Crashk
Unite or Die
Debates sure were a lot more substantive back then.
Unlike the Teabag candidates we have today, Perot actually cared about this country and not just profits for his political supporters or personal book sales.
Debates sure were a lot more substantive back then.
LOL... what failed policies are those? The ones where the US dominated global economics? The ones where even our poor improved their positions on the whole? I know you far left wing lunatics love to obsess about the top 1%, but your are delusional in your views of the right. But do show us evidence of this 'redistribution' to the top 1% that you speak of. What policies are you referring to?
you immediately jumped right in to defend him and deflect off his current economic record to some ethereal point in the future.....and you claim you're not apologizing for him? lmao. you care very much about defending obama.
Oh but you...YOU with your little chart that doesn't even BEGIN to tell the whole story concerning Obama and the economic recovery, you weren't just being the same old disingenuous douchebag out to smear the President...no no no no no no...you were just trying to have a nice civil conversation about the facts, weren't you?
And you wonder why I didn't even try to respond to your ridiculous "debate" thread?
and as usual, zappa offers no debate, only insults. that is the real reason you won't debate me with no insults, you're incapable of civility and really not that intelligent.
now...care to counter the OP chart with facts or are you just as smart as onceler and capable of only insults?
Why should I? You've yet to provide any "facts" for me to disprove...your post is just another hilarious piece of outlandish hyperbole.
The FACTS ARE that the chart in the OP doesn't even BEGIN to tell the story, but it's simplistic stupidity is PERFECT for spoon-fed, partisan morons like Yurt, out for one reason, to discredit the president any way he can.
really, there are no facts in the chart? let's start with the first 3 items:
1. unemployed americans and unemployment rate:
jan. 2009 Both the number of unemployed persons (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/feb/wk2/art02.htm
Today - Both the number of unemployed persons (13.1 million) - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
noow- the unemployment rate,
at 8.5 percent - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
3. gas prices:
Jan. 2009 - Regular gasoline/gallon $1.84 - http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/01/average-gas-pricesjanuary-26-2009.html
Today - Regular gasoline/gallon $3.39 - http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/01/average-gas-prices-january-23-2012.html
care to try and explain to me how the chart has no facts?
The FACT is that when Obama took office, this country was ALREADY in the grips of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and the numbers you blithely toss about were the result of 8 years of Conservative leadership and already on the rise when Obama took office...gee...guess you left out that particular "fact".
OOOPS!
The FACT is that since Obama took office, the numbers have risen, but thanks to his guidance, the numbers have COME BACK DOWN from their peak and indicate the economy is recovering despite rampant Republican obstructionism.
ANOTHER FACT you conveniently overlook is the fact that Republicans have consistently said that lower taxes on the rich will create jobs...the FACT is that when Bush took office, unemployment was 6.2%...today it is at 8.6. Where are all the jobs Republicans promised would appear if we lowered taxes on the rich?
LOL... what failed policies are those? The ones where the US dominated global economics? The ones where even our poor improved their positions on the whole? I know you far left wing lunatics love to obsess about the top 1%, but your are delusional in your views of the right. But do show us evidence of this 'redistribution' to the top 1% that you speak of. What policies are you referring to?
Unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted.
I hope this helps.
Debates sure were a lot more substantive back then.
Perot explained it to you in less than 3 min. Do you understand now?