The Official CNN/Tea Party Express Debate Discussion Thread (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 07:37:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official CNN/Tea Party Express Debate Discussion Thread (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Official CNN/Tea Party Express Debate Discussion Thread  (Read 22960 times)
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


« on: September 12, 2011, 10:46:31 PM »


It should be pretty obvious that I was making fun of krazen's factually inaccurate comment about "Texas presidents" reducing poverty. Hence why it was, you know, quoted.

Obviously the comprehension of english words is not your strong suit.

Politics, in general, is not one of his strong suits.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2011, 10:52:06 PM »
« Edited: September 12, 2011, 11:04:56 PM by BigSkyBob »

Dude, it was a joke. I have no reason to argue with krazen because he's a robot that spits out Republican talking points. He's only good for mocking.

And, a condescending arrogant sarcasm directed against their critics is one of hallmarks of left.

In Longtorso we have a man whom claims to support commission-style redistricting, yet, is part of the Swing State Project that equated the gerrymandering of Illinois with the joyous Holiday of Christmas!
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2011, 11:17:00 PM »

JohnnyLongtorso,

Not to sound like a broken record, but WTF?  Nice graph, as has been pointed out, but the employment certainly fluctuates.  No new information there.

Not sure what "Good job Texas Presidents" is meant to say either.  The Republic of Texas only had a few presidents, and all of them died long before the 20th century began.  In the time period covered, only one US President was born in Texas, and poverty, according to the graph, fell from about 20 percent to about 12 percent during his tenure.

More broadly, what are we meant to take from this graph?  There doesn't seem to be any correlation to anything.  Even the purple "recession" periods don't show any monotonic increase or decrease.   In some case it's up, in some cases it's down, and in some cases it's just sort of flat.

And, when I try to look at periods wherein congress was controlled by Republicans, sometimes I see unemployment going up and sometimes it's going down.  Similarly, I see times when Democrats controlled congress and unemployment went up and sometimes it's down.

So, what's your point?

It should be pretty obvious that I was making fun of krazen's factually inaccurate comment about "Texas presidents" reducing poverty.



Since his actual statement was,


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

it is quite obvious that you are constructing a strawman.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 13 queries.