January 07, 2011
— Geoff People were asking about the libs' favorite job creation meme this year: Did Obama really create more jobs in 2010 than Bush did in his entire 8 years? Well, yes, but it's a stupid statement. Here's the data (all numbers are in thousands):
| Bush | Obama | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/31/01 | 1/31/09 | Difference | 12/31/09 | 12/31/10 | Difference | |
| Total Jobs | 132,469 | 133,549 | 1,080 | 129,588 | 130,712 | 1,124 |
| Private Jobs | 111,634 | 110,961 | -673 | 107,107 | 108,453 | 1,346 |
So you can see that the statement is strictly true: Obama did create more private sector jobs and more total jobs in one year than Bush did in 8.
But that doesn't stop this from being an utterly dishonest statement. What they're really saying is that they're going to count both recessions that Bush went through against him, but leave out most of the recession in Obama's term. Here's a fairer comparison, looking at both men's periods of growth:
| Bush | Obama | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/31/03 | 12/31/07 | Difference | 12/31/09 | 12/31/10 | Difference | |
| Total Jobs | 129,864 | 137,951 | 8,087 | 129,588 | 130,712 | 1,124 |
| Private Jobs | 108231 | 115574 | 7,253 | 107,107 | 108,453 | 1,346 |
...or maybe just comparing their first two years (even though the dot.com recession started during Bush's term, while the recent recession was half-over when Obama took over):
| Bush | Obama | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/31/01 | 12/31/02 | Difference | 1/31/09 | 12/31/10 | Difference | |
| Total Jobs | 132,469 | 130,183 | -2,281 | 133,549 | 130,712 | -2,837 |
| Private Jobs | 111,634 | 108,595 | -3,039 | 110,961 | 108,453 | -2,508 |
Now, I'm not a big fan of Bush's economic policies (except by reference to Obama's), but I think it's pretty clear that the Left's cherry-picking of time periods is ridiculous. Not that comparing two Presidencies with different circumstances isn't ridiculous from the start.
This historical foolery also raised its head during the tax cut brouhaha. Bush's tax cuts, implemented first due to revenue surpluses and then as economic stimulus, are considered to have been irresponsible. But Obama's extension of the tax cuts is considered to be a necessary step in economic recovery. Somehow the pundits have forgotten that Bush had his own recession to deal with, and an enemy actively devoted to the economic downfall of the US.Selective memory and overtly biased analysis make for an ugly combination.
Posted by: Geoff at
12:54 PM
| Comments (80)
Post contains 315 words, total size 4 kb.
And you accuse the LEFT of spin?? The statement is true - period!
Suck on it, wingnuts!
Posted by: 4moreyears! at January 07, 2011 01:27 PM (VcPAo)
Bush 2003-6 and Obama 2009-10.
Then look at Congress;
Republicans 2003-6 and Democrats 2007-10
Congress has more power over the economy, so the latter is actually more important, and I think will starkly how a difference...
Posted by: 18-1 at January 07, 2011 01:30 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: joeindc44 at January 07, 2011 01:30 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: er at January 07, 2011 01:31 PM (nWuNy)
I have to kick Obama credit. Destroy the economy with your policies in 2007/8 (along with Reid and Pelosi) then claim credit that the economy isn't getting any worse (which isn't true either) after getting elected President...
Posted by: 18-1 at January 07, 2011 01:32 PM (7BU4a)
PS - can anyone put me info on what to use to do charting that can then be put up on the internet? you can tell by my question I don't know what I am talking about on this. I can do charts on excel, but I am sure they wouldn't convert to something that can be posted on the intertube thingy.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 07, 2011 01:32 PM (xQAv5)
I think it'd be fun to rub Paul "Texas is Bankrupt" Krugman's face in it.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 07, 2011 01:32 PM (8y9MW)
Do we have the break-down of new jobs by state?
I actually answered that on the ADP thread, but here you go. ADP doesn't break it down by state. BLS does, but there's a one month lag.
Posted by: geoff at January 07, 2011 01:34 PM (mMh1M)
Ah, I thought, since the Gov't Report was out, they might also have those numbers.
Dang.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 07, 2011 01:36 PM (8y9MW)
Avg. Unemployment
Bush years: 5.27%
Obama years: 9.45%
Using jobs created is bs and meant to be misleading.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 07, 2011 01:36 PM (xQAv5)
Republican 2003-2006: Private Sector Jobs gained: 6.9M
Democrats 2007-2010: Private Sector Jobs Gained: -6.2M
Posted by: 18-1 at January 07, 2011 01:38 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 07, 2011 01:38 PM (xQAv5)
I can do charts on excel, but I am sure they wouldn't convert to something that can be posted on the intertube thingy.
I make them in Excel or Powerpoint and then hit "copy." Open up Photoshop and select "New," and Photoshop will open up a window correctly sized for what's on the clipboard. Futz with it and then select "Save for web."
Posted by: geoff at January 07, 2011 01:38 PM (mMh1M)
Of course it is actually worse then that since we need to add about a million jobs a year to break even.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 07, 2011 01:39 PM (7BU4a)
Posted by: er at January 07, 2011 01:39 PM (nWuNy)
Posted by: t-bird at January 07, 2011 01:40 PM (jrq3k)
Posted by: dagny at January 07, 2011 01:41 PM (yEz6Z)
thanks Geoff, I'll give it a whirl.
I forgot to say "paste the clipboard contents into the open window," but I suspect that's obvious.
Posted by: geoff at January 07, 2011 01:42 PM (mMh1M)
Posted by: willow at January 07, 2011 01:43 PM (h+qn8)
What makes you think this would be different?
To steal an old gag;
You know how a liberal is lying?
It's lips are moving.
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at January 07, 2011 01:44 PM (piQhE)
Posted by: deadman at January 07, 2011 01:44 PM (dvEtf)
Bush years: 5.27%
Obama years: 9.45%
Thanks. I think that is what I was looking for.
Posted by: er at January 07, 2011 05:39 PM (nWuNy)
Actually, there are problems with that comparison.
In a good economy, like we had under the Republicans, the official unemployment rate is artificially high - basically people that would not normally be part of the official working world are. And they periodically collect unemployment.
Conversely, in a bad economy, like we've had under the Democrats, people who would normally be part of the work force can't find a job for an extended period and disappear off the rolls, artificially lowering the unemployment rate.
In fact on this latter point, while the official unemployment rate has been around 10% for much of Obama's term, the real rate has been between 16-20%.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 07, 2011 01:46 PM (7BU4a)
I'm confused. Who gets credit for the 11 months between Bush leaving office in Jan 09 and Obama taking over the economy in Dec 09? Shouldn't it be 110,961-108,453= -2508 for Obama?
You may have been confused by the fact that I forgot to change Obama's start date in the last table. I fixed it. Otherwise you're making the same point I am - by leaving out the first year of Obama's administration over the economy (as they did in the first table), they've cherry picked the data.
Posted by: geoff at January 07, 2011 01:47 PM (mMh1M)
Posted by: EC at January 07, 2011 01:49 PM (f4TZ2)
Yes. It should. That seems to me to be the point of the post. If you only look at President BOHICA from the end of 09 to the end of 10, he looks really good. If you compare that to Bush from the beginning of his term (just barely pre-dotcom bust) through the end of his term (housing bust), BOHICA looks really, really good.
If you compare numbers which might actually be comparable, he still looks okay (because, frankly, our economy is a lot less dependent upon Presidential policies than even Conservatives think).
As someone above notes: if you look at who was in control of Congress, those numbers completely reverse: Democrats lost us 6+ million jobs, and Republican gained 6+ million jobs.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 07, 2011 01:49 PM (8y9MW)
I bet there's a good chunk of red inbetween those two dates the leftards don't want counted.
Yes, it's shown in the 3rd table. If you want to compare the entirety of both men's time in office, take Bush's numbers from the first table and compare them Obama's numbers in the 3rd table.
Posted by: geoff at January 07, 2011 01:54 PM (mMh1M)
He's illustrating their narrative so he can blow it apart in the post.
Democrats keep saying "President Obama [spit -ag] has created more jobs in one year than President Bush did in 8." Which, given that they are only looking from '09 to '10 (President BOHICA's year of growth) to Bush's full term (including two recessions), only makes sense.
Where it falls apart, as Geoff points out, is that when you try to compare apples to apples, the picture doesn't look nearly so rosy for the anointed one.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at January 07, 2011 01:54 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 07, 2011 01:55 PM (xQAv5)
Posted by: EC at January 07, 2011 02:01 PM (f4TZ2)
Posted by: joeindc44 at January 07, 2011 02:02 PM (QxSug)
What I know is, I was doing great/best in my life during the Bush years. My economic health turned to shit starting in February '09, and hasn't exactly gotten better since. The downturn started in '06, and even though Bush didn't fight as hard as he should have, I still blame the Pelosi/Reid fucksticks.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Posted by: Steph at January 07, 2011 02:06 PM (KqBTY)
I didn't realize Geoff's clever way to expose the real comparison.
My cleverness is often very difficult to detect.
Posted by: geoff at January 07, 2011 02:06 PM (mMh1M)
Like communists, the only jobs Democrats know how to create are GOVERNMENT JOBS. Jobs that require tax payer funding. Endless job sucking private sector job killing taxes.
Posted by: Eliot Spitzer at January 07, 2011 02:06 PM (0fzsA)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 07, 2011 02:16 PM (xQAv5)
Posted by: joeindc44 at January 07, 2011 02:19 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: HSTAD at January 07, 2011 02:19 PM (e0+7F)
According to the BLS.
Last Dec we had 58.2% of the population working, and had 9.8% unemployment.
This Dec we had 58.3% of the population working, and had 9.4% Unemployment.
Did the BLS use the same Mathemticians as the East Anglia Climate Unit?
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 07, 2011 02:25 PM (AdK6a)
Avg. # of people on food stamps:
Bush Years: 23.5 million
Obama Years: 36.9 million
if the libs want to play the number game.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 07, 2011 02:26 PM (xQAv5)
Avg. # of people on food stamps:
Bush Years: 23.5 million
Obama Years: 36.9 million
if the libs want to play the number game.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 07, 2011 06:26 PM (xQAv5)
Problem is that Dems see this "gain" as a Social Justice win... basic wealth redistribution 101.
Posted by: Romeo13 at January 07, 2011 02:28 PM (AdK6a)
When I first heard this ridiculouse claim, I knew it was such a big, stupid lie that I didn't even bother to figure out what flimsy foundation it was built upon.
Lying... it's what they do.
Posted by: Warden at January 07, 2011 02:39 PM (HzhBE)
Posted by: archie bunker at January 07, 2011 02:41 PM (0YS61)
Posted by: David at January 07, 2011 02:43 PM (UC+fu)
And you think that's a BAD thing??
Posted by: ObamaRules at January 07, 2011 02:48 PM (VcPAo)
Hey, that's it, fed jobs for everybody, 0% unemployment, and the money to pay them comes from ourselves, we don't have to create anything. Beautiful. I am sure it will work.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at January 07, 2011 02:55 PM (xQAv5)
Posted by: kurtilator at January 07, 2011 02:56 PM (juh4Z)
BUT.
I hope this sort of rebuttal doesn't discourage the Dems from continuing to compare Obama to Bush. In politics there's a tendency to fight the last war, and there's no doubting that the Dems got good mileage out of running against Bush in 2006 and 2008. Fortunately for us, that isn't going to work anymore. Obama and the Democrats spent 2009 and 2010 comparing themselves to the hated Bush, and all it got them was a "shellacking" in November. They went to the well one too many times, and by November of last year, running against Bush wasn't working.
The GOP has been guilty of this, too, at least as recently as 1998. In retrospect, the impeachment of Bill Clinton was disastrous. The public had decided that Clinton was sleazy and punished him for it in 1994. By 1996 that line of attack wasn't working, and when we learned that he was getting hogsmokes from a chubby intern, the public said "whoa, look at the value of my AOL stock!!"
With every passing month, Bush looks better in retrospect, particularly with Obama fucking up constantly. Want to compare the Bush economy and the Obama economy? I don't care what numbers you show me: most people were more secure and more optimistic about the future four years ago. Back then the press was trying to spin good numbers into bad news. Today the press tries to spin terrible economic news into progress. The defining decision of Bush's presidency - the Iraq War - turned out okay in the end. Afghanistan, which Obama took full ownership up - is not going nearly as well, and probably will end poorly.
The bottom line is that I'm happy to have the Dems compare Obama to Bush. Go for it, guys. Use any numbers you want, because on a gut level, most people are going to prefer Bush to Obama, particularly as Bush's presidency fades from view.
Posted by: Masturbatin' Pete at January 07, 2011 03:00 PM (jmJF+)
Posted by: joeindc44 at January 07, 2011 03:03 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: kurtilator at January 07, 2011 03:18 PM (juh4Z)
Posted by: Oldsailor at January 07, 2011 03:32 PM (AovJ3)
A life of crime will be all that is left for the person who even aspires to provide for his or herself, since all remaining economic activities are or soon will be illegal.
Pessimistic, me? Yeah, just a little bit.
Posted by: navybrat at January 07, 2011 03:39 PM (a/I6L)
Posted by: Waterhouse
Cut right to the bone.
Posted by: toby928™ at January 07, 2011 03:42 PM (S5YRY)
Can we all stop acting like Beltway policy wonks and remember that the government does not create private sector jobs - it can only stay out the way of those that do.
Government doesn't create prosperity, it sets the woods on fire then promises to do something about the smoke.
Posted by: Call Me Ishmael at January 07, 2011 04:00 PM (UL/HQ)
Posted by: ObamaRules at January 07, 2011 06:48 PM (VcPAo)
I think you're too fucking dumb to realize what an asshole your argument revealed you to be.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 07, 2011 04:01 PM (olKiY)
In my town, FedEx tried to build a distribution center (what we used to call it a warehouse). Four walls holding up a roof. Trucks unload boxes. Other trucks carry them away. No emissions, no waste, no nothing. Ten years later, they gave up trying to get all the permits. That's not a typo, that is really ten, as in 9 + 1. Ten years to get permission to build a warehouse. Think about what it would take to get permission to build an actual factory. Anybody for steel mills? Forget about it.
And we're living here in Allentown ...
Posted by: Call Me Ishmael at January 07, 2011 04:30 PM (UL/HQ)
Posted by: Kemp at January 07, 2011 04:41 PM (JpFM9)
45 "The real issue is since 2001 through 2010 we've had no growth in work force population. The growth in the labor force peaked in 2007 at 138m. In fact, the workforce in 2001 totaled 132m while 2010 totaled 131m. Essentially, we've lost a decade in job growth and the economy did not generate enough jobs to take care of population growth. "
Add between 11 and 20 million illegals to that workforce and ask yourself if that changes matters.
Also, if the " economy didn't generate enough jobs to take care of population growth", why was inflation so low during the entire decade --- unless illegals were getting those jobs.
Posted by: effinayright at January 07, 2011 06:16 PM (lhk1t)
Posted by: Doug at January 07, 2011 09:33 PM (gUGI6)
Posted by: JadedByPolitics at January 08, 2011 01:48 AM (az/f2)
What a bunch of Repugnantan tripe! Yea, ask the 100,000 + dead Iraqis and the families of our dead and maimed US soldiers if a war of choice based on cooked intelligence, an ever shifting set of lies, AND costing almost a trillion dollars "turned out okay in the end." What a typical wingnut, revisionist statement.
That Obama had to take ownership of Afghanistan is only due to the fact that Dubya was too busy trying to defend Daddy's honor while setting up Cheney and his buddies nicely for a bit of war profiteering. Had he done his job as President and kept the necessary resources in play that were required to finish and win in Afghanistan, rather than pivoting them all into Iraq, it wouldn't be up to Obama... we'd have been out already!
@joeindc44:
"Fed employees are a drain, they don't produce anything. They're costs, not profits. "
Another in a long line of ignorant Teatard statements that can be found here. Is "producing" something for profit the only metric you morons understand? Let's see, how about the epidemiological surveillance performed by the CDC that helps to prevent disease, epidemics, vaccine development, or the monitoring and testing of our food sources by the USDA, or making sure the Chinese don't load up toys with lead paint for our children to eat, and how about monitoring and regulation of our water, land, and air quality by the EPA (I know most of you numb nuts here probably think that we should eliminate the EPA so we can go back to the good ole days where industry was the steward of the environment and we literally had rivers burning due to all the petrochemicals in the water... look it up!).
This continuous right-wing carp that "government is bad and it and the people who are employed by it serve no purpose" is one of the most specious and undermining arguments facing our nation. FYI, I am not a federal employee; however, I'm smart enough (unlike the mouth breather who originally posted this ditty) to recognize that it's far better to have the government watch your back than industry. If you need to be beat over the head with endless examples of why this is true, e.g. Wall Street, Haliburton, BP, let me know... otherwise try reading and getting some information from sources other than Faux News and Rush!
Posted by: Therightiswrong at January 08, 2011 06:05 AM (hT2h1)
Yea, ask the 100,000 + dead Iraqis and the families of our dead and maimed US soldiers if a war of choice based on cooked intelligence, an ever shifting set of lies, AND costing almost a trillion dollars "turned out okay in the end."
You know, you'd think by now that even the illiterati of the Left would have realized that the "cooked intelligence" and "Bush lied" memes were never valid and long-ago debunked. And rather than asking the families, we've listened to the soldiers themselves, the majority of whom have expressed their strong support for the Iraq mission. And only 100,000 dead Iraqis? What happened to your 640K casualty figures? Oh yeah, another liberal lie.
Is "producing" something for profit the only metric you morons understand?
It's the only metric for fueling the economy. Businesses provide the funding for every federal, state and local service. If those services cost too much, then business growth is choked and the system starts to collapse.
It's just that simple. But somehow, you seem to have missed that Econ 101 point, choosing instead to go off in an irrelevant rant about the evils of industry and the wonders of federal services. Try thinking about what joeindc44 actually meant instead of tilting at windmills.
Posted by: geoff at January 08, 2011 07:54 AM (Oc27M)
Not sure about your inflation comments? 2001-2010 where bracked by recessions so inflation would not have been a big factor in any event. We started the decade with a recession (dotcom and 9/11) and we ended the decade (2008 - 2010) with a recession; therefore, inflation was a non-issue. Immigration, legal or illegal had very little impact on inflation. Illegal immigration really cover jobs at the margin and have very little to do with increasing prices. Legal immigration, such as the H1B visa program (which is capped at 150k) actually produces more jobs. Because these immigrants are highly educated personnel who fill in specialized employment gaps. Our educational system fails to produce enough U.S. born specialists to fill those jobs. I'm more inclinded to believe Ishmael at January 07, 2011 08:30 PM (UL/HQ) that government regulations are killing jobs everywhere. Here in California we also experienced regulations in our home town, where it took Costco 10 years to build one store because of government regulations.
Posted by: HSTAD at January 08, 2011 10:45 AM (e0+7F)
Everything else is overhead.
Posted by: toby928™ at January 08, 2011 01:45 PM (S5YRY)
Right Geoff, longgggg ago debunked.... as in Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh debunked. I think you better do a little research on that one.
I see you've got the inside track on "the majority" of US troop sentiment. What's that, 51-52%? What about all those who thought it was bullshit. I know a few soldiers myself and they and their families weren't exactly enamored with the whole "affair." They did their job as soldiers do, but they know they had been duped!
Here's what joeindc44 said
'take the libtards point to their logical idiocy, why not raise minimum wage to $100 hour? Why not make everyone a federal employee?
Fed employees are a drain, they don't produce anything. They're costs, not profits."
No liberal I know of advocates that. And what is your definition of production Geoff? I gave examples of tangible production which do yield "production" when one considers the benefits and the reduction of costs to society. But I keep forgetting, it's all about greed and profit, isn't it?
Posted by: Therightiswrong at January 08, 2011 05:45 PM (hT2h1)
Not the Maroons & Maroonettes- the disruptors... see above...
Posted by: backhoe at January 09, 2011 12:37 AM (0bk6W)
Not the Maroons & Maroonettes- the disruptors... see above..."
Just wondering, did you maybe mean "morons" or was that another TeaParty-like attempt at spelling... you know, like morans?
http://moranswithsigns.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/8/
So, yea backhoe, I can see how having someone who is here to challenge and argue against right-wing revisionist con-speak would be a threat to you. I mean why would you want to hear ideas that are anathema to your cozy little conservative view of the world? Just boot them, right? Isn't this what the right is always claiming the left does to quash dissent? That's why you have Faux News, right?
And for the record, I'm not a troll... if I were I wouldn't be nearly so civil.
Posted by: Therightiswrong at January 09, 2011 04:53 AM (hT2h1)
Right Geoff, longgggg ago debunked.... as in Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh debunked. I think you better do a little research on that one.
Did all the research I needed back in 2005 - 2006, when we hashed this out with the hundreds of libs who came by spewing their distortions and outright lies. Invariably, when they finally ran out of arguments, they would fall back to "Bush stole the election." I could go through the process with you, too, but I stopped in 2007. Wasn't hearing anything new or interesting. You're no different.
It's not even an issue anymore: now it's just an acid test for loons. You passed!
I see you've got the inside track on "the majority" of US troop sentiment.
I read the polls, yes. I don't rely on anecdotal evidence like you do.
I gave examples of tangible production which do yield "production" when one considers the benefits and the reduction of costs to society.
You really don't understand economics at all, do you. Nor the meaning of the word "tangible."
To your credit, you have been civil. But otherwise you're indistinguishable from any other uninformed liberal visitor. Try reading some original sources, rather than the filtered versions the media gives you. When you come back, you might have something interesting to say.
Posted by: geoff at January 09, 2011 04:39 PM (OQbMn)
Posted by: joeindc44 at January 10, 2011 07:10 AM (QxSug)
"Did all the research I needed back in 2005 - 2006, when we hashed this out with the hundreds of libs who came by spewing their distortions and outright lies. Invariably, when they finally ran out of arguments, they would fall back to "Bush stole the election." I could go through the process with you, too, but I stopped in 2007. Wasn't hearing anything new or interesting. You're no different."
So let's see if I have this right Geoff. Bush chose instead to listen to the counsel of a group of reactionary ideologues recruited from neo-con think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century. They identified Iraq as a military target with the goal of regime change years before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Cheney and Fieth were cooking their own intelligence out of the Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans" (yea, they were special alright) since the CIA wasn't generating intelligence to fit their twisted Neocon view of the world. The Downing Street Memos show clearly Bush had made up his mind months before we went in and while he was telling the American public "no decision had been made."
So, no, I don't even need to fall back partisan Supreme Court interfering in a presidential election. Everything I stated above is fact and obviously the research you stopped doing in 2006 should have consisted of more than what you heard on Fox News.
"It's not even an issue anymore: now it's just an acid test for loons. You passed!"
Oh, it definitely is an issue. Unfortunately for you and those who are like-minded, a majority of Americans believe we we're lied to by Bush about Iraq. Perhaps you'd like to have a gander at several polls-CNN/Gallup, CBS, ABC, Zogby, etc...?
http://www.democrats.com/bush-lied-polls
Don't be fooled by link, these are all polls you can look up. Seems there must be a lot more loons than NeoCons, huh? Too bad the Dems didn't impeach his sorry ass when they had the chance. You can bet your last dollar that, had the roles been reversed, the Repubs would have done so.
"I read the polls, yes. I don't rely on anecdotal evidence like you do."
Oh really? Perhaps when you were doing all that research in 2006 you missed this one from the Army Times?
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/
You know Doug, just because someone pulls an unsubstantiated statement or "fact" out of their bung, or off of Drudge or NewsMax, and then perhaps it's repeated on a 24-7 cycle on Faux News and the AM echo chamber for 30% of the country gobble up like manna from heaven, does not make it valid. Repetitive does not equal factual.
"You really don't understand economics at all, do you. Nor the meaning of the word 'tangible.'"
In this case, that would be "real or actual as opposed to visionary or substituted." So yes, I actually understand both. However, I also have some morality and compassion for those who have less than I.
"To your credit, you have been civil. But otherwise you're indistinguishable from any other uninformed liberal visitor. Try reading some original sources, rather than the filtered versions the media gives you. When you come back, you might have something interesting to say."
Back at you Doug. And btw, while I'm busy providing facts and shooting holes in your original, partisan and fact free statement, you are calling me a loon and uninformed... truth hurts, doesn't it? What I have to say will only be interesting to you if I parrot what you already "think" you know. That'll never happen!
Posted by: Therightiswrong at January 18, 2011 03:50 AM (kGMYL)
Posted by: wholesale Cosplay Costumes at April 11, 2011 01:14 AM (zMRm2)
Posted by: liberaldude at July 14, 2011 05:07 AM (xrzxe)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.1498 seconds, 208 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: mpfs at January 07, 2011 01:24 PM (iYbLN)