Senate The US Politics discussion

Allow me to respond in simple terms below:

1) It ill behooves you to make these stupid, emotional statements that have no basis in fact or narrative, and
2) I did no such thing and you will either substantiate your remark with evidence, or publicly apologise.

 

It's been 45 minutes; how long do I have to wait for proof or a retraction? Out of interest.

If you are compiling evidence don't feel rushed; it's more so I can manage my time.

 

Maybe you missed the part where they interrogated one of the guys who perpetrated the attack and he said, "We did it because of the video". I'm sure it's exceedingly "obvious" to you ( sans evidence ) why people do the things they do, but in this case your fantasies were proven wrong.

So what you have a problem with is the fact that the administration described what actually happened in reality instead of promoting the alternative fantasy universe of the GOP. This is what you call "scandal". Someone telling the truth.

 

This thread and at least one other one have taken on something of a surreal appearance. I can't speak for anyone else, but having been around for as long as I have, I can't remember the last time there were so many troglodytes around and actively posting. Others here have been around at least as long, if not longer, so I would sort of put that question to anyone who wants to answer it.

 

is it leakage from the episode seven spoilers allowed forum?

 

Haha, the very end of GW'B's term? Directly in the middle of an economic downturn? I think it would be more accurate this way:

October 2006: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_11032006.txt
Black unemployment rate: 8.6%

October 2014: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_11072014.htm
Black unemployment rate: 10.9%

Six years into both Presidencies, each with a recession, each with an Iraq war, each with some very complex crisis. Look at any of several economic indicators, average GDP growth, average retails sales growth, home values, average unemployment rate for equal periods. All down, except unemployment.

And, wow, just look at all those added to foodstamps under Obama! http://www.trivisonno.com/food-stamps-charts

Or, workforce participation has decreased under Obama: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

 

Yeah, I've checked through post history of a few (relative) newbies who seem to have some, er, interesting views on the world, and they've posted primarily in 7SA. Feels like 2005.

 

Some of these folks were no doubt among those who bemoaned Obama's re-election in apocalyptic terms. I posted a quick selection of comments from the web that day, as I recall.

 

Millennials are the root of all evil.

 

I'll give you and KnightWriter an honest answer. I lurked back in my collecting days 2003-2010, increased a bit post 2005 in the search of what next, but enjoyed reading post ROTJ trilogy info. It was either here or rebelscum. But seeing how absurd some of the claims about pro-anything put out by the DNC are, and how it's accepted as truth, I couldn't help telling you how much I love Ted Cruz, Greg Abbott, and anything to do with the political fortress of Red State Texas. I wish I could bathe in the sweet blue tears that were spilled by all the fans of Battleground Texas, and any other attempt at turning Texas into California. And I live in the only liberal bastion of Texas, Austin -- which makes it twice as fun.

 

hey now.

I couldn't help telling you how much I love Ted Cruz, Greg Abbott, and anything to do with the political fortress of Red State Texas

Your fortress was something of an island in 2008 and 2012.

 

Bah...Texas <------> Australia, they're practically one in the same. The only difference is one has cork on their hats, the other doesn't.

 

Um... Bush started that Iraq war (which he didn't have to). The best comparison would be:

End-Clinton, During Bush's Terms, End-Bush, During Obama's Terms.

Didn't Bush inherit a ridiculously good economy and piss it away, largely of his own making (not entirely -- btw -- but at least in part)?

 

Both expanding and shifting gears a bit, Obama's immigration executive order places the GOP is a tremendous bind in 2016, as they will be forced to choose between accepting it or pledging to overturn it upon entering office. That will ensure the continued enmity of millions of hispanics, which of course continue to rise as a share of the vote. Jonathan Chait observed this week that the usual Republican strategy of obstruction was short-circuited for once because they had no power to stop the President on this issue. They could have put the President in in a tough spot by passing something earlier on, but they didn't. Now they'll have to either publicly state their acceptance of it or state that they'll reverse it immediately. They won't be retaking the White House with that on their shoulders.

 

Jabba-wocky said unemployment is down now from what it was at the end of Bush's presidency. You made the ludicrous and incorrect statement that unemployment was "far over what it was during GWB" and told him to check the BLS again, so I took your advice and checked the BLS to determine that actually what he said was correct. Why are you having so much trouble with simple factual statements, dude.

 

Nothing in the "findings" you are supporting points to protests of a video as being the cause of the attack. That would be Finding #9 if you're interested. But State Dept repeated that claim how many times?

 

Dp, I think your list shows how much economic lag carries over to elections, and political terms. The economy suffers from what are called fiscal lags-recognition, administrative, and operational. Basically, the administrative lag is what applies here. In a nutshell, administrative lag says that government tends to chase the economy, so administrative changes take a long time to have any affect. It's also the effect by which people say that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is really the most powerful person in the world.

There was a surplus for Clinton's last two terms (98-00), and for Bush's first two terms (00-01), and the surplus reached a height of about 200 billion in 2000, which was the nexus point for both. But it's also important to look at the nature of the surpluses for those years, because they were based on unsustainable increases-mostly in the tech sector-as well as speculation in the markets. Had Gore been elected, the economy would have came crashing down just as rapidly. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq probably blunted most of the decrease when the speculative bubble burst. Ironically, had there been no wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, the recession that happened in 2008 probably would have happened earlier in 2003. But see below.

The largest deficit since WWII occurred in 2009, a year into Obama's 1st term, when the US's deficit reached its worst at about negative 1,400 billion. But that's mostly due to record levels of reduced tax revenues as well as large bailout spending which was probably needed to keep the economy going. The huge deficits started happening in 2008, but this also coincides with the drawdowns of the above. As much as the "war spending" blunted the crashes of the tech bubble collapse, the reduction in war spending happened right along with the housing market collapse, so the government spending was just shifted from one area to another.

At any rate, there is a huge crossover with regards to elected administrations. Probably the last President who had any real impact on the economy, independent of the Fed Reserve, was Roosevelt, but that was because he was elected to 4 terms, so his policies could catch up to the lag. As a side note, it's probably an argument in favor of electing a President to a single 6 year term, instead of up to two individual terms, because at least the President will get about 3-4 years of solid policy.

 

AaylaSecurOWNED you know what you are absolutely correct! I owe you and Jabba-wocky an apology. Black unemployment for the last three months of GWB's Presidency was on par with Obama's track record for 69 months. Now, I guess you could dismiss comparing the average over 6 years for each President because that would mean what I said is totally accurate. That black unemployment is far over what it was under GWB. But hey, you win, black unemployment is still disproportionately higher. And importing millions of people will help...... Lower black unemployment? Lower unemployment?

 

Again, what Wocky was saying was that unemployment over all and black unemployment have both been trending downwards recently under Obama, and they were both stated to refute your entirely incorrect statement in the first place that they had been skyrocketing. Your reading comprehension really does leave something to be desired.

Importing millions of... wait did you even listen to the speech? Do you understand the executive action at all?? Any part of it?

 

I'm talking about the interrogation of one of the parties responsible for the attack. Meanwhile, the "findings" say that the Obama administration didn't try to mislead anyone, remember? Now, where is the evidence pointing to the video not being the cause of the attack?

I'll wait.

Is there a magic number of times where telling the truth becomes wrong, or something?

 

Yes, sorry, trending, gotcha. And I apologized, right? Totally incorrect on my part. I should have said, unemployment under Obama remains high, even above average. And that on average it's still higher under Obama than the 16 years, or two decades before. Does that make better sense? It's going to be a great next two years, can't wait to compare averages.

And why yes, of course I did. I'm almost reluctant to rehash this for you, but if you're implying that illegals already had jobs, and won't affect unemployment, what happens when you grant amnesty and the ability to work jobs other than primarily low skilled jobs "no one wants"? Are you harvesting a domestic or foreign labor force? And since anyone can come across and not face immediate deportation, we have potentially millions of new green card holders to take entry level positions, and a whole crop of new "illegals" to take their old jobs. Now if black unemployment in particular is higher, what does importing millions of people who will work for a cheaper wage do for domestic unemployment numbers in general? And if unemployment is still high, why would we not focus on the American labour force first? Oh, that's right. Votes.

 

Right, so you didn't, and you don't. Good, glad to have the answer.

 

I lol'd. So there's no evidence of a video cited in the report, and that means there needs to be evidence that the video... didn't cause the attack? I feel like I'm reading a plot of a PKD story. Have the attackers been apprehended, or were they just interviewed out in the open by a news crew? Did you watch the video? Out of all the things a terrorist could potentially hate about America, they picked out one of the most terribly edited videos in the world, and that was their rallying cause. Think about the logic in what you're arguing/supporting. That a group of hard line Muslims got word of a video that no one had ever seen nor heard of, but they somehow clued in to it, and decided to spontaneously attack an American Embassy and murder the Ambassador. Based on that video. Nevermind that there's plenty of YT videos disparaging their prophet, or cartoons, or songs, album covers, or any random American atheist. But no, definitely one of the most poorly edited videos on the entire internet. Sticking with that?