A look at the past Presidents

[Jetdawgg]

[Warfish]

Why is Obama not on the chart?

You do know none of these old PResidents are running in 2012, right?

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Why is Obama not on the chart?

You do know none of these old PResidents are running in 2012, right?

LOL, you are consistent



History provides context to present and future events but only if we have the will to acknowledge it......

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

LOL, you are consistent



History provides context to present and future events but only if we have the will to acknowledge it......

Whats the talking point?

To reasonably compare, it would be required to see what the current sitting President has done in his term, wouldn't it?

Also, a simplistic breakdown of economic indicators, without any mention of polciies and their effects, is also a bit limitd in value, isn't it? For example, are you going to claim the Stock Market went up because of something Obama did specificly? Or that the net loss of 4 million jobs was due to something Obaam did specificly? If so, fine, but it would need supported with far more additional facts and figures as evidence.

In any event, if we're discussing talking points, how about this one: Why are Democrats running their campaign more against Bush, than against Romney? Do they see the two men as direct equivalents in terms of policy? If so, why?

P.S. Have you commented in the Teachers Strike Thread Yet?

[Jetdawgg]

The tile states PAST Presidents. Obama is the current

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

The tile states PAST Presidents. Obama is the current

And what are you taking/teaching us from this review of past Presidends, specificly?

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by Warfish

And what are you taking/teaching us from this review of past Presidends, specificly?

Look at the jobs growth under the D's and look at the complete incompetency of the GW Bush terms. No wonder he is not around campaigning with the r's today, while Clinton the last 2 term d is

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Look at the jobs growth under the D's and look at the complete incompetency of the GW Bush terms. No wonder he is not around campaigning with the r's today, while Clinton the last 2 term d is

As I said, simplistic and incomplete analysis, ignoring a vast number of factors other than who the President was at the time, leading to (potentially) faulty conclusions.

As expected.

[PlumberKhan]

Facts make Republitarians brains hurt.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by Warfish

As I said, simplistic and incomplete analysis, ignoring a vast number of factors other than who the President was at the time, leading to (potentially) faulty conclusions.

As expected.

Facts, whether you like them or not

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Facts make Republitarians brains hurt.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Facts, whether you like them or not

And I guess logic makes your brains hurt, hence the reason you avoid it in making any of your arguments. Because by yours, if I held up a graph of any US President it would be copacetic. Heck, why limit it to Presidents, I can include Ogg, head of the Clan of the Cave Bear to make my point just as well if we aren't using logic arguments.

Seriously guys, drop the partisan stuff and think before you type. You'll come off a bit smarter and genuine.

Originally Posted by Warfish

As I said, simplistic and incomplete analysis, ignoring a vast number of factors other than who the President was at the time, leading to (potentially) faulty conclusions.

As expected.

Exactly.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Jetworks

Seriously guys, drop the partisan stuff and think before you type. You'll come off a bit smarter and genuine.

I'm neither and never claimed to be.





But the Repubichairs are poised to lose to the worst president in the history of the world. The flailing on this forum is a barrel of LOLZ.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

[Jetdawgg]

I have been for Ron Paul since 2007. The R's running are more sickening that Obama. It is not Obama's fault that the r's are just plain lousy. He becomes the default winner and candidate in the two party system

[sg3]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

I have been for Ron Paul since 2007. The R's running are more sickening that Obama. It is not Obama's fault that the r's are just plain lousy. He becomes the default winner and candidate in the two party system

EXACTLY...they rejected Dr Paul and nominated Dr Doofus instead assuring four more years of Obama.

Unbelievably dumb

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Why is Obama not on the chart?

I understand it's past presidents and all, but that's the first thing I thought too. I'd like to see the comparison, it would give it more context, a better perspective.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Facts, whether you like them or not

The fact that you, and apparently PK, don't appear to comprehend that facts without context are utterly meaningless is sadly not suprising.

It's a fact I'm holding $100 in my hand right now as well. But without further facts, i.e. context, I could be anything from a saint given that hundred for healing the sick, to a sinner who stole it from a dying child I just beat up......and you have no way of knowing. But by golly, you know the fact is "$100".

If you feel the chart tells the whole tale, ok. It doesn't, but don't let that stop you.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

The fact that you, and apparently PK, don't appear to comprehend that facts without context are utterly meaningless is sadly not suprising.

It's a fact I'm holding $100 in my hand right now as well. But without further facts, i.e. context, I could be anything from a saint given that hundred for healing the sick, to a sinner who stole it from a dying child I just beat up......and you have no way of knowing. But by golly, you know the fact is "$100".

If you feel the chart tells the whole tale, ok. It doesn't, but don't let that stop you.

This is a hilarious post. Especially coming from someone with such a loose grasp on facts that lectures everyone else about their grasp on facts.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

This is a hilarious post. Especially coming from someone with such a loose grasp on facts that lectures everyone else about their grasp on facts.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

If you say so. Pretty confident in my views expressed on this topic, but by all means, rock on PK.

[PlumberKhan]

Why are Mitt Romney's sideburns white and the rest if his hair a different color?

Old people. Lmao. They're so freaking dumb.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Whats the talking point?

To reasonably compare, it would be required to see what the current sitting President has done in his term, wouldn't it?

Also, a simplistic breakdown of economic indicators, without any mention of polciies and their effects, is also a bit limitd in value, isn't it? For example, are you going to claim the Stock Market went up because of something Obama did specificly? Or that the net loss of 4 million jobs was due to something Obaam did specificly? If so, fine, but it would need supported with far more additional facts and figures as evidence.

In any event, if we're discussing talking points, how about this one: Why are Democrats running their campaign more against Bush, than against Romney? Do they see the two men as direct equivalents in terms of policy? If so, why?

P.S. Have you commented in the Teachers Strike Thread Yet?

The talking point that you are following (knowingly or not) is to deflect any mention of Bush during this election cycle.

The reason that democrats are running their campaign against Bush is two-fold;

1. its for the same reason why republicans still run Jimmy Carter in ads despite him being out of office for over three decades; because they were both presidential dumpster fires for their respective parties. I find it curious that you have failed to get equally upset at the republican ads linking Obama to Carter as you are with the democratic ads mentioning Bush and Romney

2. Its hard to run against Romney's supposed policies because he is a candidate and can play the old political game of not giving specific details for the other side to pick apart.

PS: What would you like me to say about the teacher's strike?