PDA

View Full Version : Proof that leftists will say and believe anything!



LWW
06-05-2011, 04:38 AM
2006 ... Comradette San Fran Nan laments 4.4% unemployment:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>President Bush, energized by news that U.S. unemployment was at a five-year low, tried to focus the Battle for Congress on the economy Friday, hammering away at Democrats — in particular, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — who he says will do away with tax cuts.</span>

"People are working in the United States, the tax cuts have worked," Bush told a Republican rally in Springfield, Mo., where the president was stumping for incumbent Sen. Jim Talent. ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Pelosi was not to be outdone, however, firing back at the president who she claimed had </span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>"the worst jobs record since the Great Depression," in spite of Friday's news that the October jobless rate fell to 4.4 percent</span>, the lowest it has been in more than five years.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227390,00.html)

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 07:22 AM
I think it is amazing that the left will rip into Sarah Palin with claims that she doesn't have a clue, while at the same time, support Nancy, who is probably the most ignorant House Speaker we have seen in our lifetime!

Steve

LWW
06-05-2011, 09:13 AM
They are merely following the script provided by David Plouffe at OFA.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 11:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2006 ... Comradette San Fran Nan laments 4.4% unemployment:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>President Bush, energized by news that U.S. unemployment was at a five-year low, tried to focus the Battle for Congress on the economy Friday, hammering away at Democrats — in particular, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — who he says will do away with tax cuts.</span>

"People are working in the United States, the tax cuts have worked," Bush told a Republican rally in Springfield, Mo., where the president was stumping for incumbent Sen. Jim Talent. ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Pelosi was not to be outdone, however, firing back at the president who she claimed had </span><span style='font-size: 17pt'>"the worst jobs record since the Great Depression," in spite of Friday's news that the October jobless rate fell to 4.4 percent</span>, the lowest it has been in more than five years.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227390,00.html)

</div></div>

The noted leftist newspaper, Murdoch's own Wall Street Journal, said the same thing. You could find the same thing throughout the financial press, from Bloomberg to Forbes, etc. Possibly even IBD had the same story.

Why?

Because those are the facts of the JOBS CREATED NUMBERS. Jobs created. Not the unemployment rate.

We might ask why it is that some people reject what is the plain truth because they don't like the person saying it.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it is amazing that the left will rip into Sarah Palin with claims that she doesn't have a clue, while at the same time, support Nancy, who is probably the most ignorant House Speaker we have seen in our lifetime!

Steve </div></div>

Pelosi was a most accomplished Speaker, whatever issues with communication she admittedly had.

She was extremely effective, or she wouldn't have had such attacks brought against her.

Not that the internal workings of the House are so obvious, so a casual observer may not realize how strong was her performance. But it was historical. The measure is the legislative record, and it was truly remarkable.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 12:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office.

Because the size of the economy and labor force varies, we also calculate in percentage terms how much the total payroll count expanded under each president. The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records. </div></div>

--The Wall Street Journal Staff

Including a table showing comparisons (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/)

See this Google search page for <s>hundreds</s> over 2 million more like this (http://www.google.com/search?q=worst+job+record+bush&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 12:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pelosi was a most accomplished Speaker, </div></div>

Now, don't take this wrong...I'm not drawing a comparison here...

But Hitler was an accomplished leader....that didn't make him a good leader. He got a lot done...but I don't think it was good.

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 02:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Pelosi was a most accomplished Speaker, </div></div>

Now, don't take this wrong...I'm not drawing a comparison here...

But Hitler was an accomplished leader....that didn't make him a good leader. He got a lot done...but I don't think it was good.

Steve </div></div>

Putting the ad hominem attack on former Speaker Pelosi aside, it's quite clear she was totally correct and accurate in her claim, despite the sloppy non-factual mewlings here to the contrary.

If you want to cite some alleged stupidity from her, there are other examples (mostly also false, but that's a different matter still). But to use THIS ONE, which is verifiably true, is a risible error.

In fact, it shows more the opposite of what is claimed, that political partisans will believe anything negative that is said about their political foes, and in this case, political partisans of the right.

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 03:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you want to cite some alleged stupidity from her, there are other examples </div></div>

Yes there are. Many of them have been posted here, only to have the left continue to defend her.

There is no amount of stupidity that some radical lefties won't defend, if it came from a (D).

Steve

LWW
06-05-2011, 03:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Putting the ad hominem attack on former Speaker Pelosi aside, it's quite clear she was totally correct and accurate in her claim, despite the sloppy non-factual mewlings here to the contrary.</div></div>

You honestly believe that 4.4% UE ... and falling ... was the worst jobs record since the great depression?

That is simply precious.

But, if you truly believe that ... and possess a shred of intellectual integrity ... then you must also believe that the current POTUS's jobs record is even worse.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 04:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Putting the ad hominem attack on former Speaker Pelosi aside, it's quite clear she was totally correct and accurate in her claim, despite the sloppy non-factual mewlings here to the contrary.</div></div>

You honestly believe that 4.4% UE ... and falling ... was the worst jobs record since the great depression?

That is simply precious.

But, if you truly believe that ... and possess a shred of intellectual integrity ... then you must also believe that the current POTUS's jobs record is even worse. </div></div>

You make me laugh.

Obviously, newly created jobs RELATE to the unemployment rate, but do not entirely track the same way.

It's one of those areas where your head explodes, because you simply cannot process conflicting information correctly.

Yes, W's RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT was low, and at the same time, the RATE OF NEW JOB CREATION was also low. (You may find that impossible, but that's what the statistics show, and I've linked above to a credible accounting of many presidents' job records which show exactly this, from the WSJ staff piece run on the WSJ economics blog.)

Likewise, Obama's rate of unemployment is high, BUT his record of new job creation is better than that of W. Both at the same time.

As of right now, Obama's presidency has seen MORE private sector job growth than what was seen in W's 8 years in total. And no, that does NOT include the severe losses that occurred in the final months of '08 and the final days of his term continuing into later January '09. It was true as of W's peak employment/lowest unemployment rate in 2007.

The place where W beats the O record was in creating public sector jobs in the government. And that's a fact.

LWW
06-06-2011, 01:49 AM
1 - You didn't answer the question.

2 - Your response was total party Bravo Sierra.

3 - Your idea of a fact is whatever the party tells you a fact is.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 06:33 AM
In light of the jobs numbers released last week, you may want to reconsider your position.

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 10:37 AM
You seem to think that job growth is directly measured by the unemployment rate. I should think that they were different can be easily seen by a 'units' analysis, meaning job growth is measured in 'numbers of new jobs,' whereas the unemployment rate is given as a percentage.

You might as well try to say a quarterback's rating can tell you the number of games his team won that year. They are two different things.

But not if, as I secretly now suspect, you are really Humpty Dumpty.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.' </div></div>

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You seem to think that job growth is directly measured by the unemployment rate. I should think that they were different can be easily seen by a 'units' analysis, meaning job growth is measured in 'numbers of new jobs,' whereas the unemployment rate is given as a percentage.

You might as well try to say a quarterback's rating can tell you the number of games his team won that year. They are two different things.

But not if, as I secretly now suspect, you are really Humpty Dumpty.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.' </div></div> </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Love it!

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 10:53 AM
Number 5 on the Alinsky tactics list.

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."



You guys are getting way too predictable.

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 11:07 AM
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

Thomas Jefferson

I've read Jefferson, but not Alinsky. Alinsky's are the tactics LWW admits he uses, and which Dick Armey's Freedom Works prescribe all their right wing activists study.

I specifically say that I do not use Alinsky tactics, because I prefer to say what I mean and be frank. Accusing another of that tactic is just Alinskyism again.

If you notice, I plainly lay out the facts upon which I state you and LWW have falsely ridiculed Pelosi as having gotten wrong. You both decided she's ignorant, and ignorantly assume that if she said something you think is wrong, she must be the one who is in error.

Given the links I provide to non-Democratic objective sources (WSJ, for one), which say exactly what she said, which you both found incredibly stupid when coming out of her mouth, why don't you both simply admit your errors in this case?

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 11:18 AM
Ignorant? Absolutely not.
Completely misguided, and willing to do anything to get her way?
Absolutely!
Dangerous to the country....most likely.
But one can't be ignorant and get away with as much as she has.
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you want to cite some alleged stupidity from her, there are other examples </div></div>

Yes there are. Many of them have been posted here, only to have the left continue to defend her.

There is no amount of stupidity that some radical lefties won't defend, if it came from a (D).

Steve

<span style="color: #990000">There is no factual information that you righties don't deny, even when it comes from the right, or the left!!!!

As I posted earlier, in another thread....</span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of "being taken to the woodshed by the president" over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became inspired with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'> And this:</span> </span>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one. </span> </div></div>
</div></div>

G.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 11:51 AM
Trying to have a discussion with you is nearly impossible. You constantly change your standards (whatever standards you have), are completely unable to stay on topic, and are so blinded by your partisan politics that you are unable to see simple common sense.

And, when all else fails you, your only reaction is to blame Bush.

However, as I have stated in the past, you can frequently be an amusing diversion.

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 10:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ignorant? Absolutely not.
Completely misguided, and willing to do anything to get her way?
Absolutely!
Dangerous to the country....most likely.
But one can't be ignorant and get away with as much as she has.
Steve </div></div>

Uh, Steve?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it is amazing that the left will rip into Sarah Palin with claims that she doesn't have a clue, while at the same time, support Nancy, who is probably the most ignorant House Speaker we have seen in our lifetime!

Steve </div></div>

Must have forgotten how this thread opened?

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 07:07 AM
Ignorant was probably a bad choice of words. But, like Palin, Nancy has certainly been known to say things that really didn't make a lot of sense.
I don't think either are ignorant. I certainly don't think Sarah deserves to be ripped apart the way the media (and many on the left) have done non stop since she first appeared on the national scene.
As for Nancy, ignorant was probably just a knee jerk reaction on my part. I think she is as underhanded, manipulative, out of touch, elitist....yes, there are a lot of things she is.
But I retract my ill advised use of ignorant.

Steve

LWW
06-07-2011, 07:58 AM
Nancy certainly isn't ignorant ... but she is very adept at spoon feeding those who are.