Liberal Forum

RichClem » 09 Jan 2015 6:53 am » wrote:
.

Look at this pathetic psychotic stonewall and dodge and babble.

It's called "logic," psycho.

If spending under Reagan created a boom, it should have created a stronger boom under Obama.

Where's the huge Obama Boom?

You little sissy. You cannot answer direct questions. You cannot source a claim after multiple requests.

And you REALLY think I would let a no game having, fapping, effeminate fart chaser derail MY thread, uncle sucker?

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 6:49 am » wrote:#614 Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN

#614 Re: CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 6:56 am » wrote: Tell your story walkin', funny boy.

Look at this pathetic psychotic stonewall and dodge and babble.

It's called "logic," psycho.

If spending under Reagan created a boom, it should have created a stronger boom under Obama.

Where's the huge Obama Boom?

Cannonpointer » 09 Jan 2015 7:00 am » wrote: You little sissy. You cannot answer direct questions.

Can anyone spell irony?

RichClem » 09 Jan 2015 7:01 am » wrote: If spending under Reagan created a boom, it should have created a stronger boom under Obama.

Since you refuse to quit spamming my thread with this off topic issue, you ***, I will make it a point to shove ANOTHER meme down your girly dick pipe.

Okay, ***. What are you claiming NOW?

THAT REAGAN DID NOT A HAVE BOOM? OR THAT HIS BOOM WAS NOT A RESULT OF THE KEYNESIAN STIMULUS THAT HE INTRODUCED TO THE ECONOMY? OR IS THERE SOME OTHER POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO DERAIL MY THREAD WITH, YOU STALKING PUKE?

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 8:12 am » wrote:
Why did you dodge my point? It's factually established beyond any doubt that what I claimed is true.

If you can't get the absolutely most basic reality correct, if you dodge key questions and points forever, why would I ever be so stupid as to debate stats?

He provided the stats you were claiming proved your point - and you refused to show how you got your claims from those numbers. You dodged, while falsely accusing him of dodging. Then you made an excuse for not being able to prove your claims with the provided statisics. You also employed the logical fallacy of SAYING your position is proven fact, while providing zero evidence to support that claim - a propaganda device widely attributed to Joeseph Goebbels.

You're truly a worthless piece of **** as a poster clem. Sadly, you're better than gooey or baby huey - but that isn't saying jack ****.

FYI - ANNUALIZED GDP GROWTH IS ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION - SOOOOORRRRREEEEEEE.....

Cannonpointer » 10 Jan 2015 1:58 am » wrote: Since you refuse to quit spamming my thread with this off topic issue, you ***, I will make it a point to shove ANOTHER meme down your girly dick pipe.

Okay, ***. What are you claiming NOW?

THAT REAGAN DID NOT A HAVE BOOM? OR THAT HIS BOOM WAS NOT A RESULT OF THE KEYNESIAN STIMULUS THAT HE INTRODUCED TO THE ECONOMY? OR IS THERE SOME OTHER POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO DERAIL MY THREAD WITH, YOU STALKING PUKE?

Blah!


Blah, baloney, bulls***.

And blah, blah, blah some more, babbles the psychotic.

Where is the Keynesian Obama economic boom, psycho?

What, Keynesian economics only works for Republicans?

Cannonpointer » 10 Jan 2015 3:41 am » wrote:FYI - ANNUALIZED GDP GROWTH IS ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION - SOOOOORRRRREEEEEEE.....

How to Lie with Statistics, in one easy lesson.

Once again ignoring the fact that the direction was strongly downward as Reagan entered office.

RichClem » 10 Jan 2015 9:47 am » wrote:
How to Lie with Statistics, in one easy lesson.

Once again ignoring the fact that the direction was strongly downward as Reagan entered office.

First, you'tre a liar. It was headed back UP, frpom a year that was FLAT. two out of three years preceding Cawduh's presidency were in the red. ONE year was flat preceding reagan, and the growth coming OFF that flat year had been 2.6% - A COMEBACK.

1978 5.6
1979 3.2
1980 -0.2
1981 2.6

^^What does a homosexual call an economy on the rebound? "strongly downward."

And besides, hack: You want to call ME dishonest for not being interested in discussing context with a hack like YOU?

Tell me, hack, do you recognize any of the incidents, and if so, what mitigation of your criticism of Carter have these issues - not ONE of them in his control - had? Please, take your time explaining what breaks you give Carter, since you want me to give Reagan a break for an economy that was flat the year BEFORE Carter's finaql budget year. Also, point us to the posts where you acknowledged Carter for appointing Volker. Or for ANYTHING, you **** hack.

RichClem » 10 Jan 2015 9:45 am » wrote:
Blah!

Blah, baloney, bulls***.

And blah, blah, blah some more, babbles the psychotic.

Where is the Keynesian Obama economic boom, psycho?

What, Keynesian economics only works for Republicans?

Sorry, I'm discussing Reagan vs. Carter, not Obama. Tell me the relevance or **** yourself, squirrel. strongly downward

Just because a queer like you wants to distract me by changing the subject, that doesn't mean I have to go along.

TELL ME WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY WITH THIS QUESTION, RETARD. How does it impact Carter v. Reagan, hack?

Cannonpointer » 10 Jan 2015 10:10 am » wrote: Sorry, I'm discussing Reagan vs. Carter, not Obama. Tell me the relevance or **** yourself, squirrel. strongly downward

Just because a queer like you wants to distract me by changing the subject, that doesn't mean I have to go along.

TELL ME WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY WITH THIS QUESTION, RETARD. How does it impact Carter v. Reagan, hack?

.

It's called "logic" and "Economics." If the rules of "Economics" work for Reagan, then by "logic" those same rules must have worked for Obama, too.

Where is the Keynesian Obama economic boom?

Cannonpointer » 10 Jan 2015 10:08 am » wrote: First, you'tre a liar. It was headed back UP, frpom a year that was FLAT. two out of three years preceding Cawduh's presidency were in the red. ONE year was flat preceding reagan, and the growth coming OFF that flat year had been 2.6% - A COMEBACK.

Here's a little reality for you, psycho.

Anyone with eyes can see the economy trending strongly downward under Carter, then strongly upward after Reagan's tax cuts kicked in.

.

http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com ... 0-2010.jpg
http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/2012/ ... te-videos/

^^What does a homosexual call an economy on the rebound? "strongly downward."

And besides, hack: You want to call ME dishonest for not being interested in discussing context with a hack like YOU?

Tell me, hack, do you recognize any of the incidents, and if so, what mitigation of your criticism of Carter have these issues - not ONE of them in his control - had? Please, take your time explaining what breaks you give Carter, since you want me to give Reagan a break for an economy that was flat the year BEFORE Carter's finaql budget year. Also, point us to the posts where you acknowledged Carter for appointing Volker. Or for ANYTHING, you **** hack.

.

Babble away, you hopeless imbecile.

RichClem » 10 Jan 2015 10:36 am » wrote:
Here's a little reality for you, psycho.

Anyone with eyes can see the economy trending strongly downward under Carter, then strongly upward after Reagan's tax cuts kicked in.

Your bar chart is from a right wing blog written by a perfectly nice and sincere conservative fellow named Raymond Prong. I went to his blog and I saw his chart, but I saw no explication of the numbers on that chart.The numbers are not his own. They are credited to the "NBER," which appears to be a private right wing think tank - which is not a problem for me, so long as the numbers are both explicated and sourced. If the numbers are true, the fact that you got them from right wing sources makes them no less so. I merely wish to see their validity established and their meaning made clear in order to comment.

I found neither explication NOR source. That doesn't mean it wasn't there - only that I was unable to find it, and as such, I cannot comment on your chart. To be honest, I don't know what the numbers refer to or what the base line is. Nor can I divine why some of the bars are red and some are blue.

Take the year 1980. In that year, 93.51% of a number was measured to have occurred. Can you tell me what that number was? Or take the year 1933. In that year, a mere 34.82% of something happened. Can you tell me what that something is?

If I knew what "your" numbers were in reference to, and what the red vs. blue bars mean, then I could independently validate your raw data myself through nonpartisan sources - as I always must if I am to bother with it at all.

Okay. Name call. Refuse to tell us what your chart MEANS, what the inputs are.

RichClem » 10 Jan 2015 10:17 am » wrote: It's called "logic" and "Economics." If the rules of "Economics" work for Reagan, then by "logic" those same rules must have worked for Obama, too.

How does insisting that that apples and oranges have identical reactions to one discrete input respect the rules of logic OR economics, sonny? Reagan did not follow an insane chimpanzee - he did not FOLLOW the very AUTHOR of his challenges. The man he followed had already done half of his work for him. Tell me, did Bush's economy create 2.5 million jobs per year? Would you like to review the chart?

Reagan was not handed a big, round, cartoon bomb with a lit fuse, kissed on the mouth, and left in a cloud of dust by a cartoon character.

But if it is your contention that the Keynesian stimulus Reagan employed didn't work for him - you ARE insisting they have identical outcomes, are you not? - then I'm willing to pretend along with you that Reagan's numbers were very like Obama's. You know me - always eager to keep the peace, always amenable to making an accommodation.

My the Lord be with you.

Stupid **** thinks if he tells a lie lomg enough it will become the truth. The ends justify the means and all that.

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 2:00 am » wrote: Your bar chart is from a right wing blog written by a perfectly nice and sincere conservative fellow named Raymond Prong. I went to his blog and I saw his chart, but I saw no explication of the numbers on that chart.The numbers are not his own.

.

It's comparable to every chart I recall seeing.

Where's yours, psycho?

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 2:00 am » wrote:Your bar chart is from a right wing blog written by a perfectly nice and sincere conservative fellow named Raymond Prong. I went to his blog and I saw his chart, but I saw no explication of the numbers on that chart.The numbers are not his own. They are credited to the "NBER," which appears to be a private right wing think tank - which is not a problem for me, so long as the numbers are both explicated and sourced.

I'm absolutely sure you'll like this one better.

This graph shows the annual percentage change in gross domestic product (GDP) from 1970 to 2008. It was the sudden and sharp recovery in 1983 from the double-dip recession at the beginning of the Reagan years that gave rise to Reagan’s argument that tax cuts ignited the expansion.
http://acivilamericandebate.com/2011/04 ... ud-part-3/

Cannonpointer » 11 Jan 2015 2:12 am » wrote: How does insisting that that apples and oranges have identical reactions to one discrete input respect the rules of logic OR economics, sonny? Reagan did not follow an insane chimpanzee - he did not FOLLOW the very AUTHOR of his challenges. The man he followed had already done half of his work for him. Tell me, did Bush's economy create 2.5 million jobs per year? Would you like to review the chart?

Reagan was not handed a big, round, cartoon bomb with a lit fuse, kissed on the mouth, and left in a cloud of dust by a cartoon character.

But if it is your contention that the Keynesian stimulus Reagan employed didn't work for him - you ARE insisting they have identical outcomes, are you not? - then I'm willing to pretend along with you that Reagan's numbers were very like Obama's. You know me - always eager to keep the peace, always amenable to making an accommodation.

My the Lord be with you.

Oh well gosh, how can I vanquish an intellect like that?

Where did the psychotic go?

I was sure he'd take the time to admit he was wrong.

RichClem » 11 Jan 2015 9:46 am » wrote: I'm absolutely sure you'll like this one better.

RichClem » 11 Jan 2015 9:39 am » wrote: It's comparable to every chart I recall seeing.
Where's yours, psycho?

There it is, Glory Hole. There you are.

You post a random chart that you don't even know the meaning of. It's on a site that spew the right direction, so you assume it's bad on Carter.

Wow. You really are a piece of ****, Glory Hole.