Obama Busted in What May Be the Crime of the Century…


MI .45

MI .45
An ole' FNF will come up with some way to deny that any of those stories are true, or discredit the source, or the numbers are skewed, or... some justification somehow (i.e. psychobabble).

Good list Bill.



I'm sure you're aware that those 4 links all go back to the same one guy and his analysis, and that he happened to work for dedicated conservative sources? And that the piece is labeled "Opinion" which means don't assume as fact.

Here's what he basically says in a very round about way in an effort to justify how Bush's last budget, FY 2009 was such an enormous increase. He's claiming the budget wasn't signed until after Obama took office, Obama signed it, both of which is true, and that democrats in the House knowing that Obama would win were able to somehow jack up the budget request in 2008. The last part being really absurd when you know the timing that on February 4 of 2008, BUSH proposed a budget of $3.1 Trillion. That's 10 months BEFORE the election, the Democrats had only held 6 primaries, with about 70 more primaries and state conventions to go. And yet they were positive they he'd beat Hillary, and then beat whoever the Republican nominated.Now that's confidence! But nevertheless, it was BUSH who proposed the $3.1 trillion budget and almost a year BEFORE Obama took office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html
Bush's budget proposal is biggest - politics | NBC News
Bush's Final Budget Proposal: $3.1 Trillion : NPR


So what was the budget that Obama signed in March of 2009? $3.1 Trillion, just like Bush proposed. But Obama did have to add some $400 billion above that. It seems that he inherited an economy on the verge of total collapse, GDP was negative 8.2% when he took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, the stock market dropped by a third and the US lost 30% of it's wealth and we were in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. So he proposed a stimulus package, which would involve the Federal government pumping money into the economy in order to save us from what was feared to be a depression. According to the non partisan Congressional Budget office, whose job it is to score how much government programs cost they stated that, in it's first year it increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, and potentially 8.4 million by 2013. Since Obama took office 10,640,000 jobs have been added.

Here's a list of 9 studies in 2011 into the effectiveness of the stimulus package. 7 out of 9, including the CBO said it worked,
Link Removed

Here's the CBO report
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/08-23-2012-RecoveryAct.pdf


And the prosecution rests!
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
And no matter how far you went back, you would never find a bigger spender. End of story.
.
Link Removed

The "liberty paper" is a credible source??!!!!!! Right I'm sure they're just as neutral as the CBO.

Oh gee, I guess you got me with that CBS report, oh but wait, the details. They are stating that the deficit is up $6 Trillion since Obama took office, that is true, but they assume that you're too stupid to know that when Obama took office he was still on Bush's budget. When Obama took office and when his budget started are two different dates. When Obama took office the budget in effect for the next 9 months, until Oct 1 2009, was BUSH's. And according to the CBO THAT budget was already running a $1.2-1.4 Trillion deficit. So you need to subtract that from the $6 trillion number. So now Obama is responsible for $4.7 trillion ( I split the $1.2 and 1.4 numbers). Oh but wait, $787 Billion of that was for the stimulus package which never would have happened if Obama hadn't inherited the Great Recession from Bush. (And if you want me to repeat all the economic numbers for Bush's last quarter as president I'll be HAPPY to oblige). So that means that Obama is really only responsible for $3.9 trillion.

But wait, when Bush took office the deficit was $5.8 trillion. and when he left office it was $11.9 trillion, a more than 100% increase, and an increase of $6.1 TRILLION. Which if you equate to 2014 dollars is $6.73 Trillion.

According to Bloomberg, and quoting the CBO:
"(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. budget deficit will shrink for a fifth straight year in 2016, marking the longest span of improvement since the surpluses of the late 1990s, as falling unemployment helps increase revenue, the Congressional Budget Office said.

The fiscal shortfall this year will decline to $468 billion, or 2.6 percent of gross domestic product, compared with $483 billion in the year ended Sept. 30 and $469 billion forecast in August, the CBO said today in Washington. Next year the gap will be $467 billion, compared with $556 billion seen in August, according to CBO."

The budget deficit has declined in every one of Obama's budgets.

Deficit in U.S. to Narrow to $468 Billion This Year, CBO Says - Bloomberg Politics

So Obama's current budget deficit is about $468 Billion, Bush's last deficit was $1.3 Trillion. And if you want to talk inflation adjusted numbers, Bush's last deficit was $1.43 Trillion.

And if you want to see the CBO's last budget estimate, here it is, turns out Obama has done better than they expected:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45230

As reported on CNN:

"The federal budget deficit just keeps getting smaller.
It fell sharply in 2014 -- its fifth consecutive annual decline.
That's according to an estimate Wednesday by the Congressional Budget Office. The deficit for fiscal year 2014, which ended on Sept. 30, will come in at roughly $486 billion, the CBO said.
The 2014 number is $195 billion less than a year earlier. And as a share of the economy, the deficit dropped to 2.8% of GDP from 4.1% last year."

Deficit drops yet again - sharply - Oct. 8, 2014
Budget Deficit Drops to $483 Billion, Lowest Since 2008 - DailyFinance

.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
And it IS Obama who has spent $7 TRILLION since he has been in office. More than any President in history. And all of these roads, bridges, and airports you keep howling about, are all still falling apart.

.

$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama | CNS News


Ok so your source is a right wing "news" source that must assume that it's readership knows nothing about the economy, government or finance.

First off they again deceptively use the date that Obama took office and conveniently neglect to inform people that on that date the US federal budget was BUSH's. It was Bush's until Sept 30th 2009 and on that date the actual, official deficit was $11,909,829,003,511.75, and btw the starting point for Bush was $5,807,463,412,200.06, an increase of $6.1 TRILLION, an increase of 105%, in other words he DOUBLED it.

Ok now Obama's numbers, he starts at $11,909,829,003,511.75, and it's currently 17,824,071,380,733.82, and increase of $5.9 Trillion. Wow, sounds like Bush numbers!!

But then again, a dollar in 2015 is not the same as a dollar in 2009, so if you adjust for inflation, Bush's number is a deficit of $6.73 Trillion. And it's common among all economists to use inflation adjusted numbers because that's the only way to compare apples to apples.

Another way economists do comparisons when it comes to the deficit, and actually the more established and standard way is to determine the percentage of growth. So we already calculated that Bush raised the deficit by 105%, just how much did Obama? 49.65% So Obama increased the deficit by half the percentage as Bush. And remember in Obama's budgets starting out, he had to pay for Bush's wars, and an economy in the grips of the worst Recession since the great depression. Not to mention that Bush cut taxes while engaging in two wars, which meant that revenues were down while expenses went way up. Oh and Bush didn't even have the wars on the budget, however Obama put them on the budget.

BTW under Reagan the percentage of increase in the deficit? 189% He almost tripled it.

This is the official deficit numbers, no massaging or interpretation:
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014
 

billt

Banned
Ok so your source is a right wing "news" source that must assume that it's readership knows nothing about the economy, government or finance.

No $h!t for brains. It's the National Debt Clock. Take a look at it some time...... When you can break away from your, "business that is making you millions." REALITY Rests! :rolleyes:

.

Don't worry, these links actually work.

.





U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-debt-up-6-trillion-since-obama-took-office/ (Almost 2 years ago). Is CBS liberal enough for you?
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
No $h!t for brains. It's the National Debt Clock. Take a look at it some time...... When you can break away from your, "business that is making you millions." REALITY Rests! :rolleyes:

.

Don't worry, these links actually work.

.





U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

.

National debt up $6 trillion since Obama took office - CBS News (Almost 2 years ago). Is CBS liberal enough for you?



The national debt clock, the picture of which you linked to on a conservative "news" site called CNS, NOT CBS. $7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama | CNS News So who's ***** for brains? You don't even know your own link...
 

billt

Banned
The national debt clock, the picture of which you linked to on a conservative "news" site called CNS, NOT CBS. $7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama | CNS News So who's ***** for brains? You don't even know your own link...

Dip $h!t, look at the link on the bottom. You know, the one YOU QUOTED that says, CBS NEWS. You might want to take some of your "$ millions" and invest in a pair of glasses. :rolleyes:
 

Farmhood

New member
Save your breath! Reminds me of a mule we had on the farm...thought he was a deer. Silly mule.

sinful nature is always hostile to God....
 

mossback

New member
Obama's been effectively stymied by the clockcleaning in November; they won't impeach.
Besides: "Have you met Joe Biden?"-Trey Gowdy
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Dip $h!t, look at the link on the bottom. You know, the one YOU QUOTED that says, CBS NEWS. You might want to take some of your "$ millions" and invest in a pair of glasses. :rolleyes:

The one I quoted, AND posted a link to was CNS. Look on post # 163, where I have pasted YOUR quote, it's CNS, and then I wrote,"Ok so your source is a right wing "news" source " and here's the link taken off post #163 -$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama | CNS News

Then you post #164 that "it's the national debt clock" when I was not referring to the debt clock in post 163, did not mention the debt clock, and in fact posted the CNS link.

After that point, And having looked at many, many links, confused the picture on CNS with the debt clock. But it was the CNS link I was referring to all along and you're the one who got it wrong and took us down this waste of time path.

But what's really insightful about you is that instead of trying to disprove my data, disprove how I shot down the BS you posted about the deficit, all you could come up with is trying to zing me with the possibility that I may have confused the debt clock link with the CNS link, but of course after you had already been confused. The issue is that facts and reality just don't support any of the batsh** conclusions you have and even worse because you are so ignorant you don't know the difference between the day Obama took the oath of office and when his first budget actually began. And that's how they manage you get you to think the wrong things and remain ignorant.

They deceive you, and granted you're willingly deceived because you want to believe this horsesh*t, So they say that since Obama took office that the deficit rose by so much. Which is true but a lie at the same time, because they are trying to pin that deficit run up from Bush's 2009 budget on Obama, and Obama's budget didn't start until Oct 1 2009, but you guys use jan 20 2009 to start the budget clock on Obama. And on the day that Obama took the oath, Bush's deficit was already around $1.3 Trillion for 2009, on a budget he submitted to Congress on Feb 4th 2008. So the attempt by your right wing "news" sources is to lower the appearance of Bush's terrible presidency, and make Obama's look worse. So much for credible. And you guys just gobble that up. Then again those of you who voted for Bush don't want to accept any responsibility for the disaster he left.

And then of course they say that Obama has added the most dollars to the deficit. Again true but a lie. Of course they don't inflation adjust the dollars, they don't use the standard practice of using what percentage of increase did he add, (Obama raised it 49%, Bush 105% Reagan 189%) they don't compare the deficit to percent of GDP, the OTHER standard for comparison. They don't mention that Bush LOWERED taxes when he needed to pay for two wars and that Obama was stuck with those lower taxes, Bush's two wars AND Bush's recession all of which just killed revenues at the same time we, again, had two wars to pay for. They figure that you don't want to know the real answer, you just want to think what you think is right, even if it's actually deceptive to you and is misinformation.

Another stat I see is that they claim when Bush left office gasoline was $1.82 a gallon. True. Of course they don't mention that it's that price because the economy just crashed through the floor, GDP was NEGATIVE 8.2%, worldwide productivity and demand for gasoline just crashed, and that the all time high price for oil happened under Bush just a few years earlier. They also don't mention that the average price for gas in 2008 was $3.49, NOT $1.82. and according to AAA the current national average price for a gallon of gas is $2.04. The average price of gas in 2008 adjusted for inflation? $3.84. Also the price of a barrel of oil under Bush hit $147, which inflation adjusted is $161.63, today oil hit $44.43. so oil was basically $117 higher under Bush, or 2.6 times HIGHER.

They give you some facts out of context and without a real explanation, and they give them to you with a spin and a deceptive message. This is not accidental, they know what you want to hear and they give it to you, it's called pandering. It's also a way to get you to spend money where they want you to, or to vote for who they want you to. That's how they get you to vote against your best interests. Because unless you're rich, conservative economic policy has only hurt you.

And when someone posts absolutely indisputable facts, backed by the most reliable and respected of sources, your only response is either insults or you label them a communist. Because you just don't want facts, you prefer ignorance and the illusion that what you believe is real, and that makes you easy to manage and influence.
 

billt

Banned
The one I quoted, AND posted a link to was CNS. Look on post # 163, where I have pasted YOUR quote, it's CNS, and then I wrote,"Ok so your source is a right wing "news" source " and here's the link taken off post #163 -$7,060,259,674,497.51--Federal Debt Up $7 Trillion Under Obama | CNS News

Then you post #164 that "it's the national debt clock" when I was not referring to the debt clock in post 163, did not mention the debt clock, and in fact posted the CNS link.

After that point, And having looked at many, many links, confused the picture on CNS with the debt clock. But it was the CNS link I was referring to all along and you're the one who got it wrong and took us down this waste of time path.

But what's really insightful about you is that instead of trying to disprove my data, disprove how I shot down the BS you posted about the deficit, all you could come up with is trying to zing me with the possibility that I may have confused the debt clock link with the CNS link, but of course after you had already been confused. The issue is that facts and reality just don't support any of the batsh** conclusions you have and even worse because you are so ignorant you don't know the difference between the day Obama took the oath of office and when his first budget actually began. And that's how they manage you get you to think the wrong things and remain ignorant.

They deceive you, and granted you're willingly deceived because you want to believe this horsesh*t, So they say that since Obama took office that the deficit rose by so much. Which is true but a lie at the same time, because they are trying to pin that deficit run up from Bush's 2009 budget on Obama, and Obama's budget didn't start until Oct 1 2009, but you guys use jan 20 2009 to start the budget clock on Obama. And on the day that Obama took the oath, Bush's deficit was already around $1.3 Trillion for 2009, on a budget he submitted to Congress on Feb 4th 2008. So the attempt by your right wing "news" sources is to lower the appearance of Bush's terrible presidency, and make Obama's look worse. So much for credible. And you guys just gobble that up. Then again those of you who voted for Bush don't want to accept any responsibility for the disaster he left.

And then of course they say that Obama has added the most dollars to the deficit. Again true but a lie. Of course they don't inflation adjust the dollars, they don't use the standard practice of using what percentage of increase did he add, (Obama raised it 49%, Bush 105% Reagan 189%) they don't compare the deficit to percent of GDP, the OTHER standard for comparison. They don't mention that Bush LOWERED taxes when he needed to pay for two wars and that Obama was stuck with those lower taxes, Bush's two wars AND Bush's recession all of which just killed revenues at the same time we, again, had two wars to pay for. They figure that you don't want to know the real answer, you just want to think what you think is right, even if it's actually deceptive to you and is misinformation.

Another stat I see is that they claim when Bush left office gasoline was $1.82 a gallon. True. Of course they don't mention that it's that price because the economy just crashed through the floor, GDP was NEGATIVE 8.2%, worldwide productivity and demand for gasoline just crashed, and that the all time high price for oil happened under Bush just a few years earlier. They also don't mention that the average price for gas in 2008 was $3.49, NOT $1.82. and according to AAA the current national average price for a gallon of gas is $2.04. The average price of gas in 2008 adjusted for inflation? $3.84. Also the price of a barrel of oil under Bush hit $147, which inflation adjusted is $161.63, today oil hit $44.43. so oil was basically $117 higher under Bush, or 2.6 times HIGHER.

They give you some facts out of context and without a real explanation, and they give them to you with a spin and a deceptive message. This is not accidental, they know what you want to hear and they give it to you, it's called pandering. It's also a way to get you to spend money where they want you to, or to vote for who they want you to. That's how they get you to vote against your best interests. Because unless you're rich, conservative economic policy has only hurt you.

And when someone posts absolutely indisputable facts, backed by the most reliable and respected of sources, your only response is either insults or you label them a communist. Because you just don't want facts, you prefer ignorance and the illusion that what you believe is real, and that makes you easy to manage and influence.


I told you if you're going to post that much $h!t at once, and expect anyone to read it, use periods to separate your paragraphs. Not that it would make any of it any more sensible, just easier to read. I'm not even going to attempt to wade through that pile of crap. Both you and it isn't worth it.
 

billt

Banned
FNF, why did you even come here? Seriously? I went through your profile, and waded through all of your posts. There isn't a single one that has anything to do with either firearms, ammunition, reloading, or concealed carry. Everything you've managed to post since you got here is nothing more than a bunch of second hand, reposted, communstic drivel, in some half assed attempt to create arguments.

.

You know this is a conservative, right leaning website devoted to firearms, and the carrying, reloading, and shooting of such. Something you have zero interest or intention in doing, or else you would have posted about it. You claim to have had an FFL which is doubtful because anyone who has had one like myself, would be posting about guns or reloading in some way, shape or form. Not you. Most likely you don't even own weapons, but instead would just rather argue about their ownership from a communistic viewpoint, which no one here is remotely interested in. You're no different than a Ford junkie who trolls a Chevy forum, looking to stir up trouble and start arguments....... In a single word, worthless.

.

This forum is a collection of like thinking minds. Much the same as a cooking, fishing, or a 4 wheel drive forum is. People who have no interest in the same, have zero reason to participate. While there may be a technical argument that arises from time to time, it falls within the framework of the forum itself. You are here just to argue and cause trouble to no ones benefit. You know you're not going to change anyone's mind. First off, you're much too stupid and non convincing for that task. We are not communists, socialists, liberals, or whatever name you want to tag yourself with, and none of us have any such desire to become one. Or for that matter, care you are one. Nor do we want to hear your viewpoint. Again, we don't care. You've been exposed for what you are. You make it much too obvious.

.

All the bulk of your posts consist of, is searching the Internet for left wing communist statistics to support your viewpoint. Every single one of them can be rebutted with a right wing conservative statistic from a different website that will repute anything you put forth. It has become nothing more than an endless cycle of bull$h!t that no one even cares to read anymore.

.

While it's your right as much as anyone's to post here, I'm not understanding why you want to waste your time doing it? In short, you're nothing but a troll. A waste of bandwidth. You post the same drivel over and over, trying to draw whatever fire you can. You're like a driver stuck in the mud who just keeps depressing the accelerator. Going nowhere, just digging yourself in deeper, and making more noise in the process. It's boring. As are you and your viewpoint. You remind me of my little Poodle's $h!t in the backyard. The difference is I have to pick that up. You I can simply ignore. I didn't even read your droning essay because,

.

1.) As I said, you made it too difficult to even read. And,

.

2.) It isn't worth the effort to even do so, because I'm just not interested in what you have to say. And as I said, it's all been repeated...... Over and over. You're a bit like watching a rerun of a show you didn't care for the first time you saw it.

.

Please don't take offense to this, as I'm not trying to offend you. Just pointing out something you should already know, but obviously do not. So please don't go away mad, just go away. Perhaps Salon.com, or else the Huffington Post will welcome you with open arms. You can perform your little circle jerk there with more like minded communists like yourself. You never know, they might even let you be the pivot man.
 

MI .45

MI .45
Well stated Bill.

When FNF went on a rant about how he enjoyed the shooting sports and once had a CC license and in a later post proceeded to espouse all of the left wing talking points and statistics about the evils of guns and self defense... well, he proved to me that he was a simply a leftist plant. No genuine interest in firearms or concealed carry. I would not be surprised that FNF is a paid mole for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, CPUSA, SFG, Freedom Road, et al... even perhaps the DNC.
 

mossback

New member
Because you just don't want facts, you prefer ignorance and the illusion that what you believe is real, and that makes you easy to manage and influence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Speaking of "illusions that what you believe is real".

I'll be more than happy to debate you re: Obama's efficacy as a leader, point by point and item by item.
Post a concise statement in that vein regarding his actions, then I'll explain the reality of the situation for you.
If you can manage that, I'll influence you.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
FNF, why did you even come here? Seriously? I went through your profile, and waded through all of your posts. There isn't a single one that has anything to do with either firearms, ammunition, reloading, or concealed carry. Everything you've managed to post since you got here is nothing more than a bunch of second hand, reposted, communstic drivel, in some half assed attempt to create arguments.

.

You know this is a conservative, right leaning website devoted to firearms, and the carrying, reloading, and shooting of such. Something you have zero interest or intention in doing, or else you would have posted about it. You claim to have had an FFL which is doubtful because anyone who has had one like myself, would be posting about guns or reloading in some way, shape or form. Not you. Most likely you don't even own weapons, but instead would just rather argue about their ownership from a communistic viewpoint, which no one here is remotely interested in. You're no different than a Ford junkie who trolls a Chevy forum, looking to stir up trouble and start arguments....... In a single word, worthless.

.

This forum is a collection of like thinking minds. Much the same as a cooking, fishing, or a 4 wheel drive forum is. People who have no interest in the same, have zero reason to participate. While there may be a technical argument that arises from time to time, it falls within the framework of the forum itself. You are here just to argue and cause trouble to no ones benefit. You know you're not going to change anyone's mind. First off, you're much too stupid and non convincing for that task. We are not communists, socialists, liberals, or whatever name you want to tag yourself with, and none of us have any such desire to become one. Or for that matter, care you are one. Nor do we want to hear your viewpoint. Again, we don't care. You've been exposed for what you are. You make it much too obvious.

.

All the bulk of your posts consist of, is searching the Internet for left wing communist statistics to support your viewpoint. Every single one of them can be rebutted with a right wing conservative statistic from a different website that will repute anything you put forth. It has become nothing more than an endless cycle of bull$h!t that no one even cares to read anymore.

.

While it's your right as much as anyone's to post here, I'm not understanding why you want to waste your time doing it? In short, you're nothing but a troll. A waste of bandwidth. You post the same drivel over and over, trying to draw whatever fire you can. You're like a driver stuck in the mud who just keeps depressing the accelerator. Going nowhere, just digging yourself in deeper, and making more noise in the process. It's boring. As are you and your viewpoint. You remind me of my little Poodle's $h!t in the backyard. The difference is I have to pick that up. You I can simply ignore. I didn't even read your droning essay because,

.

1.) As I said, you made it too difficult to even read. And,

.

2.) It isn't worth the effort to even do so, because I'm just not interested in what you have to say. And as I said, it's all been repeated...... Over and over. You're a bit like watching a rerun of a show you didn't care for the first time you saw it.

.

Please don't take offense to this, as I'm not trying to offend you. Just pointing out something you should already know, but obviously do not. So please don't go away mad, just go away. Perhaps Salon.com, or else the Huffington Post will welcome you with open arms. You can perform your little circle jerk there with more like minded communists like yourself. You never know, they might even let you be the pivot man.


Billit, I thought this was America, land of free speech. And I thought the notion of free speech was that people had a right to express it even if you don't like it.
As for my not asking questions here related to firearms, I read the forums and find existing answers there and in other places. I've taken the Utah concealed carry class and asked many questions then. What made me post in this thread in the first place is because I'm tired of baseless stupid conspiracy theories and the whole BS theory that Obama "gets away with stuff" it because he's black. Let me ask you a question, has ANY previous president had his very birth place questioned? And when his birth certificate and even a newspaper birth announcement were released they were doubted? And then have his Christianity questioned, called a moslem, when he's been a Christian his whole life? I look at some of the comments here and I think I'm talking to some 1950's KKK members.

. a period for you because I guess you're not using a computer to read posts on, but on my computer a return added between paragraphs works.
.

And don't assume that a few people who post opposing views to my posts is the entire viewing audience. There are even Republicans who acknowledge and appreciate facts. I've met many of them who work on Wall St, and they are Republican because it benefits them financially. Then again it benefits them because they're all rich and in the highest tax brackets, earn a major portion of their income via capital gains, or work for private equity firms where their income is taxed at a lower rate, capital gains (20%) rather than as ordinary income, the term for this is called "carried interest". And as many of them are rich they also like to keep estate taxes lower, something that only really helps the wealthy. They make no bones about not caring about anyone else and just about making themselves richer. I don't agree with their perspective, but I do understand that greed is a motive for them voting Republican.
.

However for the average American, Republican economic policies have been a disaster. I have even posted here the stock market returns under a Democrat versus a Republican president and guess what, you make 3 times more money in the stock market under a Democrat. And that's communism?? And why deny facts like that? When actual history shows that the American economy almost always does better under and American president, why deny the facts? Can you not read a spreadsheet or even a chart?
.

Take the time to read some newspapers from September or October 2008. That was Republican economic policies at work.

.

And I hear all this talk here about Obama's treason and law breaking, and no one has any real evidence of it, certainly not the Republicans in Congress, and they've investigated the hell out of him. Yet Bush and Cheney told the American people that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and had WMD's, so we went to war, a war that cost us 4000 lives, cost us $2 Trillion, left the middle east a disaster and it was a lie and they knew it. Has Obama done anything even in the same league as that? And let's not forget under Bush and Cheney, as per their orders, we tortured people. So when I saw that level of hypocrisy, ignorance and misinformation I had to say something.

.

As for you calling me a communist, it only shows that you don't even know what that means. I've had a business for 40 years, I'm a corporation. I read the Walls St Journal and watch CNBC. My clients were all Fortune 500 companies. My wife is a Wall St executive, she gives speeches to the heads of the world's central banks, goes to conferences where Noble prize winning economists and Secretaries of the Treasury speak. We're pretty much the definition of capitalists.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Speaking of "illusions that what you believe is real".

I'll be more than happy to debate you re: Obama's efficacy as a leader, point by point and item by item.
Post a concise statement in that vein regarding his actions, then I'll explain the reality of the situation for you.
If you can manage that, I'll influence you.


Seriously, some black woman who is under the illusion that Obama is going to pay her bills? That is what you base the effectiveness of Obama on?? Are you kidding me???So if I find some redneck who says Bush was going to pay his bills that would that count as "evidence"? What if I find some billionaire who said that Romney was going to cut his estate taxes? Also Evidence? (as a side note, you do know that the majority of people on welfare and other public programs are white)

.

GDP quarter before Obama took office, NEGATIVE 8.2%, currently 5%
Jobs lost Bush's last year in office, over 4 million, jobs gained under Obama 10.64 million
Stock market when Bush took office, over 10,000, when Bush left office, about 8,000, currently under Obama 17,300
Unemployment rate when Bush took office 4.2%, when Bush left office, 7.8%, currently under Obama 5.6 %
Average gas price Bush's last year in office, 2008, $3.49, currently under Obama $2.04
Deficit increase Under Bush 105%, under Obama 49%.
Under Bush Bin Laden alive. Under Obama, Bin Laden dead
10 million more Americans have health insurance

.

That's called facts, empirical, measurable, irrefutable. You guys can't post facts because they disprove your point, so you dig up the dumbest stuff. Do you think that crazy black lady video would stand up in a court as evidence of Obama's success as president? Or do you think the official, non partisan, numbers from the CBO, Treasury, Bureau of Labor Statistics would be considered evidence?
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Well stated Bill.

When FNF went on a rant about how he enjoyed the shooting sports and once had a CC license and in a later post proceeded to espouse all of the left wing talking points and statistics about the evils of guns and self defense... well, he proved to me that he was a simply a leftist plant. No genuine interest in firearms or concealed carry. I would not be surprised that FNF is a paid mole for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, CPUSA, SFG, Freedom Road, et al... even perhaps the DNC.

I do enjoy shooting sports, have a Sig 9mm, wife has a Ruger .22. Never claimed "once had a cc license" stated I once had an FFL. But as you're paranoid it is beyond your comprehension that someone can enjoy shooting sports but also see that 32,000 firearm deaths a year is bad, so you label me a "mole". The notion that I can enjoy target or bench rest shooting while not wanting to see innocent people shot to death is hard for you to understand. I guess you're ok with that blood shed. But I'd like to find a way to keep shooting and not have all those dead people. Silly me.
 

billt

Banned
Billit, I thought this was America, land of free speech. And I thought the notion of free speech was that people had a right to express it even if you don't like it.

.

While it's your right as much as anyone's to post here, I'm not understanding why you want to waste your time doing it? In short, you're nothing but a troll. A waste of bandwidth. You post the same drivel over and over, trying to draw whatever fire you can. You're like a driver stuck in the mud who just keeps depressing the accelerator. Going nowhere, just digging yourself in deeper, and making more noise in the process. It's boring. As are you and your viewpoint. You remind me of my little Poodle's $h!t in the backyard. The difference is I have to pick that up. You I can simply ignore. I didn't even read your droning essay..............
 

MI .45

MI .45
I do enjoy shooting sports, have a Sig 9mm, wife has a Ruger .22. Never claimed "once had a cc license" stated I once had an FFL. But as you're paranoid it is beyond your comprehension that someone can enjoy shooting sports but also see that 32,000 firearm deaths a year is bad, so you label me a "mole". The notion that I can enjoy target or bench rest shooting while not wanting to see innocent people shot to death is hard for you to understand. I guess you're ok with that blood shed. But I'd like to find a way to keep shooting and not have all those dead people. Silly me.

I stand corrected on the CC/FFL statement.
I've witnessed firsthand the results of firearm death in every imaginable way and I'm not even remotely OK with that bloodshed, so don't tar me with that one.
Of the 32,000 firearm deaths a full 60% were suicides - where is the innocence when one takes their own life? If not firearms, by what method... do we then regulate or outlaw rope? Most suicide deaths will probably happen if guns were to miraculously disappear and more than likely many of the homicides as well.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
.

All the bulk of your posts consist of, is searching the Internet for left wing communist statistics to support your viewpoint. Every single one of them can be rebutted with a right wing conservative statistic from a different website that will repute anything you put forth. It has become nothing more than an endless cycle of bull$h!t that no one even cares to read anymore.

.

While it's your right as much as anyone's to post here, I'm not understanding why you want to waste your time doing it? In short, you're nothing but a troll. A waste of bandwidth. You post the same drivel over and over, trying to draw whatever fire you can. You're like a driver stuck in the mud who just keeps depressing the accelerator. Going nowhere, just digging yourself in deeper, and making more noise in the process. It's boring. As are you and your viewpoint. You remind me of my little Poodle's $h!t in the backyard. The difference is I have to pick that up. You I can simply ignore. I didn't even read your droning essay because,

"left wing communist statistics to support your viewpoint" wow, you really haven't bothered to read anything I've written. So I assume you are referring to Forbes, Fortune, The Wall st Journal, Bloomberg, BusinessWeek, the US treasury, The Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Congressional Budget Office, The CDC, The FBI, The American Journal of Epidemiology, The National Safety Council, Denver Post, Time Magazine, The Atlantic, US news and World Report, Reuters, CNBC, FactCheck.Org, CNN, Harvard, Penn St, Duke University,

.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/49450
.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-the-bubble-destroyed-the-middle-class-2011-07-08
.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhar...performs-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/
.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...lower-unemployment-to-6-percent-in-first-term
.
http://popist.com/s/5ea30c5/
.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/24/news/economy/gingrich_gas_prices/
.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/...d-expansion-the-health-and-financial-impacts/
.
Link Removed
.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/map-states-expanding-medicaid.aspx
.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/...d-expansion-the-health-and-financial-impacts/
.
Link Removed
.
Deaths by Firearms, 1979?2010
.
Gun ownership tied to three-fold increase in suicide risk | Fox News
.
Suicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
.
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 10
.
Link Removed
.
Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
.
How Guns And Violence Cost Every American $564 In 2010 - Forbes
.
Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
.
How Often Do We Use Guns in Self-Defense? - Businessweek
.
Link Removed
.
http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Corporate/2014-Injury-Facts-Odds-Dying-43.pdf
.
Why the economy performs better under Democratic presidents - Fortune
.
Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat! - Forbes
.
Link Removed
.
Link Removed
.
Republican or Democrat Presidents: Which Are Better for the Stock Market? - DailyFinance
.
Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House: BGOV Barometer - Bloomberg Business
.
Debunking Canadian health care myths - The Denver Post
.
How Does Britain's National Health Service Work? - TIME
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/s...s-appointments-have-become-the-norm.html?_r=1
.
Lower costs lure U.S. patients abroad for treatment - CNN.com
.
U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries - Forbes
.
U.S. Care Quality is No Better Than Other Countries | Physicians for a National Health Program
.
Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries
.
New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last - The Atlantic
.
Link Removed
.
Link Removed
.
Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study
.
Top 5 Reasons Why People Go Bankrupt
.
Health Care Bill Bankruptcies
.
.
On your side of the discussion, only a handful of sources were cited and they included beauties like these:

eBay Lays Off Thousands After Obama Touts Company in State of the Union Address | Washington Free Beacon And this gem from the Washington Free Beacon, which of course was easily discredited because eBay is laying off people because they are spinning off Paypal, but that little detail didn't matter, not when the source is of course the Washington Free Beacon, of course the article I responded with was from Forune- EBay to cut 2,400 jobs, unload enterprise business - Fortune
.
Supremes alerted to Obama?s pattern of ?lawless behavior? Is this a credible source? WND who the hell is that? I love their article titled,"How .
Obamacare will push doctors to suicide" and "Supreme's asked:How long will you let Obama make it up?" I thought this was The Onion.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=_T-F_zfoDqI&x-yt-ts=1421914688 I can't believe you guys went as far as using a "Virtual president" making virtual "state of the Union" speech as some sort of credible source. Why not just use cat videos?
.
And the very first link posted here, the one that started the whole thread
BREAKING: Obama Busted in What May Be the Crime of the Century... Impeach Him NOW From the Conservative Tribune- never heard of it, and I'm sure it's non partisan or not biased right? And of course it's claim was so compelling and the evidence so undeniable those Republicans in the House and Senate jumped on it and impeached Obama? No, they didn't? Oh that's right, he's black and blacks have all the power in the US.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Billit, if you want to believe that all of those sources are communist, well you're hopeless. Further, the few sources you guys have posted have been pretty pathetic, not even remotely credible because they are so biased, and don't even try to hide it.
.
So you ask why do I post here, well why do you? If this is such a right leaning web site where you are all of the same mind, why do you need to preach to the choir? Maybe because you are uncertain of your beliefs and need to hear that other's agree. Yet I am very comfortable coming into this Lion's den and taking all your best shots.
.
At least I'm posting accurate reliable information, while you guys post absurd conspiracy theories. And if I convince one person to take the time to learn the actual facts and not rely on the paranoid ramblings from the right I've done good because it's the ignorance and fear driven paranoia of people on the extreme right that is ruining this country. Good decision making and good policies demand a knowledgeable constituency, decisions based on fact, not fear and prejudice. Your side ran the country in the 2000's, they held the White House, Senate and House, and what did we end up with, the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression and two wars. I don't want to go through that again.Of course you'll dismiss all the facts, because as they say ignorance is bliss. But deep down, you know I'm right, you'd have to be completely blind not to see the sheer vastness of data and facts that support all my statements. And maybe one day you'll make an informed decision, not an ignorant one.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,674
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top