GOP Presidential Debate

[Hemodoc]

In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure.

The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision for the future.

Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda.

http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html

Those that embrace Marxism will only bring upon themselves a "dictorship of the proletariat." It is the complete anti-thesis of freedom which made this nation great. Marxism is at war with Christianity making the introduction of religion not by the right, but by the left in veiled attacks with politically correct names such as community organizors when in fact it is nothing more than blatant Marxist doctrine. That has worked really well in China, Russian and Cuba hasn't it. If that's what you folks want, then don't be surprised when you get it.

Yes, rules for radicals is a very dangerous book and those that follow his teachings are very dangerous men engaging the people to voluntarily give up their freedoms for the illusory promise of utopia. Give me a break, that is grand delusion and a massive scale.

[YLGuy]

I really question Hemodoc's responses.  It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes.  I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed.  If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.

I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass?  You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE?  You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.

Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse. 

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

So, he was being a troll.

Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.

Nope, I was just looking for an apology from Glitter.  She yelled at me for calling you a troll when that was exactly what you were doing and admitted to.

[glitter]

I really question Hemodoc's responses.  It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes.  I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed.  If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.

I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass?  You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE?  You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.

Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse. 

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

So, he was being a troll.

Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.

Nope, I was just looking for an apology from Glitter.  She yelled at me for calling you a troll when that was exactly what you were doing and admitted to.

You will not get an apology from me- besides calling him a troll you questioned whether he was "truely a doctor" inferring that maybe he wasn't?

In any case- I am done with this thread-

[Hemodoc]

I really question Hemodoc's responses.  It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes.  I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed.  If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.

I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass?  You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE?  You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.

Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse. 

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

So, he was being a troll.

Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.

Nope, I was just looking for an apology from Glitter.  She yelled at me for calling you a troll when that was exactly what you were doing and admitted to.

Dear YLGuy, sorry, never admitted to being a troll, but so what I if were to be a troll. Does that make you feel all fuzzy inside or something. Why not focus on the message instead of the messenger. Sorry, but I don't admit or concur with you whatsoever.

No my friend, I an American fed up by false accusations and allegations masquerading as political discourse. If you believe that someone standing up and confronting false allegations is a troll, so be it my friend.

[YLGuy]

I really question Hemodoc's responses.  It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes.  I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed.  If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.

I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass?  You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE?  You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.

Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse. 

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

So, he was being a troll.

Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.

Nope, I was just looking for an apology from Glitter.  She yelled at me for calling you a troll when that was exactly what you were doing and admitted to.

Dear YLGuy, sorry, never admitted to being a troll, but so what I if were to be a troll. Does that make you feel all fuzzy inside or something. Why not focus on the message instead of the messenger. Sorry, but I don't admit or concur with you whatsoever.

No my friend, I an American fed up by false accusations and allegations masquerading as political discourse. If you believe that someone standing up and confronting false allegations is a troll, so be it my friend.

Yes, you did. 

[Hemodoc]

I really question Hemodoc's responses.  It truly appears that he is on this board as a troll sometimes.  I found the responses equally as ridiculous and I believe an apology is in order. He should be ashamed.  If you truly are a doctor your response is even more disturbing.

I find your response to be belittling and mean! You call him a troll? Why do you get a pass?  You may not agree with him, but you're targeting his character...-when someone disagrees with you- you call them a troll. Or YELL AT THEM- DONT YOU GET IT? THAT IS VERY RUDE?  You should be ashamed. and you should apologize.

Hemodoc posted that he was using sarcasm and ridicule as a matter of discourse. 

Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

So, he was being a troll.

Dear YLGuy, I suspect you are a good family man but we simply disagree on politics. If you are against ridicule and sarcasm, then I guess you will speak out against the Alinski rules for radicals since that is the basic tactics that they use in political debates.

Nope, I was just looking for an apology from Glitter.  She yelled at me for calling you a troll when that was exactly what you were doing and admitted to.

You will not get an apology from me- besides calling him a troll you questioned whether he was "truely a doctor" inferring that maybe he wasn't?

In any case- I am done with this thread-

Dear Glitter, please don't bother wasting any time on this issue. It is interesting the aspects of Freudian pyschology especially in those defense mechanisms involving projection. I remember when my father was trying to lose weight. Everyone he looked at he commented on how fat they were, yet in all the years I knew him, I had never heard those sort of things.

I appreciate your sentiment, but i won't worry the least about a troll calling me a troll.  Besides that I couldn't care less what people call me. I am grounded enough to really not care or I wouldn't have entered a left wing GOP bashing party.

Have a great night,

God bless,

Peter

[YLGuy]

 

[Gerald Lively]

Okay People; It’s time to give it up.

There are no merits given to the person with the last word.  Stop this nonsense or I will be force to dip into my vast resource of expletives.

gerald

[Hemodoc]

Mitt Romney maintains that Obama has 'hurt' economic recovery

"This recovery has been slower than it should have been; people have been suffering for longer than they should have had to suffer.... We got good news this morning on job creation in January. I hope that continues, we get people back to work. But this president has not helped the process. He's hurt it.

"Sometimes I got the impression that ... you don't think you have a friend in Washington. And I can assure you that if I'm the president, I will see what you do as being a very good thing. A patriotic and good thing, which is employ people and putting them to work."


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-nevada-jobs-report-20120203,0,5536191.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

[MooseMom]

What color is "Troll"?  I picture some kind of ivy or forest green.  A good complement to "Moby Whale Pale."

[Gerald Lively]

Over the past two days, Mitt Romney has resurrected this claim hitting President Obama: He has made the economy worse.

Yesterday, when receiving Donald Trump's endorsement, Romney said:

“He’s frequently telling us that he did not cause the recession, and that’s true. But he made it worse.”

And today, according to NBC's Garrett Haake, he said something similar:

"This has been a tough time. And I know the president didn't cause this downturn -- this recession. But he didn't make it better, either. He made it worse. He made it worse because instead of focusing his energy on the economy and getting people back to work, he used his mandate being elected-- he used that to put through a series of programs that he and his base and his friends thought were important but frankly made it harder for our economy to recover. And so we've suffered."

However, most of the economic numbers don't support Romney's claim.

For example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economic stimulus Obama signed into law added -- in the 4th quarter of 2009 -- between 1 million and 2 million employed workers and boosted the GDP between 1.5% to 3.5% higher than it would have been without the stimulus.

In addition, a more recent CBO study -- for the second quarter of 2011 -- found that the stimulus raised real GDP between 0.8% and 2.5% and lowered the unemployment rate between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points, compared with what would have occurred without it.

And another analysis, by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, estimated that the stimulus raised 2010 real GDP by 3.4%, held the unemployment rate about 1.5 percentage points lower, and added nearly 2.7 jobs to U.S. payrolls.

Looking solely at quarterly Gross Domestic Product, it's gone from -6.7% in the first quarter of 2009 and -0.7% in the second quarter of '09, to positive territory ever since -- including 2.8% the past quarter.

And looking at monthly payroll statistics, the numbers have gone from a loss of 818,000 jobs in Jan. 2009 -- when Obama took office -- to 16-straight months of positive job growth, including a preliminary gain of 243,000 jobs in Jan. 2012.

The one metric that might support Romney's claim that Obama made the economy worse is the unemployment rate. When Obama took office, the unemployment rate stood at 7.8%, and it was 8.3% in his first full month as president.

The unemployment rate later rose to a high of 10.0% in Oct. 2009, and it remained at or above 9.0% for all of 2010 and most of 2011. But beginning in the fall of 2011, it began to decline, and it now sits at 8.3% -- the same percentage as it was in his first full month as president, before his policies went into effect.

When First Read reached out to the Romney campaign to provide additional data to support the claim that Obama has made the economy worse, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul responded: "The economy grew only 1.7% in [all of] 2011, the slowest growth in a non-recession year since the end of World War II. This is worse than growth in 2010 and is worse performance over time."

Also: "In Oct. 2009, 58.51% of the American population had a job. Today, 58.46% of the American population has a job. All that has changed is that fewer Americans are even trying to find a job –- the percentage of Americans in the labor force has declined from 65.0% to 63.7%."

And Saul adds that Obama's economic advisers -- before he took office -- said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8.0%. And, of course, it still remains above that level.

Interestingly, back in June 2011, Romney used this same Obama-made-the-recession-worse rhetoric. But when NBC asked Romney why he made that claim -- when the data didn't support it -- he replied: "I didn't say that things are worse."

He went on to say:

What I said was that economy hasn't turned around, that you've got 20 million Americans out of work, or seriously unemployed; housing values still going down. You have a crisis of foreclosures in this country. The economy, by the way, if you think the economy is great and going well, be my guest. But the president of the United States, when he put in place his stimulus plan and borrowed $787 billion, said he would hold unemployment below 8% -- and 8% seemed like an awfully high number. It hasn't been below 8% since.  That's failure. We're over 9% unemployment. That's failure. He set the bogie himself at 8% ,which strikes me as a very high number and we're still above that three years later.


MSNBC
.

[Hemodoc]

What color is "Troll"?  I picture some kind of ivy or forest green.  A good complement to "Moby Whale Pale."

I am not sure, I will have to go look at some old family photos and post them here. No green kids, just brown with black hair.

[Hemodoc]

Over the past two days, Mitt Romney has resurrected this claim hitting President Obama: He has made the economy worse.

Yesterday, when receiving Donald Trump's endorsement, Romney said:

“He’s frequently telling us that he did not cause the recession, and that’s true. But he made it worse.”

And today, according to NBC's Garrett Haake, he said something similar:

"This has been a tough time. And I know the president didn't cause this downturn -- this recession. But he didn't make it better, either. He made it worse. He made it worse because instead of focusing his energy on the economy and getting people back to work, he used his mandate being elected-- he used that to put through a series of programs that he and his base and his friends thought were important but frankly made it harder for our economy to recover. And so we've suffered."

However, most of the economic numbers don't support Romney's claim.

For example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the economic stimulus Obama signed into law added -- in the 4th quarter of 2009 -- between 1 million and 2 million employed workers and boosted the GDP between 1.5% to 3.5% higher than it would have been without the stimulus.

In addition, a more recent CBO study -- for the second quarter of 2011 -- found that the stimulus raised real GDP between 0.8% and 2.5% and lowered the unemployment rate between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points, compared with what would have occurred without it.

And another analysis, by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, estimated that the stimulus raised 2010 real GDP by 3.4%, held the unemployment rate about 1.5 percentage points lower, and added nearly 2.7 jobs to U.S. payrolls.

Looking solely at quarterly Gross Domestic Product, it's gone from -6.7% in the first quarter of 2009 and -0.7% in the second quarter of '09, to positive territory ever since -- including 2.8% the past quarter.

And looking at monthly payroll statistics, the numbers have gone from a loss of 818,000 jobs in Jan. 2009 -- when Obama took office -- to 16-straight months of positive job growth, including a preliminary gain of 243,000 jobs in Jan. 2012.

The one metric that might support Romney's claim that Obama made the economy worse is the unemployment rate. When Obama took office, the unemployment rate stood at 7.8%, and it was 8.3% in his first full month as president.

The unemployment rate later rose to a high of 10.0% in Oct. 2009, and it remained at or above 9.0% for all of 2010 and most of 2011. But beginning in the fall of 2011, it began to decline, and it now sits at 8.3% -- the same percentage as it was in his first full month as president, before his policies went into effect.

When First Read reached out to the Romney campaign to provide additional data to support the claim that Obama has made the economy worse, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul responded: "The economy grew only 1.7% in [all of] 2011, the slowest growth in a non-recession year since the end of World War II. This is worse than growth in 2010 and is worse performance over time."

Also: "In Oct. 2009, 58.51% of the American population had a job. Today, 58.46% of the American population has a job. All that has changed is that fewer Americans are even trying to find a job –- the percentage of Americans in the labor force has declined from 65.0% to 63.7%."

And Saul adds that Obama's economic advisers -- before he took office -- said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8.0%. And, of course, it still remains above that level.

Interestingly, back in June 2011, Romney used this same Obama-made-the-recession-worse rhetoric. But when NBC asked Romney why he made that claim -- when the data didn't support it -- he replied: "I didn't say that things are worse."

He went on to say:

What I said was that economy hasn't turned around, that you've got 20 million Americans out of work, or seriously unemployed; housing values still going down. You have a crisis of foreclosures in this country. The economy, by the way, if you think the economy is great and going well, be my guest. But the president of the United States, when he put in place his stimulus plan and borrowed $787 billion, said he would hold unemployment below 8% -- and 8% seemed like an awfully high number. It hasn't been below 8% since.  That's failure. We're over 9% unemployment. That's failure. He set the bogie himself at 8% ,which strikes me as a very high number and we're still above that three years later.


MSNBC
.

Tell that to the people of California. Not a real metric measured, but I go into LA at least once a month, often in rush hour traffic. That used to be a great long parking lot barely moving. Today, I often drive right into the middle of LA in midmorning going 55-65 mph. This city is not prospering in any manner. Folks are still hurting. One of my neighbors is giving up and instead of going through foreclosure, he will do a short sale in a couple of months. I spoke to him yesterday. The recession is not over, people are hurting greatly throughout this land. By the way, you failed to note that the CBO has a very gloomy 1% growth for this year and increasing unemployment throughout the rest of this year and into 2013. In addition, the CBO you are quoting also notes that the "real" unemployment rate is about 1.5% higher than the "official" numbers. Most folks forget that Obama and his administration changed how unemployment is calculated about a year and a half ago.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/os_legacy_unemployment_rate_now_meaningless.html

Just keep believe everthing is better while the number of folks on food stamps under Obama has nearly doubled. How is all that oil flowing there in the gulf by the way. Yeah, we are really booming today folks. Just can't contain all that hope and change.

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2012/01/12/obama-the-food-stamp-president/

[Hemodoc]

Take  look at Obama's deficits compared to %GDP. You have to have a measuring stick since inflation renders some of the metrics meaningless:

Obama's Deficit Spending to GDP Compared to Other Recent Presidents

Topics: Political News and commentaries
President Obama had the chutzpah to infer in his recent speech that we'd be in great financial shape if only every other president had been as responsible on deficit spending as he has been (try to restrain your laughter - no rolling on the floor, please).

Fortunately for those foolishly naive Americans that actually fall for the utter nonsense our president so often spiels, Jeffrey Anderson provides a nifty, handy-dandy, chart that even they can understand.

As one can see, Obama's actual track record versus other recent presidents (detailed more fully here).

It's also worth noting, since Obama's fallback defense is always that the economy made him do it, that annual deficit spending even during the Great Depression never reached so much as 6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). You can see how that compares with Obama's tallies below:

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/04/obamas_deficit.php

[Rerun]

It seems like you are both saying the same thing.  Times are tough, Obama didn't make things any better but the GOP doesn't have anyone better.  Bush was only in office 9 months when 9/11 hit so he didn't have a chance to do what he wanted.  He had a war on his hands.

You can't blame Bush, war is expensive.  No one has hit our Nation since.  Obama got the bastard Osama. 

The question is what do we do next? 

[willowtreewren]

Take  look at Obama's deficits compared to %GDP. You have to have a measuring stick since inflation renders some of the metrics meaningless:

Obama's Deficit Spending to GDP Compared to Other Recent Presidents

Topics: Political News and commentaries
President Obama had the chutzpah to infer in his recent speech that we'd be in great financial shape if only every other president had been as responsible on deficit spending as he has been (try to restrain your laughter - no rolling on the floor, please).

Fortunately for those foolishly naive Americans that actually fall for the utter nonsense our president so often spiels, Jeffrey Anderson provides a nifty, handy-dandy, chart that even they can understand.

As one can see, Obama's actual track record versus other recent presidents (detailed more fully here).

It's also worth noting, since Obama's fallback defense is always that the economy made him do it, that annual deficit spending even during the Great Depression never reached so much as 6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). You can see how that compares with Obama's tallies below:

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/04/obamas_deficit.php

One of the things I do with children is teach them how to assess whether Internet (or other) sources are objective. A good start is to look for words that indicate bias. This little blurb is full of them, giving it a very low score on the objective scale. Most of my students would know to be skeptical of a link provided by such a blatantly biased source.

I am further confused by the inclusion of this post, which seems to use ridicule as a way to manipulate the judgement of the reader. The poster previously took a position against the use of ridicule in arguments. Granted, the poster is "only" copying what is written by someone else, but doing so in defense of a position. one would be inclined to assume that by providing this information, the poster is agreeing with the approach, especially since there was no disclaimer.

It would make for more coherence of argument if those beliefs so passionately extolled were supported with a similar passionate adherence to the principles espoused.

Aleta

[Gerald Lively]

In message #208, the poster placed a quote for all to read.  I had just finished reading something on the subject, so I cut and pasted that article so to expand the subject for the interested reader.

ALETA:  If your message is addressed to me, perhaps you should re-read the two posting in question.  What followed was the posting of someone else.  And, you seem to make a giant leap of faith using guilt by association, in this case , a posting does not necessarily mean that the poster agrees with anything, especially when it is just information.

gerald

[Rerun]

Where did you find a message #  aka  208?

 

[Gerald Lively]

Reply #208 on: Today at 01:28:54 AM

above

[willowtreewren]

Gerald, I was responding to the quoted post that I pasted into mine.

Now, I need to go back to post #208....

Aleta

[YLGuy]

Reply #208 on: Today at 01:28:54 AM

above

That is reply #209 for me.

[Gerald Lively]

HemoDoc said:  "Yes, rules for radicals is a very dangerous book and those that follow his teachings are very dangerous men engaging the people to voluntarily give up their freedoms for the illusory promise of utopia. Give me a break, that is grand delusion and a massive scale."

I am beginning to think that you have never read Alinsky's book.  Say. why does Dick Aremy pass out copies of Rules for Radicals to Tea Party members?

And, didn't William F. Buckley praise Alinsky?
gerald

[Hemodoc]

HemoDoc said:  "Yes, rules for radicals is a very dangerous book and those that follow his teachings are very dangerous men engaging the people to voluntarily give up their freedoms for the illusory promise of utopia. Give me a break, that is grand delusion and a massive scale."

I am beginning to think that you have never read Alinsky's book.  Say. why does Dick Aremy pass out copies of Rules for Radicals to Tea Party members?

And, didn't William F. Buckley praise Alinsky?
gerald

Actually I read the entire book, three book reviews on the book and several other articles that I posted links for all two days ago. Rehashed Marxism and anti-Christian propaganda, that is all it is.

Dick Army I am sured passed out the book so that people can know their enemy. That was the same reason I read it two days ago. Don't you know folks still read Mein Kampf as well. The Rules For Redicals is the play book of the left, not the Tea Party.  What a joke trying to imply the Tea Party embracing Marxist doctrine. 

[Hemodoc]

Take  look at Obama's deficits compared to %GDP. You have to have a measuring stick since inflation renders some of the metrics meaningless:

Obama's Deficit Spending to GDP Compared to Other Recent Presidents

Topics: Political News and commentaries
President Obama had the chutzpah to infer in his recent speech that we'd be in great financial shape if only every other president had been as responsible on deficit spending as he has been (try to restrain your laughter - no rolling on the floor, please).

Fortunately for those foolishly naive Americans that actually fall for the utter nonsense our president so often spiels, Jeffrey Anderson provides a nifty, handy-dandy, chart that even they can understand.

As one can see, Obama's actual track record versus other recent presidents (detailed more fully here).

It's also worth noting, since Obama's fallback defense is always that the economy made him do it, that annual deficit spending even during the Great Depression never reached so much as 6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). You can see how that compares with Obama's tallies below:

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/04/obamas_deficit.php

One of the things I do with children is teach them how to assess whether Internet (or other) sources are objective. A good start is to look for words that indicate bias. This little blurb is full of them, giving it a very low score on the objective scale. Most of my students would know to be skeptical of a link provided by such a blatantly biased source.

I am further confused by the inclusion of this post, which seems to use ridicule as a way to manipulate the judgement of the reader. The poster previously took a position against the use of ridicule in arguments. Granted, the poster is "only" copying what is written by someone else, but doing so in defense of a position. one would be inclined to assume that by providing this information, the poster is agreeing with the approach, especially since there was no disclaimer.

It would make for more coherence of argument if those beliefs so passionately extolled were supported with a similar passionate adherence to the principles espoused.

Aleta

Did you get a car wash? Maybe at least a shower? 

Well, if you don't like that source of the unsustainable deficits, perhaps you will accept Bernacke:

US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned that an EU-type economic crisis is headed for the US economy if it fails to curb its debt issue, Press TV reports.


“Risks remain that developments in Europe or elsewhere may unfold and could worsen economic prospects here at home,” Bernanke said this week, a Press TV correspondent reported.

The Fed chief also suggested that eventually the government's increasing debt would inhibit the growth of the country's economy.

Experts think the US economy will dip into another recession in 2012 as the US Treasury report to congress forecasts the government's debt will rise to 19.6 trillion dollars by 2015.

The Congressional Budget Office reported that the US federal budget deficit will exceed USD 1 trillion at the same time as the US debt which is now more than USD 15 trillion and growing daily. The country's annual economic output now equals about the same as the debt level.

There are fears that more delays in resolving the eurozone debt crisis, which began in Greece in late 2009 and infected Italy, Spain and France last year, could push not only Europe but also much of the rest of the developed world back into recession.

Meanwhile, the US unemployment rate remains above 9 percent. Many economists, however, believe that the true unemployment rate is around 20 percent.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/224849.html

[Gerald Lively]

"Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit  organization FreedomWorks, which  is one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called  Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January  2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon  explained, "his tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly  effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick  Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for  Radicals to Tea Party leaders."

HemoDoc:  I do believe that you do not know of what you speak.

gerald