It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

3-4 years later, after being strongly anti-Obama....I will be voting for him for a second term.

page: 21
65
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by vasaga
 


HA! This graph willingly takes out Bush's first two years, and Obama's third and forth year.

You cannot compare unless you get ALL the data. You know, when Obama's policies first started going into effect, and when Bush's first two years of economic inheritance had him down too?

pff. Don't try to trick someone with statistics. It only works on people without keen eyes.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
Ok. Show me the correct data then? Until you can, this stands as Bush being better than Obama, whether you like it or not.


What your doing is dishonest and goes against the nature of this website. Why are you here? This is a website that is trying to push truth past the crap we get on braindead sources...and you come showing a tailored and disingenuous graph that paints a picture still demoing reality, but at a far less impact.

So, answer..honestly...why are you here? Are you a paid spokesmen of the gop or something? Why would your lying arse come here intentionally spreading disinformation..and being haughty even when called out on it?


heh..show me the correct data, until then the false graph stands. No..reality doesn't work that way.




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by vasaga
 


HA! This graph willingly takes out Bush's first two years, and Obama's third and forth year.

You cannot compare unless you get ALL the data. You know, when Obama's policies first started going into effect, and when Bush's first two years of economic inheritance had him down too?

pff. Don't try to trick someone with statistics. It only works on people without keen eyes.
edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
Ok. Show me the correct data then? Until you can, this stands as Bush being better than Obama, whether you like it or not.


What your doing is dishonest and goes against the nature of this website. Why are you here? This is a website that is trying to push truth past the crap we get on braindead sources...and you come showing a tailored and disingenuous graph that paints a picture still demoing reality, but at a far less impact.

So, answer..honestly...why are you here? Are you a paid spokesmen of the gop or something? Why would your lying arse come here intentionally spreading disinformation..and being haughty even when called out on it?


heh..show me the correct data, until then the false graph stands. No..reality doesn't work that way.
Oh rly? I gave data, all you gave is petty insults, basic logical fallacy called ad-hominem. Not to mention you're begging the question, trying to prove that the data is false by assuming it in the first place. You either prove the graphs are false, or they remain valid. If you can't prove they are false, your view is void. It's that simple.

The problem with this site is not people like me. The problem with this site is that people who want to so-called propagate truth think they already know everything, and when challenged they get emotional and start spouting nonsense and blaming others for their own incompetence.

Why am I here? I'm here to spread truth and break delusions. Either with logic or data, or both. Until now I've seen emotional responses with lack of data and lack of logic.
edit on 28-1-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Lack of evidence is not evidence for.

Also still nothing from 2011 and 2012. "Jan 2011" is not enough.


Things got better in 2011. A lot better. And they keep getting better even now.

You challenged, therefore you find the data. Toodles!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by vasaga
 


Lack of evidence is not evidence for.
Except I have evidence, you don't. There is no lack of evidence. Only lack of evidence that suits your biased presumptions.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Also still nothing from 2011 and 2012. "Jan 2011" is not enough.
Right.. Nothing will ever be enough, unless it fits what you already believe right?


Originally posted by Gorman91
Things got better in 2011. A lot better. And they keep getting better even now.
Care to show some data to back that up? Or a news article? Something?


Originally posted by Gorman91
You challenged, therefore you find the data. Toodles!
I already provided data. It's your job to PROVE it wrong, not simply dismiss it because it doesn't fit your presupposed delusions.

The sheeple have attacked. It's time for me to leave. Goodbye and have fun with your delusions.
edit on 28-1-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



Are you really saying Bush was a better president than Obama?

Obama may not be the best, but that opinion is laughable.

Bush set up and helmed the biggest economic disaster in the
history of finance, not figuratively or rhetorically, but literally...




edit on 28-1-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 

I'm not saying that. I'm simply giving data that contradicts what people have used as an argument of how Obama is better than Bush, because I asked before why Obama was better than Bush, and well, the arguments given do not correlate with the data.. That is all. So people need to come up with another reason.

As for which president is better, after Kennedy, they were all garbage, that is all.
edit on 28-1-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
I gave data, all you gave is petty insults, basic logical fallacy called ad-hominem. Not to mention you're begging the question, trying to prove that the data is false by assuming it in the first place.


What you gave was a narrow scope of complete hogwash
try to prove the data is false by assuming it in the first place..no, its freaking obvious from anyone whom is older than say 16 years old whom lived through it.

But fine. time to end this nonsense and show just how dishonest you are being...lets look at the full picture


There...since the freaking 80s
And as you can see, there is quite a story to be told around 2000

Now, to get a closeup of the ending of bush and obama until about 2011, lets study this


The last 2 quarters are out, this is a dated graph, but the last two show increasingly more and more positive numbers, so it would be higher and higher still, but this serves a good enough purpose.

You now must either accept that you indeed did (perhaps unintentionally) give a not fully accurate view of the growth, or you willfully distorted the truth. which was it.

oh, and thanks..you made me do almost 30 seconds of "work" on a saturday in order to counter your disinfo...granted, most of it was launching photoshop to crop the picture so it fits in the forum, but still!

Ahh the election season..much like a superbowl, but with less consequences



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 





Except I have evidence, you don't. There is no lack of evidence. Only lack of evidence that suits your biased presumptions.


You left out Bush's first few years, and left out Obama's most recent.

This is not data. This is smearing.




Right.. Nothing will ever be enough, unless it fits what you already believe right?


Sure why not. I'm the one whom got a job at a firm, got linked to another firm, and all on my own free will. Heard the times were tough then. Then a year later, they seem better.




Care to show some data to back that up? Or a news article? Something?


Obama is following the Bush profile for economy an jobs.

knowledgecenter.csg.org...

www.finfacts.ie...

Matter of fact, you can see how Obama stopped what Bush allowed to happen. not cause it.

lh6.googleusercontent.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

If it took 30 seconds, why not do it immediately instead of relying on petty insults? So, my graphs are supposedly wrong then. Good.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Obama has been forced to try and clean up the disaster that was Bush for the last 4 years...and he's had to do it with literally NO HELP from Congress.

He walked into a 10 trillion deficit, 2 wars, and a collapsing economy. 3 years later, things have at least stabilized and look to be on the uptick.

Things could be worse....far worse.

Boy am i glad i was wrong in 08 with McCain. yikes!

All that being said, most presidents get their major policies done in their second term....which is why it's important for him to get back in there. Another Obama win will force the GOP to compromise and actually do something for the country besides pushing for tax breaks for incredibly wealthy corporations and billionaires.

I also like that he demanded Congress pass a bill banning insider trading. I bet they don't do it....but do hope he continues to make that an issue.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


You know what makes me warm and cuddly about Obama?
How he snuck in the NDAA over the New Years Holidays.

"Greatest Threat to Civil Liberties" www.forbes.com...

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the president said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
edit on 28-1-2012 by Tw0Sides because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
The Economy collapsed just before Obama took over. It was sick from mismanagement for many years. Stimulating the economy with pork barrel tactics when it wasn't needed got us into debt and weakened our ability to recover from this recession. This mess wasn't caused by Obama. It wasn't really caused by Bush either. Bush believed his economic advisors and those who said this false economy would work. No consumer based economy has ever worked longterm in recorded history on anything larger than a city. Even there it was reliant on slave labor to work. Does anyone think humans have actually got smarter in the last thousand years? Our intelligence hasn't grown that much but our knowledge and technology has. It's hard to even compare intelligence now because all records and writings were destroyed by the conquering societies in the past. It was safest to put history into songs and poems in those times. Nobody could easily fix this messed up economy we have put faith in. The republicans couldn't have done it if McLean would have won either. I personally think McLean purposely threw the election. He isn't as dumb as he was acting in his compaign. He was acting strange. Losing when the economy was severly failing allows the republicans to blame things on the Democrats. Everyone caused this mess, you can't blame either party seperately. We adopted risky policy in our government and it didn't work. We need to fix this so it can't happen again. There must be someone out there who knows how to fix it. Quit blaming others and get to work
edit on 28-1-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


If you have had such an incredible leftward shift, then you must be really proud of Obama's latest and finest accomplishment the NDAA or as the bush family would lovingly say: Obama's "Nazis Der America Act"

Let me know how that works out for you in the future, or are you magically immune to what he does because you are now supporting him?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by alienreality
 


"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and
rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might
and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without." ADOLF HITLER



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by mastahunta
 

most presidents get their major policies done in their second term....which is why it's important for him to get back in there.
How did that work out with Bush? And what about the secret signing of NDAA?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by David9176
 


If you have had such an incredible leftward shift, then you must be really proud of Obama's latest and finest accomplishment the NDAA or as the bush family would lovingly say: Obama's "Nazis Der America Act"

Let me know how that works out for you in the future, or are you magically immune to what he does because you are now supporting him?


Its a disgusting act that has such a wide and ready for abuse clause that no doubt is eroding the safety of our very core freedoms.
Obama said he basically didn't want to sign it into law, but he did anyhow. He should have vetoed it
On this, he is made of fail

However

Consider if McCain was in office...he would have happily signed in this right wing crap. Imagine of Gingrich was in office? imagine any republican.
This is not a case of "if my team was in, it would have been rejected". Actually, what obama did was upset his base because he allowed for this neocon legislation to be passed and didn't stand up for his liberal values.

So, its a no matter who you vote for, this will happen bill it seems.

Would Ron Paul sign it? it doesn't matter, because Ron Paul will not nor ever be potus...same as Kuchenic..unelectable due to their own party rejecting them.

So, thats that. like complaining that one side uses air force one..and pretending the other side wouldn't use it.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Haven't posted in awhile...so hello everyone and hope everything is going well for you all.

Fourth: The middle class is in the middle of a collapse...wealth disparity has exploded. I look at our prior history, the middle class was the strongest when tax rates were the highest for the most wealthy. The last 30 years we have completely gone in the opposite direction....now most families...both parents have to work....affecting the time we can spend with our children. It has to change....we cannot blame everything on the education system....much of the problem can be cast on both parents having to work (because wages have not kept up with inflation). But to the point, Obama wants to head in the direction of raising taxes on the highest earners...and i support it.

Ok, so let me get this right? Your own eyes are telling you that the middle class is in a collapse, Democratic, nor Republican parties have done absolutely nothing to help the average citizens of the United States and you are going to go along with Obama again


Seriously


Nothing further to say, I now know why america is in the predicament that it is in. citizens expect absolutely nothing from their government, when the government taxes it's sheeple to death



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by mastahunta
 

most presidents get their major policies done in their second term....which is why it's important for him to get back in there.
How did that work out with Bush? And what about the secret signing of NDAA?


Would you have preferred it be some sort of worldwide broadcast at 8pm with trumpets and ticker tape parades?

the bill sucks, but show me any route that would have had it not signed. Also, tell me who opposed it in congress.

But yes, Obama should have vetoed it and said try again but without those subsections in question...the biggest issue I have with Obama is his spinelessness against the republicans, and this is the catastrophic result of it. He speaks well, but doesn't stand up for the values he promotes with words through actions.

In saying that...I am with BH. I would rather deal with 4 more years of Obama's broken promises of hope than the neo-con's kept promises of scorched earth.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Well, if Paul is not on the ballot, I'm voting for Oboma with you. My reasoning is completely different than yours, but the end result will be the same. Bringing this country down as fast as possible. Burn the mother down and start over.

The only reason Obumer brought any troops home, if he even did, is because he followed Bush's plan. That's all he did. I don't really think o wants to start WWIII, but the people pulling his strings do, and o is not going to do one thing to try and stop it. Neither will any of his twin brothers from another mother, the republicans, except Ron Paul.

o doesn't have a brain in his head, and that also goes for all the republicans. If they did, they'd be cutting spending wholesale instead of blabbering on and on about tweaking the tax code. That will help out problems about as much as popping a pimple on an elephants butt.

Vote for Rom Paul, or burn it down. You better get used to the idea, because that's your only choice.




top topics



 
65
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join