Go Scott Brown! - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-25-2010, 03:27 PM   #226
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Wonderful, but your opinion is mistaken.



1. Its factually inaccurate to say that the poverty rate increased every year under Bush. There were a couple of years when the poverty rate did go down.

2. The subject of that thread was about calling the recent decade, the decade from hell. I pointed out correctly that the average poverty rate during the 00s as well as under Bush, was less than the average poverty rate during the 90s or under Bill Clinton. Thats a FACT, just as it is a fact that the average unemployment rate during the 00s was less than that during the 90s.

3. Its a fact that a higher percentage of people lived in poverty during the Clinton years vs the Bush years.




I then factually rebutted that and again explained why I interpret the statistics the way I do and why I think that is reasonable.



LOL of course they do. You will not find many more places where George Bush is this unpopular. Its inconcievable for many here to acknowledge that Bush ever did anything right, or that things were not as bad as many say they were while he was in office.
How could an opinion be mistaken? There are plenty of Republicans capable of reasonable discussion.

We already went through the numbers in the other thread.

You saying that more people lived in poverty or that average unemployment was higher in the 1990s is not something that can be reasonably used to defend George Bush. This is where my argument was. 2000 Clinton was in office. We were talking more about politics then we were the exact date of change in decade when I entered the discussion. Looking at the 2 decades in comparison gives the mediocre 90,91,92 period to Clinton and the very good year 2000 to Bush. So comparisons of the 2 decades do not work if we are discussing the 2 Presidents.

Again, Clinton started with high unemployment and poverty rates and knocked them down throughout his Presidency to historic lows.

Bush started with those historic lows, and in the case of poverty, it got consistently worse, in the case of unemployment, it went up and down. But it started low and ended high. 2 million jobs for Bush vs 23 million for Clinton. Wages, salaries, after tax income, all much better under Clinton.

When you look at where 8 years of Clinton policies left us versus where 8 years of Bush policies left us, you will not find anyone who will take 8 years of Bush.

2000 we had the lowest number of people living in poverty ever, 3.9% unemployment, more Americans had moved out of poverty into the middle class, more Americans going to college than ever, more manufacturing jobs than in any decade since the 1960s, surplus, lower debt, etc. We have been through it all.

You did not factually rebut me on anything, and you never explain why we should all look at your interpretations as more reasonable. You THINK you did, but you think alot of things, so that's ok.

Even in this thread, you are still stuck on trying to defend George Bush's economic record, which is pretty difficult to do. Especially when compared to Bill Clinton's.

You are also still stuck on claiming that I do not discuss issues, but other forum members. I will put my discussion and explanation of the issues up against anyone's. Certainly against your one line repetitions of the same numbers using faulty logic.

All I do is call out other people who do not discuss issues. This is what I have been trying to get INDY to do. He has been asked to discuss issues by many here, and asked to explain himself and has not.

So again, stop accusing me of violating your made up rules of the forum that have already been rejected by the moderators. YOU ARE NOT A MODERATOR HERE, YOU DO NOT DECIDE WHAT IS RELEVANT TO DISCUSSION OR WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE POSTED. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MODERATORS HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU THIS.

There are plenty of places where George Bush is this unpopular. You don't get out much. The anti Bush people here are generally very diverse and they constantly discuss issues Obama is dealing with, and they disagree with each other. They disagree with Obama. They disagree with other liberals. They use facts, they explain themselves.

Again, you are stuck on calling the entire forum a bunch of Bush haters and not seeing my point. Again, I ask you, when have you and I ever had a discussion about any of Bush's policies?? We have only discussed your unwillingness to face what happened when he was President. Not even whether he was responsible or not, which there are plenty of good points for "Yes" and plenty of good points for "NO." What the facts were, what happened, how employment numbers looked, how poverty trends looked, how income looked, etc- this is what we have discussed. Alot more forum members have seen the flaws in how you present things than how I present things. How is this indicative of some kind of hostile to Bush crowd? All it is is people looking at what the facts say and coming to the conclusion that you are misrepresenting them. You can be a died in the wool Republican and still come to that conclusion. So no, its not a bunch of people agreeing with me because they are whacko liberals. People have pointed out their work with statistics and numbers and told you how what you are doing is not logical, without injecting their political views into it at all.

The pro Bush people here, by in large, use talking points and make generalizations about "liberals" because this is how you have been taught to discuss by people like Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. This was not how debating between Democrats and Republicans worked prior to the mid 80s when this talk radio culture took off.

Your poverty comparison of Bush and Clinton, for example, is right out of a Bill O'Reilly segment that was widely rebutted by independent sources years ago.

Now, all you other forum members, try and find anything I do that is right out of any left win spinmeister's playbook.

And this guy is accusing me of spinning?! What a pathetic existence.
__________________

__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 05:35 PM   #227
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
What a pathetic existence.
Over the line, U2387. Maybe it'd be best if you just add Sting to your ignore list. You're not going to change his mind, he's not going to change yours, and no amount of voluminous posts from either of you will change that.

However, Sting, U2387 is right when he says that it is not your place to tell other posters what they can and cannot or should or should not be posting on these forums.

It'd be best if you both just dropped it, as it clearly isn't going anywhere.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 06:11 PM   #228
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
LOL, Wow!

I was only joking-I do have standards

He's on Leno Thursday, for anyone who cares. He's doing the 10 at 10.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 06:37 PM   #229
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post

All I do is call out other people who do not discuss issues.
Why?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 08:23 PM   #230
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:50 AM
A pathetic existence?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 08:25 PM   #231
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
A pathetic existence?
that would be the pot calling the kettle black.
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 08:26 PM   #232
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
no, no, maybe
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 01-25-2010, 09:52 PM   #233
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 06:50 AM
well, this is certainly interesting:



Quote:
According to the new Washington Post poll of Massachusetts voters, between approximately one-third and one-half of Brown’s voters claimed that neither Obama (52%) nor the Democratic agenda (29%) in Washington was a factor in their vote. The difference in opposition to Obama among Brown voters (43%) and opposition to the Democratic agenda (65%) is fairly remarkable, as if one could cast a vote to convey displeasure with the agenda without also sending a message of opposition to Obama. Inexplicably, a small percentage of Brown voters (4 and 5% respectively) said that they were voting for Brown to express support for Obama or the Democratic agenda. We also find that 29% of Brown’s voters had voted for Obama, and 33% still approve of Obama’s job performance. 24% of Brown voters are enthusiastic or satisfied with administration policies! They have a funny way of showing it.

It is clear that two-thirds of Brown’s voters wished to express their opposition to the Democrats’ agenda, which is to say that pretty much everyone who did not vote for Obama in 2008 does not support Obama’s agenda and wanted to express their opposition to it. I think we knew that before Tuesday. Over a third of Brown’s voters (37%) were dissatisfied or even angry with Congressional Republican policies, which is what you might expect when almost that many of Brown’s voters approve of Obama’s performance and the Congressional GOP is dedicated to thwarting Obama in everything he does.

Looking at what Brown’s voters want him to do with respect to health care, we see that they are divided right down the middle: 50% (47% strongly) do want Brown to work to halt Democratic health care efforts, and 48% (40% strongly) want him to work with Democrats to make changes to their proposals. Half of Brown’s voters want him to sink Obama’s agenda, full stop, and approximately half of them want him to collaborate with Democrats. That is what we might call a mixed message. Looking at Brown voters’ opposition to the health care bill itself, we see that two-thirds of them strongly oppose the bill, which is consistent with what we saw earlier, 14% “somewhat oppose” it and 13% actually support it. 26% of Brown voters believe government should be doing more “to solve problems.” 51% of Brown voters support MassCare. Perhaps most amusing, 52% of Brown voters approved of Ted Kennedy’s job performance.

So what we have here is a significant bloc of Brown voters, at least 24% of them, who approve of Obama, support his policies, and want more activist government, and some of them even support the bill Brown has promised to kill. On one level, it makes perfect sense that these people voted for Brown, because Obama and the Democratic agenda were apparently not factors in deciding how to vote. If they weren’t factors, Brown must have won their votes for some other reason. On another level, it seems bizarre and difficult to fathom that they would vote for someone campaigning on the promise to stop the policies and administration that they support. Perhaps had they been able to know how their votes would be interpreted, or rather misinterpreted, they might have voted differently, and Brown would have been limited to his core of McCain voters.

Eunomia What Happened?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 01:12 PM   #234
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2387 View Post
Maybe you could go back and re calculate your numbers on debt% of GDP in the 1990s!

90s Debt as a percentage of GDP:

1990 55.72
1991 61.13
1992 64.13
1993 66.26
1994 66.35
1995 67.24
1996 66.84
1997 65.18
1998 63.67
1999 61.47

Average Debt as a percentage of GDP in the 90s: 63.80%


Clinton administration Debt as a percentage of GDP:

1993 66.26
1994 66.35
1995 67.24
1996 66.84
1997 65.18
1998 63.67
1999 61.47
2000 58.20

Average Debt as a percentage of GDP during the Clinton administration: 64.40%




00s Debt as a percentage of GDP:

2000 58.20
2001 57.74
2002 59.90
2003 62.31
2004 63.57
2005 64.29
2006 64.98
2007 65.67
2008 70.49
2009 90.36

Average Debt as a percentage of GDP in the 00s: 65.75%



Bush administration Debt as a percentage of GDP:

2001 57.74
2002 59.90
2003 62.31
2004 63.57
2005 64.29
2006 64.98
2007 65.67
2008 70.49

Average Debt as a percentage of GDP during the Bush administration: 63.62%


So, average debt as a percentage of GDP was a little higher in the 00s vs. the 90s, but it was lower during the Bush years compared to the Clinton years. With the exception of the Truman years, the Clinton years had the highest debt as a percentage of GDP in United States history. Truman's average was about 95%.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 01:32 PM   #235
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 06:50 AM
1993: 66.26
2001: 57.74
2008: 70.49


that tells you more than any average.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 03:06 PM   #236
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
90s Debt as a percentage of GDP:

1990 55.72
1991 61.13
1992 64.13
1993 66.26
1994 66.35
1995 67.24
1996 66.84
1997 65.18
1998 63.67
1999 61.47

Average Debt as a percentage of GDP in the 90s: 63.80%


Clinton administration Debt as a percentage of GDP:

1993 66.26
1994 66.35
1995 67.24
1996 66.84
1997 65.18
1998 63.67
1999 61.47
2000 58.20

Are you fuckin soft? How many times have we gone over the same numbers? Look at Clinton's first term, it was STABLE. I already explained to you that given what he inherited from Reagan/Bush, it took a good deal of fiscal restraint(1993 reconciliation bill) to achieve this. Of course, there were still going to be deficits, and money added to the gross national debt, you can't undo 12 years in 4. However, as the chart shows, it had been increasing by leaps and bounds since 1980. Clinton stabilizes this, and then it drops, and somehow, this shows his policies were responsible for high debt%of GDP.

Only in your world is there any possible way that the numbers can reflect good on Bush and bad on Clinton. Even if the average was a bit higher, look at what each started with. As I said, if Bush had started at 66% like Clinton did, we would have had 73% by the end of his first term and 101% when he left office.

This is exactly why you are viewed as such a joke on here. Its not the numbers, its you using them to dispute that Bush ran up record deficits and debt, which can not be done. You are older than me, and you surely remember well the Clinton years with all the talk of debt and deficits going down, 2 balanced budgets and a surplus. The opposite happened when Bush came in.

You do not have to deny this. It makes you look like a pathetic spinster when you do. How about a discussion of Bush's POLICIES? Tell us why you think he did the best thing he could have done at the time, why you think x or y policy really did not have the influence some suggest, etc. Not that you have ever done that, most of what you do is cut and paste BS that you do not understand anyway.

Now, no more numbers, we have been through them. No more averages, I have pointed you to the flaws. Tell me how this somehow shows that a Bush Presidency was somehow better than a Clinton Presidency given the numbers you use.

I know you will not do that, you will keep repeating the same things we have already been over, but such is the life of Strongbow. So every time from now on you just can not understand how I would make such wild accusations about you not discussing in good faith, I will point right to this. I do not make this stuff up. It is very clear you are still stuck on saying something entirely different than the facts happened during the Bush years.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 03:15 PM   #237
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
well, this is certainly interesting:
Very Good

I think alot of it is people really do not vote on issues. The people in FYM or the guy you see at the diner going over the newspaper and discussing the health care bill are few and far between.

They vote on image. They like the President, know that he is doing health care and that they are for that in the abstract, but they also like this new guy Brown, who has an attractive family and an everyman persona. He is running against this uninspiring, really has not opened up to us much, seen us much though she has been around forever Martha Coakley.

They vote for Brown not knowing that he wants to stop Obama.

Are some people the opposite and vote on issues? Did some vote to stop Obama? Absolutely, but like I have said, in and of themselves, they are not numerous enough in MA to get Brown elected.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 03:49 PM   #238
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 06:50 AM
though Brown doesn't really want to stop Obama. he's on the whole pretty liberal.

and he seems to love universal health care. in Massachusetts at least.

Bush's policies were ruinous to the country. he took an economy that was very good and, over the course of 8 years through massive deficit spending, deregulation, tax cuts, and various wars, he destroyed it.

and now we're going to blame it on the black man.

natch.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 04:07 PM   #239
Refugee
 
The_Pac_Mule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,342
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Bush's policies were ruinous to the country. he took an economy that was very good and, over the course of 8 years through massive deficit spending, deregulation, tax cuts, and various wars, he destroyed it.
And there goes the sole blame to Bush. The right is going to blame the left, and the left it going to blame that right, that's how it always goes, and very few people come out and say that as a whole we've been fucking the country up for the past few decades.

Quote:
and now we're going to blame it on the black man.
Would it be any different if Joe Biden or Harry Reid were the president? Quit playing the race card.
__________________
The_Pac_Mule is offline  
Old 01-26-2010, 04:10 PM   #240
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 06:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule View Post
And there goes the sole blame to Bush. The right is going to blame the left, and the left it going to blame that right, that's how it always goes, and very few people come out and say that as a whole we've been fucking the country up for the past few decades.

so then we can expand the blame to Bush -- since it started with Reagan. is that what you mean to say?



Quote:
Would it be any different if Joe Biden or Harry Reid were the president? Quit playing the race card.


i think your irony detector needs some work.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MERGED ----> James Brown hospitalized + R.I.P. James Brown.... + James Brown Dead... europop2005 Lemonade Stand Archive 66 01-02-2007 03:23 PM
Nets fired Byron Scott after 2 straight Eastern Conference Titles Headache in a Suitcase Lemonade Stand Archive 6 01-27-2004 10:10 AM
Adam's Camouflage Pants... Lemonite PLEBA Archive 52 01-14-2002 12:41 AM
Who was at Oakland 2?- share the ASOH story!!! cainz Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 2 11-17-2001 08:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com