- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Wasn't ripping you for ripping sake Chad-
will help you out with any common sense/logic classes you may have.
Priceless.
Promises Promises
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
Priceless.
Tramp & I have already offered to teach him the proper use of your/you're and there/their/they're but I'm afraid the cliche is true... you really can't teach an old Dog new tricks.Perhaps you should take one of my future English classes, Wayne. I can teach you the correct use of the word derogatory...
Wayne, all kidding aside, you keep saying that the chart is "out of kelter" (it's out of KILTER, by the way... ), and say this is B.S. Honestly, I doubt seriously that the numbers depicted in this chart are B.S., and are probably not wrong. This is not really a convoluted chart, it's very specific, as to job creation, and it's based on numbers from your source. So, unless you can provide some argument other than your personal opinion based on no factual information other than disliking the source, then your comments have no real value. Sorry, that's just being fair.
I can assure you, I will be more representative about history than most that will be in my field. I have a great appreciation and understanding about how things actually are, and were, throughout our country's history. I understand a lot about why we are where we are today. As I mentioned, I found this chart after searching for less than 5 minutes, and I posted it because it was based on numbers from your source. We've already proven that your ongoing comments are misrepresentative of Pelosi and Kerry's actual comments, and this chart shows their comments to be correct.
I welcome you to show how the chart is incorrect about what it (and they) are saying. Not what YOU are saying... what THEY are saying. Until then, you continue to be wrong, and perhaps wrong twice.
We can start with your statement of GW's employment numbers being better than Clintons. Broad statement, that is not completely true. I can show you specifically during both tenures where the unemployment rate (which is your complete argument to this point, BTW) is comparable, and is better, in some months/years.
But again, you seem to be missing the point. But, I know that your view of common sense and logic has to deal with some narrow views from time to time... :SIB
And, before I close, I'd be happy to have you explain conservative views to my children. I know you have a wonderful grasp of them, and those values have plenty of merit in our society. (Now, back to the attack... )
), and say this is B.S. Honestly, I doubt seriously that the numbers depicted in this chart are B.S., and are probably not wrong. This is not really a convoluted chart, it's very specific, as to job creation, and it's based on numbers from your source. So, unless you can provide some argument other than your personal opinion based on no factual information other than disliking the source, then your comments have no real value. Sorry, that's just being fair.I can assure you, I will be more representative about history than most that will be in my field. I have a great appreciation and understanding about how things actually are, and were, throughout our country's history. I understand a lot about why we are where we are today. As I mentioned, I found this chart after searching for less than 5 minutes, and I posted it because it was based on numbers from your source. We've already proven that your ongoing comments are misrepresentative of Pelosi and Kerry's actual comments, and this chart shows their comments to be correct.
I welcome you to show how the chart is incorrect about what it (and they) are saying. Not what YOU are saying... what THEY are saying. Until then, you continue to be wrong, and perhaps wrong twice.
We can start with your statement of GW's employment numbers being better than Clintons. Broad statement, that is not completely true. I can show you specifically during both tenures where the unemployment rate (which is your complete argument to this point, BTW) is comparable, and is better, in some months/years.
But again, you seem to be missing the point. But, I know that your view of common sense and logic has to deal with some narrow views from time to time... :SIB
And, before I close, I'd be happy to have you explain conservative views to my children. I know you have a wonderful grasp of them, and those values have plenty of merit in our society. (Now, back to the attack...
)
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Tramp & I have already offered to teach him the proper use of your/you're and there/their/they're but I'm afraid the cliche is true... you really can't teach an old Dog new tricks.
You know the only reason we are so smart is that trusty spell check that we use. :mj07:
Perhaps you should take one of my future English classes, Wayne. I can teach you the correct use of the word derogatory...
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
nice rip Chad
............................................................On the english--I'll be happy for the English tutoring and will help you out with any common sense/logic classes you may have.
--but please --try to reframe from rewriting history as many in education field do.
--and would be proud to have you teach any of my children if I had any--but I'm sure you already know that.:0074
common sense logic was left behind for you many years ago dude.
try to reframe :142smilie
at least you get close , but then so did George W with his limited IQ
By the way, as for the "derogatory remarks" comment, how is what was shown in that chart derogatory if it is true? And I'm guessing those numbers are fairly accurate, being taken from YOUR source, which is the foremost reference for those numbers. I've yet to see any links anywhere - and I would assume the right would have many lookers after the comments and chart that could disprove them.
Perhaps you should take one of my future English classes, Wayne. I can teach you the correct use of the word derogatory...
P.S. You know I'm just having fun with some of this, Wayne (the personal zingers). I don't share some of the other zealots view of ripping others for ripping sake. But my main points on this - I think, at least - make a lot of sense.
Hey DTB here is one student that graduated from Chads class.Check it out..
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TR3QHoqfhX8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TR3QHoqfhX8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Rusty, I'm going to try to do you a favor here. Don't try to be funny, and make fun of others who are more intelligent, humorous, and plugged in to the local discussion than you are.
Of course, that's all just a guesstimate on my part...
:0corn
If I had to guess, the people portrayed in your lame video probably subscribe to your personal views, and limited exposure to life.
But, that's just a guess. I've always held back when it comes to your comments, for the most part. Since you chose to call out my abilities in teaching, I think it fair to start judging you. And I'm very comfortable with that, for the record.
And yeah, I'd expect you to come back with some kind of "hey, man, lighten up... I was only kidding, relax" kind of response." It's what people usually do when they realize they have gone too far in trying to associate themselves with others in making someone else look bad.
Carry on, Russ. :0074
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
................................................................
I think he was calling DTBlackgumby a dumb ass
Wayne, all kidding aside, you keep saying that the chart is "out of kelter" (it's out of KILTER, by the way...
I can assure you, I will be more representative about history than most that will be in my field. I have a great appreciation and understanding about how things actually are, and were, throughout our country's history. I understand a lot about why we are where we are today. As I mentioned, I found this chart after searching for less than 5 minutes, and I posted it because it was based on numbers from your source. We've already proven that your ongoing comments are misrepresentative of Pelosi and Kerry's actual comments, and this chart shows their comments to be correct.
I welcome you to show how the chart is incorrect about what it (and they) are saying. Not what YOU are saying... what THEY are saying. Until then, you continue to be wrong, and perhaps wrong twice.
We can start with your statement of GW's employment numbers being better than Clintons. Broad statement, that is not completely true. I can show you specifically during both tenures where the unemployment rate (which is your complete argument to this point, BTW) is comparable, and is better, in some months/years.
But again, you seem to be missing the point. But, I know that your view of common sense and logic has to deal with some narrow views from time to time... :SIB
And, before I close, I'd be happy to have you explain conservative views to my children. I know you have a wonderful grasp of them, and those values have plenty of merit in our society. (Now, back to the attack...
on your chart #'s--let me walk you through it
-if I may
Given--the Bureau of statistics is the standard agreed stats.
GW and Bill unemployment #'s were almost identicle for their 8 year tenure--with GW having the slightest edge.
So explain (if chart is not skewed --how Bill added 21 million more jobs than GW yet had higher unemployment. Only way possible is if he lost more than 21 million--or we got more liberal math--is it not?
--on new jobs under Clinton--if you remember this was the dot.com boom when new industry started--(I assume you are not one that believes Bill and Al invented the internet also--in addition when the dot.com bust came) millions of those jobs that Bill got credit for were lost and put on GW's tab as jobs lost(did you wonder why they used net jobs)--which he not only recovered from along with enron-worldcom-9-11 to still have lower unemployment than bill over 8 years.
--and what say you--other than english mistakes
:0corn
One of my favorite shows.It ran 7 seasons strong with a few movies to show for also.It is a mockomentary that shows how pathetic people on this forum really are.Why you gettn all defensive ??
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C6cxNR9ML8k?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C6cxNR9ML8k?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
While the chart apparently still stands, perhaps you would prefer an analysis from the Rupert Murdoch-led Wall Street Journal, which says the same thing? Would that work as something "objective?"
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Now that we have another conservative source, perhaps that will help. Perhaps not. As for you helping me with logic, I see that you are again saying that Bush's job losses were Clinton's fault, due to the economy heading south prior to him taking over. And yet, you incessantly blame Obama for all of the job losses on his watch, when the economy was headed FAR further south when he took over than when Bush took over his Presidency.
So, using the same measure, It's Obama's fault, but not Bush's fault. That's logic? Whatever...
And to take this a step further, when blaming this on the democrats, you and others here blame the economy and job losses under Bush on the democratic majority for the last two years of his Presidency. Of course, in years of the Clinton administration, Republicans were the majority in both the House and Senate for six of his eight years. But we hear nothing about that, right? So the comparisons are the same, using facts and real numbers, but everything is simply the democrats fault, no matter what. Okay, I am starting to understand conservative "logic."
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Now that we have another conservative source, perhaps that will help. Perhaps not. As for you helping me with logic, I see that you are again saying that Bush's job losses were Clinton's fault, due to the economy heading south prior to him taking over. And yet, you incessantly blame Obama for all of the job losses on his watch, when the economy was headed FAR further south when he took over than when Bush took over his Presidency.
So, using the same measure, It's Obama's fault, but not Bush's fault. That's logic? Whatever...
And to take this a step further, when blaming this on the democrats, you and others here blame the economy and job losses under Bush on the democratic majority for the last two years of his Presidency. Of course, in years of the Clinton administration, Republicans were the majority in both the House and Senate for six of his eight years. But we hear nothing about that, right? So the comparisons are the same, using facts and real numbers, but everything is simply the democrats fault, no matter what. Okay, I am starting to understand conservative "logic."
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
I think its pretty much common knowledge that Bush did not create jobs. I mean you even see it from conservatives. This just proves what a sheep doggie is. Whatever you say, even if you have evidence, he will ignore it and go to what his masters have told him. Its useless guys. The guy cannot think for himself.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
While the chart apparently still stands, perhaps you would prefer an analysis from the Rupert Murdoch-led Wall Street Journal, which says the same thing? Would that work as something "objective?"
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Now that we have another conservative source, perhaps that will help. Perhaps not. As for you helping me with logic, I see that you are again saying that Bush's job losses were Clinton's fault, due to the economy heading south prior to him taking over. And yet, you incessantly blame Obama for all of the job losses on his watch, when the economy was headed FAR further south when he took over than when Bush took over his Presidency.
So, using the same measure, It's Obama's fault, but not Bush's fault. That's logic? Whatever...
And to take this a step further, when blaming this on the democrats, you and others here blame the economy and job losses under Bush on the democratic majority for the last two years of his Presidency. Of course, in years of the Clinton administration, Republicans were the majority in both the House and Senate for six of his eight years. But we hear nothing about that, right? So the comparisons are the same, using facts and real numbers, but everything is simply the democrats fault, no matter what. Okay, I am starting to understand conservative "logic."
Good post and I applaud you breaking it down for doggie time after time. When you have time you should go through the archives from years ago. doggie has done this for years. People get fed up with his dick sucking of one party and just left him to debate himself.
Quit the dancingWhile the chart apparently still stands, perhaps you would prefer an analysis from the Rupert Murdoch-led Wall Street Journal, which says the same thing? Would that work as something "objective?"
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Now that we have another conservative source, perhaps that will help. Perhaps not. As for you helping me with logic, I see that you are again saying that Bush's job losses were Clinton's fault, due to the economy heading south prior to him taking over. And yet, you incessantly blame Obama for all of the job losses on his watch, when the economy was headed FAR further south when he took over than when Bush took over his Presidency.
So, using the same measure, It's Obama's fault, but not Bush's fault. That's logic? Whatever...
And to take this a step further, when blaming this on the democrats, you and others here blame the economy and job losses under Bush on the democratic majority for the last two years of his Presidency. Of course, in years of the Clinton administration, Republicans were the majority in both the House and Senate for six of his eight years. But we hear nothing about that, right? So the comparisons are the same, using facts and real numbers, but everything is simply the democrats fault, no matter what. Okay, I am starting to understand conservative "logic."
I'm still waiting on your explaination how Clinton per your chart created 21 million more jobs yet had higher unemployment for the 8 years.
Apparently they are using same math Tramp does on capping and grading his picks :mj07:
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
I would think it would be very simple. You are trying to combine statistics into something that works better for you. If I create a job, does it matter if someone in New York loses a job? Didn't I still create a job? That's the POINT, and was the POINT of the original comments, and is what I am referring to. HOW MANY JOBS WERE CREATED. Not net jobs for a period, how much unemployment there was. HOW MANY JOBS WERE CREATED.
I'm not avoiding YOUR question/explanation. Your question/explanation is a different topic. Much like your comment that you attribute to democrats, Pelosi, and Kerry is a different topic than their comments and points, and was never said by any of them. It was only said BY YOU. And yet, you blame me, and them, for avoiding YOUR POINT.
They made a comment. It apparently is quite accurate, based on two sources, one conservative, one liberal. You said they said something else, which they didn't, and now say I'm avoiding the incorrect comment and your new point.
Conservative logic, at it's finest. :0074 Apparently conservatives subscribe to both fuzzy math AND fuzzy english now. You accuse me of dancing, and I have been specifically on point throughout this thread. You have tried to change the subject, and dance around me pinning you down on being incorrect. So, whatever you feel you need to do to avoid being wrong... carry on.
And for the record, you don't think it's mathematically possible (not that the point has any basis in basic job creation statistics, BTW) that a President could CREATE a base number of jobs that are more than another President CREATED, and still have higher unemployment numbers? Are you kidding me? You really don't see how that could be possible? Creating more jobs than another president, is the point. Not other stuff... no matter how hard you try to combine them. You don't think jobs are created and lost? Unemployment could always go up, even if more new jobs are created, than in another administration. Seems pretty simple to me. You can argue NET job scenarios, sure. That's ANOTHER subject. You can't see that? Really?
