Barack Obama -- Yes it has been spectacular.
Quote: HeySlickHere's another angle that Obama uses and so many REFUSE to understand/i.e., you in particular --- President Obama has techniques that aren't conventional -- if you deny this isn't possible, then it's on you. check-out the link below --- Obama is a master at deception and deceit - and his skin color has provided lots of protection from any serious scrutiny.
Okay, so basically, you've got nothing.
Of course, this was obvious. Since real unemployment *isn't* 20-25%, it's impossible to provide a reference saying that it is.
About the other stuff, I notice that when pressed, you try to change the subject. That's why I don't take the bait. You have to admit your error in question before we move on to your next error. We're not done with this one until you either show that real unemployment is 20-25%, or admit that it's not.
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, so basically, you've got nothing.
Of course, this was obvious. Since real unemployment *isn't* 20-25%, it's impossible to provide a reference saying that it is.
About the other stuff, I notice that when pressed, you try to change the subject. That's why I don't take the bait. You have to admit your error in question before we move on to your next error. We're not done with this one until you either show that real unemployment is 20-25%, or admit that it's not.
It's so funny, just LAST NIGHT on Bill Maher's show he had a long comment about how righties are claiming unemployment is 20 or 30+%, when in reality it's not. They need Obama's presidency to be a failure. But unfortunately for them it isn't. So they have to make stuff up.
Then this morning I browse through this thread and see EvenBob made the same false unemployment claim.
And of course none of the righties can provide any source on those completely incorrect figures.
But whether it's his race, his party, or both, no Republican president has or will get the same pass President Obama has gotten on black unemployment.
When the next Republican occupies the White House, black unemployment rates will become a crisis on inauguration day.
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, so basically, you've got nothing.
Of course, this was obvious. Since real unemployment *isn't* 20-25%, it's impossible to provide a reference saying that it is.
About the other stuff, I notice that when pressed, you try to change the subject. That's why I don't take the bait. You have to admit your error in question before we move on to your next error. We're not done with this one until you either show that real unemployment is 20-25%, or admit that it's not.
You're sadly mistaken again --- I never discussed anything about employment issues -- EVER. Did you even check out the link I provided? Obama, is a master at deception & deceit.
Quote: RSMichael BJ still thinks heyslick & sanchopanza posted the 20-25% figure.
It was EvenBob, but SanchoPanzo kinda doubled down and attempted to post a source to verify those numbers. But he failed miserably.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/free-speech-zone/24471-barack-obama-yes-it-has-been-spectacular/4/y
Quote: HeySlickYou're sadly mistaken again --- I never discussed anything about employment issues -- EVER.
Wrong.
EvenBob posted "Real unemployment at 20-25%".
ams288 replied, "Care to provide a source?"
Then YOU QUOTED AMS288's "Care to provide a source?", and then posted an ostensible answer right below it. Which it's not. Why on earth would you quote it if you weren't talking about it?
Quote: HeySlickDid you even check out the link I provided? Obama, is a master at deception & deceit.
No. Like I said, you don't get to just move on to your next error before acknowledging your mistake about the previous one. I've been generous so far:
(1) I posted graphs showing the income inequality trend started way before Obama. You quoted the whole thing, including the graphs, and said, "You're completely wrong/mistaken." I asked you what part was supposedly wrong, and what your evidence was. You had nothing. But you didn't admit your error.
(2) You claimed that Obama divided the country on racial lines. I asked for specific examples of actual policy that supports that claim. Your answer was, "He's done it Subliminally." As though that would qualify as an answer on this planet.
(3) You purported to support the claim that real unemployment is 20-25%, but didn't actually do so. I asked for substantiation, and instead you said you never claimed that unemployment is 20-25%, and try to get me to scrutinize yet some other article.
So, three strikes you're out. You want to engage me, or get me to read something, you have to make a good-faith effort at backing up your positions or admitting when you can't do so. It's pointless to try to honestly debate someone who simply flits to the next misconception after losing every argument.
Wrong.Quote: HeySlickYou're sadly mistaken again --- I never discussed anything about employment issues -- EVER.
EvenBob posted "Real unemployment at 20-25%".
ams288 replied, "Care to provide a source?"
Then YOU QUOTED AMS288's "Care to provide a source?", and then posted an ostensible answer right below it. Which it's not. Why on earth would you quote it if you weren't talking about it?
No. Like I said, you don't get to just move on to your next error before acknowledging your mistake about the previous one. I've been generous so far:Quote: HeySlickDid you even check out the link I provided? Obama, is a master at deception & deceit.
(1) I posted graphs showing the income inequality trend started way before Obama. You quoted the whole thing, including the graphs, and said, "You're completely wrong/mistaken." I asked you what part was supposedly wrong, and what your evidence was. You had nothing. But you didn't admit your error.
(2) You claimed that Obama divided the country on racial lines. I asked for specific examples of actual policy that supports that claim. Your answer was, "He's done it Subliminally." As though that would qualify as an answer on this planet.
(3) You purported to support the claim that real unemployment is 20-25%, but didn't actually do so. I asked for substantiation, and instead you said you never claimed that unemployment is 20-25%, and try to get me to scrutinize yet some other article.
So, three strikes you're out. You want to engage me, or get me to read something, you have to make a good-faith effort at backing up your positions or admitting when you can't do so. It's pointless to try to honestly debate someone who simply flits to the next misconception after losing every argument.
The figures presented take into account the participation falling below two-thirds of the labor force and that painful fact that the so-called created jobs missed 85 percent of the new workers. Of course, one would have to have some familiarity with U-3 and U-6 numbers, but that seems to be immaterial for quite a few people.Quote: MichaelBluejayAgain, where's the part where you showed that unemployment is really 20-25%. You honestly think the excerpt you quoted in any way backs up that claim?
"The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
"The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
Unemployment Data Series subcription required(Subscription required.) View Download Excel CSV File Last Updated: February 5th, 2016
"The ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Rate for January 2016 is 22.9%."
Quote: MichaelBluejayWrong.
EvenBob posted "Real unemployment at 20-25%".
ams288 replied, "Care to provide a source?"
Then YOU QUOTED AMS288's "Care to provide a source?", and then posted an ostensible answer right below it. Which it's not. Why on earth would you quote it if you weren't talking about it?
No. Like I said, you don't get to just move on to your next error before acknowledging your mistake about the previous one. I've been generous so far:
(1) I posted graphs showing the income inequality trend started way before Obama. You quoted the whole thing, including the graphs, and said, "You're completely wrong/mistaken." I asked you what part was supposedly wrong, and what your evidence was. You had nothing. But you didn't admit your error.
(2) You claimed that Obama divided the country on racial lines. I asked for specific examples of actual policy that supports that claim. Your answer was, "He's done it Subliminally." As though that would qualify as an answer on this planet.
(3) You purported to support the claim that real unemployment is 20-25%, but didn't actually do so. I asked for substantiation, and instead you said you never claimed that unemployment is 20-25%, and try to get me to scrutinize yet some other article.
So, three strikes you're out. You want to engage me, or get me to read something, you have to make a good-faith effort at backing up your positions or admitting when you can't do so. It's pointless to try to honestly debate someone who simply flits to the next misconception after losing every argument.
Here's the link for you and the page number is 5 - scroll down the page and you'll see I NEVER quoted ams288 EVER -- you have no integrity and, give-up on the bogus insinuations/and accusations!
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/free-speech-zone/24471-barack-obama-yes-it-has-been-spectacular/5/
Quote: HeySlickHere's the link for you and the page number is 5 - scroll down the page and you'll see I NEVER quoted ams288 EVER -- you have no integrity and, give-up on the bogus insinuations/and accusations!
I see now that I mistakenly thought you were the one who quoted ams288, not SanchoPanza. I apologize for my error.
See, that's what a rational person does when presented with incontrovertible evidence that they were wrong: they own up to it. Yet you think I "have no integrity". Right.
In any event, I still contend that your preferred method of debating is to provide no evidence, ignore overwhelming contrary evidence when presented, and then quickly try to change the topic to some other ridiculous claim as though your previous errors never happened. That's just tiresome. I won't play those kinds of games.
Quote: MichaelBluejay]I see now that I mistakenly thought you were the one who quoted ams288, not SanchoPanza. I apologize for my error.
See, that's what a rational person does when presented with incontrovertible evidence that they were wrong: they own up to it. Yet you think I "have no integrity". Right.
In any event, I still contend that your preferred method of debating is to provide no evidence, ignore overwhelming contrary evidence when presented, and then quickly try to change the topic to some other ridiculous claim as though your previous errors never happened. That's just tiresome. I won't play those kinds of games.
Thank you --- FYI being forthright isn't some kind of game to me --- (edit/add) I should of used anther term instead of INTEGRITY - you lost creditability when you insisted I made remarks I NEVER made.
Quote: HeySlickThank you --- FYI being forthright isn't some kind of game to me --- (edit/add) I should of used anther term instead of INTEGRITY - you lost creditability when you insisted I made remarks I NEVER made.
First of all, it's credibility, not creditability, but I suppose irony means nothing to you. In any event, on this planet, someone typically loses credibility when they make a big mistake, tell a big lie, or have a pattern of telling minor falsehoods. Making a single small mistake and owning up to it doesn't typically affect credibility with rational people, but if you say otherwise, then I propose that says a lot more about you than me.
In any event, repeatedly changing the topic when you're losing an argument isn't being forthright, it's either exceptionally poor argumentative skills or intentionally playing games. I won't play.
Quote: MichaelBluejayFirst of all, it's credibility, not creditability, but I suppose irony means nothing to you. In any event, on this planet, someone typically loses credibility when they make a big mistake, tell a big lie, or have a pattern of telling minor falsehoods. Making a single small mistake and owning up to it doesn't typically affect credibility with rational people, but if you say otherwise, then I propose that says a lot more about you than me.
In any event, repeatedly changing the topic when you're losing an argument isn't being forthright, it's either exceptionally poor argumentative skills or intentionally playing games. I won't play.
A narcissist is never sorry because he (or she) perceives himself as perfect. He can’t be wrong. He views himself as superior to everyone and, thus, always right. I've already proven you like to jump to bogus conclusions.
Quote: MichaelBluejayOkay, exactly how has Obama divided the country on racial lines? Please cite specific examples of actual policy. You know, actual evidence based on reality, not unsubstantiated opinion pulled out of the air and declared as fact with nothing to support it.
Liberals always insist that someone else do their work for them. It's hilarious.
It's not my work, it's your work, if you're the one making the claim. Apparently you're not only unfamiliar with the concept of burden of proof, but you're essentially bragging about that ignorance.Quote: HowManyLiberals always insist that someone else do their work for them. It's hilarious.
You're also breathtakingly missing the point that I believe there *is* no evidence to support the loony position. In other words, it's impossible for me to "do the work" to find evidence that doesn't exist.
Bottom line: positions which aren't supported are worthless.
You sound like you're talking about yourself. I've shown that I readily admit error when shown to be wrong. You never have. Does your description sound more like you or like me?Quote: HeySlickA narcissist is never sorry because he (or she) perceives himself as perfect. He can’t be wrong. He views himself as superior to everyone and, thus, always right.
What, because I misidentified who made a particular post? That's all you've got? Seriously? Sure, you win the debate crown for that, no question.Quote: HeySlickI've already proven you like to jump to bogus conclusions.
Quote: MichaelBluejayYou sound like you're talking about yourself. I've shown that I readily admit error when shown to be wrong. You never have. Does your description sound more like you or like me?
What, because I misidentified who made a particular post? That's all you've got? Seriously? Sure, you win the debate crown for that, no question.
Here comes that entity you consistently avoid -- Subliminal messages/(aka) not being sincere even though they apologize for their actions. Seriously, you could have just said 'I'm sorry' and been done with it - NO, not you....you insisted on going on and on about how right you were about other issues....BS! pure narcissism.
Quote: HeySlickSeriously, you could have just said 'I'm sorry' and been done with it - NO, not you....you insisted on going on and on about how right you were about other issues....BS! pure narcissism.
Where's the part where you ever admitted error? Between the two of us, I'm way ahead of you on that score. Look in the mirror.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWhere's the part where you ever admitted error? Between the two of us, I'm way ahead of you on that score. Look in the mirror.
NO! the mirror is Opaque - looking in the Glass enables/allows me to see myself reflected in the glass as I clearly see you for what you aren't. Don't let that forthrightness be your downfall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_appointments_across_party_lines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yro63c7B7A
**
here's two amongst many cities destroyed by African American leadership
http://www.westernjournalism.com/race-cards-fly-as-whites-flee-corrupt-black-controlled-atlanta/
http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/blog/2015/04/28/its-time-for-blacks-to-blame-blacks/
Yep, "transform" is a direct synonym for "destroy". Everyone knows that. And the fact that he's appointed so many Republicans to positions of power (including cabinet positions) is further evidence of his extreme socialist Muslim agenda.Quote: HeySlickHe vowed to transform America (aka) destroy
What is occurring now in the Republican primaries is a strong demonstration that a huge segment of the nominally Republican electorate does not think very highly of those Republicans who joined the Obama team or even those who did not but have continued to go along and pass all the fiscal measure that Obama has desired with the notable exception of Obamacare. As if that has had much effect anyway.Quote: MichaelBluejayAnd the fact that he's appointed so many Republicans to positions of power (including cabinet positions) is further evidence of his extreme socialist Muslim agenda.
Quote: MichaelBluejayYep, "transform" is a direct synonym for "destroy". Everyone knows that. And the fact that he's appointed so many Republicans to positions of power (including cabinet positions) is further evidence of his extreme socialist Muslim agenda.
You sure are stuck on claiming I've used that term above (socialist) when describing PO -- I've insinuated he's a covert Muslim numerous times and often - you chose to add socialist on your own twisted self-righteousness.
When did I say I was quoting you? Plenty of others call Obama a socialist. It's not always about you. Thinking that it is is a sign of narcissism.Quote: HeySlickYou sure are stuck on claiming I've used that term above (socialist) when describing PO -- I've insinuated he's a covert Muslim numerous times and often - you chose to add socialist on your own twisted self-righteousness.
I don't think this is one of his shining moments; this should have been handled at the Secretary of State level.
he has been vastly successful in being the most anti American president since we fought a
war against England. We were better off under the policies of England than under comrad
Obama.
One of the most favorite things I will remember of Obama is the circle jerk we saw from his
white house after that discarded Koran was burned in Gitmo. you thought the world was
coming to an end..... and in contrast, it only took him (7.5 years) to see thousands of Christians
were being killed around the world. I understand 8 years is not nearly enough to see the
thousands of American injured or killed by illegals.... that is something that only would
be understood by an "American" president.
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterI was not aware Obama had any shinning moments as far as being an American, now surely
he has been vastly successful in being the most anti American president since we fought a
war against England. We were better off under the policies of England than under comrad
Obama.
One of the most favorite things I will remember of Obama is the circle jerk we saw from his
white house after that discarded Koran was burned in Gitmo. you thought the world was
coming to an end..... and in contrast, it only took him (7.5 years) to see thousands of Christians
were being killed around the world. I understand 8 years is not nearly enough to see the
thousands of American injured or killed by illegals.... that is something that only would
be understood by an "American" president.
dicesetter
The first Black American President has been exempt from any and most criticism - in so many circles especially the AA communities Obama can do no wrong. To many Black politicians in general are incompetent & their skin color allows them leverage in so many venues...basically they can do no wrong. Legitimate and valid criticism of black politicians is usually considered racist.
edit/add
This kind of forthrightness is rare -- i.e., good decent and honest AA's are far and few in-between
If white Americans were to leave the country tomorrow, in ten years -America would be a ghetto. You can see the truth of this when you look at many of our major cities that are run by black mayors, black-dominated city councils, and black police chiefs. These cities are usually horrible places to live. Yet blacks who live in black-ruled cities can't see the truth: their own immorality is the cause of black poverty, crime, and family destruction!”
― Jesse Lee Peterson, Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America ---
