View Full Version : Just how stupid is the typical leftbot?
1992 Q3 GDP GROWTH = +4.2% ... the leftbots are told it's the worst economy since the great depression, and they obediently believe it.
2012 Q3 GDP GROWTH = +2.0% ... the leftbots are told it's an economy moving forward to prosperity, and they obediently believe it.
JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth)
0CTOBER, 2006 the UE rate is 4.5% ... the leftbots are told it's the worst economy since the great depression, a lie they lovingly embrace.
0CTOBER, 2008 the UE rate is 6.1% after one year of demokrookonomics ... the leftbots are told it's all Bush's fault, a lie they lovingly embrace.
0CTOBER, 2010 the UE rate is 9.5% after three year of demokrookonomics ... the leftbots are told it's all the republican's fault because they won't aid in the madness, and they nod their heads in collectivist unison.
0CTOBER, 2012 the UE rate is 7.8% after one year of blocking further demokrookonomics ... the leftbots are told it's all the brilliance of Obama's fault, and they insist he is unbeatable.
10-28-2012, 01:52 PM
Of course, facts are not relevant when the goal is power and that is always their goal.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course, facts are not relevant when the goal is power and that is always their goal. </div></div>
That is understandable for their leadership ... but what causes educated and otherwise intelligent people to become automatons ?
10-28-2012, 02:52 PM
On a fairly regular basis we see a former liberal 'see the light' and become outspoken conservatives. Within their home crowd, speaking or acting against the group-think takes an act of courage and courage is simply not an attribute of liberalism. It is their lot in life to cower under the apron of the Nanny State in the company of many others who lack the character and bravery to be self-reliant. Liberals do as they are told because they are unable to question the authority of their leftist tradition. This is precisely what Milgram established in his famous experiment.
10-29-2012, 08:54 AM
You are making a stupid point.
Who was it that made the point you mention?
That was Bill Clinton and Al Gore, two conservative Democrats from the south. They were not of the left (of the Democratic Party), but centrists overall, at the level of a moderate Republican (RIP) of the stripes of the '50s and '60s. Neither was much liked by the party's left or the true left, and Gov. Moonbeam (Jerry Brown) was the more left of the candidate in that primary race.
Why did THEY say it (and why was it widely believed), leading to the unusually low share of votes for Bush the Wiser as an incumbent president?
Because of the numbers REPORTED AT THE TIME. You are quoting numbers after two upward revisions that occurred several YEARS LATER. What were the numbers at the time?
You're old enough to know them from personal knowledge had you been paying attention that long ago, as I do from remembering them. Do you know them, and simply now lie about what they were then, or are you blatantly ignorant about what they were? Which would be worse, I wonder?
IIRC, the original reported 3Q calendar year quarter came in at 1.9%. This came in October, the home stretch of that campaign season. The originally reported full calendar year gdp growth was 2.1%, only after the 4Q number was 3.9%. The 1st two calendar quarter gdp growth numbers came in under 2%.
Based on what was the official reported gdp growth numbers, it was the slowest gdp growth rate in a recovery to that date, AND that year saw the UE-3 rate rise from 7.1% to 7.8% as of around election time.
So they believed that at the time because those were the official numbers. That they changed a couple years later after two revisions is no criticism to that belief at the time, as those people would have needed clairvoyance to know what the revisions would have been.
Now, it's true that the growth numbers as reported track what we see now. But that was after a REGULAR recession, not after a financial meltdown recession. And not in the face of a worldwide recession, and Europe in meltdown as well (harming export potential).
I stopped reading when you claimed that Billy Jeff and reCount Dracula were centrists.
10-29-2012, 09:34 AM
All Dem nominees for a long time have been moderate wing Democrats, not their far or even left at all.
Ever hear of the centrist DLC? Clinton and Gore were founding members. What was its purpose? To make the Democratic Party more moderate and business-friendly, against its normal more left leaning constituencies (minorities and labor).
What was the reaction of the actual left of the party to the DLC types? They condemned them as corporatist sellouts of the party's ideals.
10-29-2012, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I stopped reading when you claimed that Billy Jeff and reCount Dracula were centrists. </div></div>
Blinders on? Check. Ding ding ding, and heeeeeeeeee's OFF! St.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I stopped reading when you claimed that Billy Jeff and reCount Dracula were centrists. </div></div>
Blinders on? Check. Ding ding ding, and heeeeeeeeee's OFF! St. </div></div>
Thanks for answering the question posed in the thread title.
10-29-2012, 11:58 AM
It doesn't matter the part of the false left/right political spectrum saying what you questioned.
The fact is anybody doing the math on the numbers reported out, and checking back through presidential term economic history, would find that the gdp growth rate for that presidential term was indeed the worst on record, post-WW II, and perhaps even including all or any of FDR's terms (pre-WW II included, even as the Great Depression or its effects lingered).
So, the reason that was said at the time is that was what the reported facts said. You are using something that was a several years' out revision and pretending THAT was what was said to be the worst economy. That claim was NOT about the 3rd quarter in any case, but about the totality of the then-3-3/4rs year economic record (or maybe just 1992 as a whole as reported to that date), which you blindly ignored, to say it was a statement about one quarter.
I notice how you want to ignore the substance and go for a non-essential detail (which is accurate itself in any case).
I imagine that the government keeps the history of these revisions, including the original report that got revised, somewhere. Look it up to see what that topic of discussion at the time was really discussing, not your years' later revised one quarter number. That's remarkably lame cherry-picking on your part.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.