The Horrible Truth about Barack Obama's Presidency

[Casca XV]

1) Stefan Molyneux isn't even trying to review Obama's accomplishments, he's just trying to criticize Obama for what he views as Obama's negatives. So when you say SM is reviewing Obama's accomplishments, you are misrepresenting what the video is about.

2) You claim Obama is objectively one of the worst Presidents. This is not objective. It's almost entirely subjective.

3) I'm not going to watch an hour of this crap. I watched about 15 minutes and it was as terrible as most of Molyneaux's stuff is. If you want to list out every argument, I'd be much more willing to break each point down.

4) You really have to be careful with Stefan Molyneaux. I consider him to be a con artist. Go and look through all the times Stefan Molyneaux stated the economy was going to crash. He literally stated the economy was going to crash every year from the start of the recovery until the present, and we've had nothing but growth every year. But oh, he'll bring gold peddlers on to sell you some gold to protect your wealth from the impending economic collapse that never comes. But point out how wrong he has been and this scam he is operating and he will block you rather than deal with the actual argument. Stefan Molyneaux is no form of credible authority. Take a look at this:

The start of the recovery can be deemed to be 2010 (GDP), with growth every year until the present: https://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

2010 Stefan Molyneaux economic crash prediction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzazGIUV8qw

2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGuZhBSoWI0

2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NZJ_vTMBYI

2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA

2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15-aBo_q0Xo

2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zoDuMpJ8I4

2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO6vC5otfm4

2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qj2V1Y8ooM

2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDnvugZ8YVc

I always say that if you predict an economic crash coming long enough you'll be right eventually, but it would be hard to be as wrong as Stefan Molyneaux has been on the economy. I used to listen to him on some stuff pertaining to culture, but I just can't justify supporting him, nor do I want to listen to him anymore, when he has been so wrong. And furthermore, I've come to the conclusion that he's fearmongering for money given the type of guests he has on his show. This is what propaganda really is (literally). I'm not being hyperbolic he. I hate the person he is for what he does to people. I personally think he knows what he is doing. But regardless of whether this is nefarious or not, we can see his predictions and see that he is objectively wrong over and over. And I don't mean objective in the way you use the term, I mean in the actual way where you can define parameters of what it means to have an economic collapse and see that we have had nothing but growth for about 8 years now while Molyneaux has predicted the exact opposite for the same amount of time.

What Obama accomplishment? While he was president American had the slowest recovery from a recession in US history, is the close as I can come to answering that question.

I can point out how Obama made it the slowest recovery Yet no one tell me about an Obama policy that actually improved the economy, and I have asked dozens of times.

Obama foreign policy created ISIS and Slavery in Libya.

The Chinese had such little respect for Obama that that forced him to exit Air Force One out the cargo hatch, While Trump has the Chinese turning against North Korea, (the base reason they are giving up nukes).

 

[FreeWits]

What Obama accomplishment? While he was president American had the slowest recovery from a recession in US history, is the close as I can come to answering that question.

I can point out how Obama made it the slowest recovery Yet no one tell me about an Obama policy that actually improved the economy, and I have asked dozens of times.

Obama foreign policy created ISIS and Slavery in Libya.

The Chinese had such little respect for Obama that that forced him to exit Air Force One out the cargo hatch, While Trump has the Chinese turning against North Korea, (the base reason they are giving up nukes).

If you don't believe Obama has an accomplishment, then you really misrepresented the Stefan Molyneaux video. Remember, you said he was reviewing Obama accomplishments. You said you have asked lots of people one economic policy by Obama that improved the economy and nobody has been able to give you an answer. I find that hard to believe, but I can help you out. The stimulus package helped the economy.

 

[Casca XV]

And the GDP numbers for 2017 are a whopping 2.3% with expectations for 2018 at 2.5% having firehosed the economy with gasoline.

I actually think they will hit 3% at some point before 2020, the GOP having promised 4% before passing its tax bill and immediately revising that back down to 3%. There were ways to get to 3% without fire hosing the economy with gasoline and throwing $600b down a rathole. But they won't maintain 3%. There certainly were ways to get to 2.5% without fire hosing the economy with gasoline. We could have actually had an Infrastructure program which would have meant productivity gains which would have actually had a sustainable contribution to the rate of growth in GDP.

2.5% was a number Obama often hit during his 8 years. Watch suddenly 2.5% will be wonderful under Trump while it was awful under Obama. 2.5% is neither terrible or wonderful. It is what it is and no long term sustainable advances can really be made until somebody has the guts to deal with the structural issues in the contemporary US economy.

Obama was still president for a small part of 2017 Obama was president and he had GDP down to 1.2%. that is why 2017 did not average 3% or better. From 2nd quarter 2017 on it has been averaging about 3%.

 

[Casca XV]

If you don't believe Obama has an accomplishment, then you really misrepresented the Stefan Molyneaux video. Remember, you said he was reviewing Obama accomplishments. You said you have asked lots of people one economic policy by Obama that improved the economy and nobody has been able to give you an answer. I find that hard to believe, but I can help you out. The stimulus package helped the economy.

Obama himself admitted the stimulus was a failure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skAOLejB4BA

 

[ataraxia]

What Obama accomplishment? While he was president American had the slowest recovery from a recession in US history, is the close as I can come to answering that question.

I can point out how Obama made it the slowest recovery Yet no one tell me about an Obama policy that actually improved the economy, and I have asked dozens of times.

Obama foreign policy created ISIS and Slavery in Libya.

The Chinese had such little respect for Obama that that forced him to exit Air Force One out the cargo hatch, While Trump has the Chinese turning against North Korea, (the base reason they are giving up nukes).

This letter was written by a Canadian in 2014 after the "shellacking" Obama got in the 2012 elections. It was published as an op ed in the Detroit Free Press:

Americans don't know how good they have it with Obama

Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections.

Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money.

America is once again leading the world and respected internationally — in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden.

So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason.

When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?

Richard Brunt

Victoria, British Columbia

 

[jnug]

Obama himself admitted the stimulus was a failure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skAOLejB4BA

So, no wrong as usual. Obama did not admit the stimulus was a failure. Perhaps you could get more traction in these threads if you did not start with a lie. Are you vying for a job in the Trump administration. You're off to a good start if thats your intention. Other than that, its the usual horse dung.

 

[ultmd]

I don't want to rehash anything. I know the difference between facts and opinions. Most everything you tried to use to pin a racial motive on the manager was subjective. It was your interpretation of the event. Just because some blacks, perhaps a lot of them, face discrimination, doesn't mean they all do at all times. There is such a thing as enforcing the rules because they are the rules or the law because it's the law without regard to race, gender or anything else.

1:lamo So now that I corrected the record on what was ACTUALLY said in it, you no longer want to "rehash" the Starbucks thread, huh? That is pretty funny, given that you're the one who told the initial LIE (about me calling someone "delusional" in the Starbucks thread) in the first place. This just shows, yet again, the wisdom of the old quote from former USSC Justice Louis Brandeis, who famously noted that "Sunlight/Truth is the best disinfectant".

2. There was nothing subjective about the FACT that in a Starbucks filled with white patrons.......many of whom were also guilty of the offense of "sitting without buying".......... the ONLY people asked to leave were the only 2 black men in the place. Several eye witnesses....as well as the CEO of Starbucks, himself....have attested to those details. So that leaves right wing ideologues like you as the only people who don't see the apparent racism in this incident.

3. "they all do at all times"?....this is a classic STRAWMAN argument. No one....NO ONE.....other than YOU, has EVER stated (or even implied) that black people face discrimination every second of every day of their lives. So why would you even attempt to pass that off as the views of ANYONE in that thread? What almost EVERYONE can see is that THIS instance was a fairly clear example of racial bias. And it really doesn't matter if the bias was explicit or implicit. The results are the same: 2 black men were singled out, needlessly harassed, and ultimately arrested....for doing the same thing as several white patrons in that Starbucks that day. And your inability to grasp that basic, bottom line FACT....this is why people are so dismissive of your arguments, which tend to be full of emotion and fake news/facts (as above), and very short on honesty and common sense.

4. Enforcing the Rules. Of course, there is a HUGE (and obvious) problem with this simplistic argument. "The rules" as put in place by the manager of that store were NOT being enforced equally. They were used to remove black patrons, while allowing white patrons to "sit without buying" without being asked to leave. Anyone with a modicum of objectivity should be able to see that. But not you.

 

[ultmd]

Name a none Leftist economists who has a high opinion of Obama?

Stupid request, since Lord only knows what constitutes "non-leftist" in the minds of right wing types like you. But well-known conservative economists who have spoken up in favor of Obama's economic legacy would include Reagan's old economist, Bruce Bartlett...as well as scholars like Bengt Holmstrom and Richard Thaler for starters. Even James Sherk (for crying out loud) has been effusive in his praise of the way Obama handled the auto bailout. That said, I highly doubt that any of this really matters to you. As an ideologue, you've probably already dismissed it because it challenges your existing biases.

Name the Obama policy that improved the economy?

The Stimulus not only "worked" (i.e. improved) the economy, it literally saved it. And, of course, the auto bailout literally saved the American automobile industry. And again, most leading economists, regardless of ideology, long ago came to strong consensus opinion about that. Just about the only people who argue otherwise are not economists, but conservative fake "experts" and pundits who offer opinions (not research).

The average GDP under Obama was 1.5%, he had it down to 1.2% when President Trump took office. Within 2 months Trump had it up to over 3% where it has averaged since.

Typical fake-news derived "facts" (i.e. either false or misleading). You're calculating Obama's average GDP by including the mess he inherited in 2009 from Bush, but you calculate Trump's average GDP by excluding the Q1 GDP for 2017 (which you conveniently assign to Obama). But can't have it both ways. Pick one, and we can discuss it further. But please don't waste my time with more fake-news/talk radio dissembling like this, ok?

For the record, the GDP in 2016 was 1.5%, not 1.2%. And the GDP for 2017 was 2.3%, not "over 3%". Facts matter, Casca. Especially well-known facts.

Now, if you want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, you can exclude 2017Q1, which would bring Trump's average GDP for the last 4 quarters up to 2.9% (not "over 3%). But if that's your game, then you need to exclude all of 2009 from Obama's record, since that's how long it took for the Stimulus funds to impact the economy in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

That said, Obama's REAL GDP average (i.e. from 2010-2016, AFTER saving the economy from the Bush Recession of 2008-09) was closer to 2.3. Trump's average GDP (after inheriting a strong, growing economy with low-unemployment and thriving markets from Obama) was NOT "over 3%". It was 2.3...the SAME as the average Obama GDP over the last 7 years of his presidency.

 

[FreeWits]

Obama himself admitted the stimulus was a failure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skAOLejB4BA

That was misleading propaganda, and Obama did not admit the stimulus was a failure anywhere in there. I guess you weren't planning on me actually watching it. In 2010, the economy was already benefiting from the Stimulus. Here: https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

Notice in 2009 the GDP growth was -2.8%. In 2010, the GDP growth was 2.5%. Sure it grew by more or less after that, but every year it had positive growth from 2010 until the present. The lowest growth was 1.5% and the highest was 2.9%. And here you can read from the Brookings Institue an article calling Obama's Stimulus a "smashing success": https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/...-middle-class-income-losses-in-the-recession/ Is this why you say nobody is able to give you an economic policy of Obama that was successful, because when someone like me does, you write me off as wrong?

 

[calamity]

It's a shame that the first US African-American President is also by every objective standard one of the worst.

Stefan Molyneux gives an outstanding video presentation, link below, his source information links are below that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsWzfhvvOgg

On January 20, 2009, President Barack Obama took office on a platform of "hope" and "change" for the United States of America. As Obama has completed his final day as President of the United States, Stefan Molyneux reviews his accomplishments, failures and legacy in the annals of American history.



Sources

https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/obama-252/

Barack Obama?s Economy: The Ugly Truth | National Review
America hits new record under Obama?s welfare economy: 95 million people NOT in the work force
Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/02/07/black-teen-unemployment-jumps-to-38/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/05/is-the-unemployment-rate-lying-to-you/
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...came-most-fiscally-irresponsible-president-in
http://conservativerevival.com/late...debt-obama-accumulated-during-his-presidency/
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/a-veteran-reporter-on-americas-forever-war/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/#6170d6e83723
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/DavidStockman/obama-jobs-lies-economy/2015/07/03/id/653391/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/28/americans-poverty-no-work/2594203/
http://conservativetribune.com/obama-makes-astonishing-race/
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/17/survey-under-obama-race-relations-in-the-us-reach-20-year-low/
https://www.city-journal.org/html/obamas-biggest-failure-14638.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/john...have-gotten-worse-under-barack-obama-n2192725
Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009

Dumbest thread of the year nominee.

 

[veritas1]

****ing christ, you need to work on your trolling, this is just pathetic

Have anything intelligent to add? I'm guessing you don't.

 

[veritas1]

1:lamo So now that I corrected the record on what was ACTUALLY said in it, you no longer want to "rehash" the Starbucks thread, huh? That is pretty funny, given that you're the one who told the initial LIE (about me calling someone "delusional" in the Starbucks thread) in the first place. This just shows, yet again, the wisdom of the old quote from former USSC Justice Louis Brandeis, who famously noted that "Sunlight/Truth is the best disinfectant".

2. There was nothing subjective about the FACT that in a Starbucks filled with white patrons.......many of whom were also guilty of the offense of "sitting without buying".......... the ONLY people asked to leave were the only 2 black men in the place. Several eye witnesses....as well as the CEO of Starbucks, himself....have attested to those details. So that leaves right wing ideologues like you as the only people who don't see the apparent racism in this incident.

3. "they all do at all times"?....this is a classic STRAWMAN argument. No one....NO ONE.....other than YOU, has EVER stated (or even implied) that black people face discrimination every second of every day of their lives. So why would you even attempt to pass that off as the views of ANYONE in that thread? What almost EVERYONE can see is that THIS instance was a fairly clear example of racial bias. And it really doesn't matter if the bias was explicit or implicit. The results are the same: 2 black men were singled out, needlessly harassed, and ultimately arrested....for doing the same thing as several white patrons in that Starbucks that day. And your inability to grasp that basic, bottom line FACT....this is why people are so dismissive of your arguments, which tend to be full of emotion and fake news/facts (as above), and very short on honesty and common sense.

4. Enforcing the Rules. Of course, there is a HUGE (and obvious) problem with this simplistic argument. "The rules" as put in place by the manager of that store were NOT being enforced equally. They were used to remove black patrons, while allowing white patrons to "sit without buying" without being asked to leave. Anyone with a modicum of objectivity should be able to see that. But not you.

You apparently can't read very well.

1. You corrected nothing. You offered opinions. Secondly, I gave you the exact posts where you called a black conservative poster deluded. He asked you to explain and you ran away. You're trying to do it now as well.

2. Hey, you got something right. "Apparent racism" you said. Since when do we punish people for what is only apparent?

3. This incident was a clear example of racial bias to YOU. Since you have a grossly inflated opinion of yourself, you assume that this must be correct. Yet, you in no way have shown that the manager acted based solely on the race of the two men. You have simply assumed it based on circumstances. Starbucks, likewise, caved in due to such assumptions whipped up by the media.

4. I see. So there was a pattern in that store of removing black patrons or not serving them? Funny that it wasn't detected long before now if that is the case. Yet, since it happened this one time you assume that race was the reason. My response is that it COULD have been the reason but there is no way to say it in this case. But, it's so much easier to throw the manager under the bus than risk boycotts and the like, I guess.

 

[ultmd]

You apparently can't read very well.

1. You corrected nothing. You offered opinions. Secondly, I gave you the exact posts where you called a black conservative poster deluded. He asked you to explain and you ran away. You're trying to do it now as well.

2. Hey, you got something right. "Apparent racism" you said. Since when do we punish people for what is only apparent?

3. This incident was a clear example of racial bias to YOU. Since you have a grossly inflated opinion of yourself, you assume that this must be correct. Yet, you in no way have shown that the manager acted based solely on the race of the two men. You have simply assumed it based on circumstances. Starbucks, likewise, caved in due to such assumptions whipped up by the media.

4. I see. So there was a pattern in that store of removing black patrons or not serving them? Funny that it wasn't detected long before now if that is the case. Yet, since it happened this one time you assume that race was the reason. My response is that it COULD have been the reason but there is no way to say it in this case. But, it's so much easier to throw the manager under the bus than risk boycotts and the like, I guess.

1. LOL, my reading comprehension is not in question. Your veracity, however, very much IS. There is no misunderstanding about what I said (and did not say) in that thread. If you disagree with that...and you can't even find the quote of me saying "delusional" (and you KNOW you cannot)....then you are lying. Full stop. It's really no more complicated than that.

2. Your ability to contextualize is, at best, selective. At worst, you're just not a very honest person. In this case, the use of "apparent" would be synonymous with "clear", "obvious", "manifest", "evident", etc. The racism in this incident was apparent. That's why the entire store was wondering aloud why they were being confronted and arrested. That's why the CEO of Starbucks has acknowledged as much, apologized, and pledged to enact new company-wide policies. That's why almost EVERYONE (other than a minority of right wing dead-enders with entitlement issues) is in agreement about this incident.

3. Yes, to me...and to most Americans. In this case, as in most cases, you are the outlier....the extremist....the "winger". What you call "caving", because of your entitlement/resentment issues, Starbucks' CEO recognizes as "accountability". You desperately need to believe that some version of your stupid "liberal media" conspiracy theories (in this case, that the CEO is reacting to media pressure and not out of personal integrity and good business practices). Regardless, it really doesn't matter what people like you think. Unlike a lot of right wingers, some people recognize that ignoring racism only emboldens more racism. And most reasonable people see the racism in this incident. That you don't, is somewhat telling about you.

4. I said nothing about a pattern. Neither is any kind of "pattern" required. I said that the manager was obviously not enforcing her "store policy" equally, because the ONLY people asked to leave.....the ONLY people denied bathroom access......the ONLY people she called the police on...........the ONLY people who were harassed, humiliated and arrested for "sitting without buying"..........were the ONLY 2 black men in that store. So....Take a deep breath, let go of your suppressed rage, and just re-read my comments. The facts of this case were APPARENT (there goes that pesky word again) to most rational people. And people like you trivialize your own professed beliefs in "values" when you try to rationalize, apologize and ignore clear and APPARENT examples of racial bias, like the Starbucks store incident.

 

[veritas1]

1. LOL, my reading comprehension is not in question. Your veracity, however, very much IS. There is no misunderstanding about what I said (and did not say) in that thread. If you disagree with that...and you can't even find the quote of me saying "delusional" (and you KNOW you cannot)....then you are lying. Full stop. It's really no more complicated than that.

2. Your ability to contextualize is, at best, selective. At worst, you're just not a very honest person. In this case, the use of "apparent" would be synonymous with "clear", "obvious", "manifest", "evident", etc. The racism in this incident was apparent. That's why the entire store was wondering aloud why they were being confronted and arrested. That's why the CEO of Starbucks has acknowledged as much, apologized, and pledged to enact new company-wide policies. That's why almost EVERYONE (other than a minority of right wing dead-enders with entitlement issues) is in agreement about this incident.

3. Yes, to me...and to most Americans. In this case, as in most cases, you are the outlier....the extremist....the "winger". What you call "caving", because of your entitlement/resentment issues, Starbucks' CEO recognizes as "accountability". You desperately need to believe that some version of your stupid "liberal media" conspiracy theories (in this case, that the CEO is reacting to media pressure and not out of personal integrity and good business practices). Regardless, it really doesn't matter what people like you think. Unlike a lot of right wingers, some people recognize that ignoring racism only emboldens more racism. And most reasonable people see the racism in this incident. That you don't, is somewhat telling about you.

4. I said nothing about a pattern. Neither is any kind of "pattern" required. I said that the manager was obviously not enforcing her "store policy" equally, because the ONLY people asked to leave.....the ONLY people denied bathroom access......the ONLY people she called the police on...........the ONLY people who were harassed, humiliated and arrested for "sitting without buying"..........were the ONLY 2 black men in that store. So....Take a deep breath, let go of your suppressed rage, and just re-read my comments. The facts of this case were APPARENT (there goes that pesky word again) to most rational people. And people like you trivialize your own professed beliefs in "values" when you try to rationalize, apologize and ignore clear and APPARENT examples of racial bias, like the Starbucks store incident.

I'm not going to argue the Starbucks case anymore. You'll always see only what you want to see so no sense beating that dead horse. As for your impugning of my honesty, I most certainly do take issue with that. I see you've fallen back on parsing words since you said the other poster was "in denial" and "perpetuating white victmhood" and he responded by asking you in what way he was "deluded" In Post #798 when he asked you how he was deluded, you said "Please, do tell". So, obviously, you think he's deluded but apparently either can't express or are unwilling to express in what way he is deluded. I'm wondering why the reluctance when you scribble on ad nauseum about every other topic.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Obama was still president for a small part of 2017 Obama was president and he had GDP down to 1.2%. that is why 2017 did not average 3% or better. From 2nd quarter 2017 on it has been averaging about 3%.

So, as soon as a president takes office he generates magical GDP energy. You think economics is magic and presidents are wizards.

Conservatives have been wrong at every point.

1. They were wrong when they said the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves.
2. They were wrong when they said we should let American auto industry go into bankruptcy.
3. They were wrong that the stimulus wouldn't work
4. They were wrong when they complained about quantitative easing under Obama.
5. They were wrong when the predicted a double-dip recession because of Obama.

Now Trump is trying to Bush tax cuts again.

 

[ultmd]

I'm not going to argue the Starbucks case anymore.

That's probably the smarter move, at this point.

As for your impugning of my honesty, I most certainly do take issue with that.

Funny, considering your penchant for "impugning" others, yourself. Here's a suggestion for you, and you can take it or leave it. If you are going to be sensitive about having your veracity (or intellect, etc.) "impugned" by others......don't impugn them in any way similar. That should keep you from having to "take issue" with others. Otherwise, grow a thicker skin.

I see you've fallen back on parsing words since you said the other poster was "in denial" and "perpetuating white victmhood" and he responded by asking you in what way he was "deluded" In Post #798 when he asked you how he was deluded, you said "Please, do tell". So, obviously, you think he's deluded but apparently either can't express or are unwilling to express in what way he is deluded. I'm wondering why the reluctance when you scribble on ad nauseum about every other topic.

1. Wow, only 2 SENTENCES ago you declared that you were done with that thread. Now, you're back to it. And you wonder why I say you are an emotional poster?
2. It was not my responsibility to educate you, but I did it anyway. I explained to you that being "in denial" is NOT the same as being "delusional". Those are NOT synonyms, and it really doesn't matter if you (or your friend) understand that, or not.
3. The only "obvious" thing going on here is that you don't understand much of what you talk about on this board. And I will not assume any responsibility for coddling ignorance among those who CHOOSE to avoid or ignore (i.e. are "in denial", but NOT necessarily "delusional") FACTS in order to feed their own ideological biases and insecurities.

 

[Moderate Right]

The only terrible truth here is that some people are pathologically obsessed with the man.

LOL. Says one of the lefties on here who is pathologically obsessed with Trump.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

LOL. Says one of the lefties on here who is pathologically obsessed with Trump.

That's an odd thing for a Marxist like you to post.

 

[veritas1]

That's probably the smarter move, at this point.




Funny, considering your penchant for "impugning" others, yourself. Here's a suggestion for you, and you can take it or leave it. If you are going to be sensitive about having your veracity (or intellect, etc.) "impugned" by others......don't impugn them in any way similar. That should keep you from having to "take issue" with others. Otherwise, grow a thicker skin.





1. Wow, only 2 SENTENCES ago you declared that you were done with that thread. Now, you're back to it. And you wonder why I say you are an emotional poster?
2. It was not my responsibility to educate you, but I did it anyway. I explained to you that being "in denial" is NOT the same as being "delusional". Those are NOT synonyms, and it really doesn't matter if you (or your friend) understand that, or not.
3. The only "obvious" thing going on here is that you don't understand much of what you talk about on this board. And I will not assume any responsibility for coddling ignorance among those who CHOOSE to avoid or ignore (i.e. are "in denial", but NOT necessarily "delusional") FACTS in order to feed their own ideological biases and insecurities.

I told you the reason I wasn't going to argue about Starbucks and that is because you are immune to anything other than the sound of your own voice. Opinions different from yours are dismissed as "emotion". That must make it very convenient for you indeed. No need to examine your own position, just brush off the other argument as one born of emotion or, better yet "dishonesty".

Secondly, my responding to you attempting to weasel out of what you told the other poster is not a rehashing of the Starbucks case details. It is calling you out for denying what it's obvious you said and for now not manning up and admitting it or explaining yourself. What's really humorous is that you probably consider yourself free of "ideological biases" while using this claim to attack others.

Lastly, I understand perfectly. I've been dealing with self important, dismissive liberals like you on these types of boards for years. Lots of talking in circles and attacking the other guy and not much to back up their claims. This is nothing new.

 

[Mensch]

Feel free to specify anything I got wrong?

You didn’t mention anything specific to begin with.

 

[Casca XV]

You didn’t mention anything specific to begin with.

My opening argument are nothing but specifics

 

[Quag]

Stefan Molyneux is a whack job and all around scumbag.

 

[ultmd]

I told you the reason I wasn't going to argue about Starbucks and that is because you are immune to anything other than the sound of your own voice.

What you say means nothing....to me or to any other objective, rational person. You're a right winger who spews talk-radio styled fake news "facts"; so I don't care what you THINK is true. What you can prove is all that matters. And this thread has demonstrated that your point of view is based almost entirely upon "facts" that you can't back up, and the unsupported OPINIONS of other right wingers that have been discredited by me and others.

Opinions different from yours are dismissed as "emotion".

Either that (i.e. emotions and ignorance borne of 25 years of talk-radio/FoxNews styled "alternative" news)....or just malevolence and dishonesty. Those are pretty much the only objective possibilities, and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying that you are the former (i.e. just one of those emotional conservatives who has been brainwashed), rather than an example of the latter. It's getting harder and harder to differentiate between emotional conservatives and malevolent conservatives these days. But make no mistake, you are one of the two.

That must make it very convenient for you indeed. No need to examine your own position, just brush off the other argument as one born of emotion or, better yet "dishonesty".

Examine...with what? Unlike you ideologues, I'm open to FACTS which contradict my existing views and biases. But, like most ideologues, your problem is that you want your OPINIONS and the OPINIONS of other right wingers, to be accepted as "facts" and given equal weight in comparison to REAL FACTS being offered by the other side. Sorry, but that only works among other fake news types. Your arguments are not fact-based. They are opinion based. That much has been proven, over and over again in this thread.

Secondly, my responding to you attempting to weasel out of what you told the other poster is not a rehashing of the Starbucks case details. It is calling you out for denying what it's obvious you said and for now not manning up and admitting it or explaining yourself.

And you are STILL talking about the Starbucks thread. Look, you lied...got caught and corrected....and now you're doubling down on your original lie. People who double down on lies are called liars.

What's really humorous is that you probably consider yourself free of "ideological biases" while using this claim to attack others.

Silly comment. The difference between you and me is that I allow the FACTS to shape my biases and opinions. You, like most ideologues, SELECT your "facts" in order to reaffirm your existing biases and opinions. So you and I are not equals in that regard. You're probably a strong Trump supporter, right?

Lastly, I understand perfectly. I've been dealing with self important, dismissive liberals like you on these types of boards for years. Lots of talking in circles and attacking the other guy and not much to back up their claims. This is nothing new.

Typical empty rhetoric from a right winger. Of course, at this point, I think you and I both KNOW that I can back up (and when challenged, already have backed up) every argument I've expressed in this thread, while you've offered nothing but unsupported opinions and canned, right wing talking points. So again, you and I are not simply opposites sides of a coin. We are not equals. As Karl Rove once aptly put it when describing (in a private conversation) the difference between his party and the rest of America, I represent the "reality-based community", while you represent the "alternative reality community".

 

[ultmd]

My opening argument are nothing but specifics

Specific nonsense, perhaps.

You posted a video from a well-known, alt-right "expert" whose economic credentials include studying THEATER and HISTORY..........followed by a list of links to OP/EDS from primarily alt-right sources like Breitbart, Newsmax, Conservative Tribune, HotAir, Townhall, etc. etc.

Once again, this is the problem that most right wingers display on this board. You guys are so brainwashed by your alternative media that you really can't differentiate between FACT and OPINION anymore.

The last time you were seen on this thread, you were asking me to give names of non-"left wing" economists who agree that the Obama administration did good work on the economy. I responded with such examples..........and you went silent.

So much for your credibility.

:roll:

 

[Casca XV]

Specific nonsense, perhaps.

You posted a video from a well-known, alt-right "expert" whose economic credentials include studying THEATER and HISTORY..........followed by a list of links to OP/EDS from primarily alt-right sources like Breitbart, Newsmax, Conservative Tribune, HotAir, Townhall, etc. etc.

Once again, this is the problem that most right wingers display on this board. You guys are so brainwashed by your alternative media that you really can't differentiate between FACT and OPINION anymore.

The last time you were seen on this thread, you were asking me to give names of non-"left wing" economists who agree that the Obama administration did good work on the economy. I responded with such examples..........and you went silent.

So much for your credibility.

:roll:

What post # is where you listed any creditable none-leftist economist?