am ALWAYS bewildered by those who can dish it out, but can never take what they dish out in return. It is ok for MaggieD, to be rude - but if she gets taken to school, well watch out! Because doing that is a sign of "disrespecting MaggieD," and that just won't be tolerated.
Amazing. :shock:
In the continued incessant ramblings of that post, you give the usual talking points about Romney and 47% and flip-flopping and blah blah.
Would you stop and listen to yourself for just a moment. Do you hear yourself thinking when you type on your keyboard? Talking points, is what you just said. How can 47% be a talking point - can you explain that to anyone? How can something that a Candidate running for the Presidency of the United States of America,
actually said with his own mouth, ever be a "talking point?"
You are making no sense, whatsoever.
Talking points are BY DEFINITION
fabricated statements to move your opinion one way or another. Talking points are
constructions that may or may not contain
real hard facts. When Romney, put his foot down his own throat and slammed half the entire country, including Retired Veterans and Single Mothers working two (2) jobs just to make ends meet, that is NOT a mere "talking point" that is in fact, what comes directly from the man's
heart and his character.
He could care LESS about the 47% and he proved it to you! Yet, you sit here and try to pass this off like its some minor point in the campaign? How dare you? How incredibly insensitive could you be? Do you know who those 47% represent? Those are Senior Citizens who
CAN NO LONGER WORK are who are struggling to get by from day to day. The are former members of our Military, who
SERVED THEIR COUNTRY WITH HONOR AND DISTINCTION, but who get slapped in the face by a Candidate running to capture his 51% of the vote and who give a rats tail about their SERVICE.
That, is who that 47% represent. They are Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Most importantly, they are United States Citizens. So, you can take that fake, phony, facade of carrying about "MaggieD," and hold up to the light so scrutiny as you marginalize the 47% right along with Mitt "Clueless" Romney.
Now that - yes. That one made me angry - because I served this country for eight (8) years and I KNOW that some of our Vets our suffering out there, unable to pay the bills and unable to find jobs. All because Neocons had to start playing Masters of the Universe, by setting this world on fire in 2001.
The things you do not understand about your Government are epic my dear friend.
When you actually get around to finding that education that instructs you properly on why we the West can't seem to buy a decent relationship in the Middle East, and why that is now spreading into North and East Africa, you will actually have done something very important in your life. The moment you understand WHY the shift from the former USSR as being the "bad guy" on the planet, had to be made to the Middle East, and how that relates to why were are where we are right now in our Foreign Policy hang-ups, will be the day you actually learn something of value.
I hope, for YOUR sake, that day comes soon.