From Russia Without Love: Russians Parade A Mock Ballistic Missile for Obama.
Comment Now Follow Comments

Pro-Kremlin activists at the Anti-Maidan rally in Moscow, Russia on February 21, 2015. Photo: Kommersant via Getty Images
With the Kremlin labeling the West an enemy, the country’s militaristic spirit — subdued after the fall of the Iron Curtain – seems to be getting a second wind.

In the Soviet Union, February 23rd has traditionally been celebrated as the Soviet Army and Navy day. After the end of the cold war and the dissolution of the USSR, the holiday was renamed ‘Defender of the Fatherland’ day. It was gradually losing its military flavor and by inertia continued to be celebrated in the post-Soviet countries as a festive occasion for women and girls to honor the entire male population – husbands, fathers, classmates – regardless of whether they had anything to do with the military.

This year, Russia stepped up its nationalistic and patriotic efforts and the Army day was marked by the return of military glory. The holiday is gaining its original purpose: to promote the servicemen and the army. Russia – according to its people and leadership – has reinvented its status as a great state that is in danger with plenty of enemies, from the U.S. to Europe to Ukraine.

The Army Day is celebrated with special broadcasts on major TV channels, events honoring veterans, and activities involving children getting acquainted with firearms.

While there is nothing wrong with the country’s desire to have a strong army and honor servicemen, much of what’s going on in Russia today – from pre-school education to slogans in public rallies – resembles the Soviet Union of old, when the possibility of war and preparedness to attack the enemy was part of people’s daily lives.

This past weekend, during a big Anti-Maidan rally – a Kremlin-approved mass demonstration against any hint of revolutionary sentiment in Russia – a fake ballistic missile was paraded in the heart of Moscow that read “to be personally delivered to Obama.”


-

Iran hangs Obama in effigy even as it negotiates nuclear deal with US

Published February 25, 2015

Just weeks before Secretary of State John Kerry held new nuclear talks with Iran’s foreign minister in Geneva, Iranians were hanging Kerry's boss in effigy at a huge Tehran-sponsored rally marking the Islamic Revolution’s 36th anniversary, an event that critics say underscores the absurdity of the ongoing diplomatic effort.

The U.S. and Iran are trying to reach a final nuclear agreement by a March 31 deadline against a backdrop of ongoing anti-American hatred in the Islamic republic. Photos posted by the Middle East Media Research Institute this week show Iranians marching in front of a display depicting President Obama hanging from a gallows and carrying signs of Kerry, portrayed as a devious fox.

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took part in the Feb. 11 Revolution Day, which commemorates the 1979 overthrow of the U.S.-assisted Shah of Iran. The Iranians, as they have in past, chanted, “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They also burned and trampled an American flag.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard conducts military drill against replica US carrier

Published February 25, 2015

Dozens of Iranian speedboats swarmed a replica of a U.S. aircraft carrier in a strategic Gulf waterway Wednesday, blasting it with missiles in large-scale naval and air defense drills meant to send a "message of (Iran's) might" to "extraterritorial powers," a military commander said.

The Iran's Revolutionary Guard drill, named Great Prophet 9, was held near the Strait of Hormuz, through which one fifth of the world's oil passes. Iran's regular army carried out naval drills near the strait in December.

State TV showed footage of missiles fired from the coast and the fast boats striking the mock U.S. aircraft carrier. The drills, which also included shooting down a drone and planting undersea mines, were the first to involve a replica of a U.S. carrier.

At one point, a camera from state TV showed a banner which read "if the Americans are ready to be buried at the bottom of the waters of the Persian Gulf -- so be it," according to Reuters. The quote was from Iran’s first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

"American aircraft carriers are very big ammunition depots housing a lot of missiles, rockets, torpedoes and everything else," the Guard's navy chief, Adm. Ali Fadavi, said on state TV, adding that a direct hit by a missile could set off a large secondary explosion. Last month Fadavi said his force is capable of sinking American aircraft carriers in the event of war.

The Guard's chief commander, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, said the drills send a "message of (Iran's) might" to "extraterritorial powers," a reference to the United States.

What's it matter? He won 2x and can't be re-elected (else it'd be 3x). Think he gives a shit?

Obviously, you do.

btw- He's currently ranked 14th (above your god Reagan)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results

The Russians also posted a HAPPY BIRTHDAY lazer light show for our dearleader, something about banana..

white and right redux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's it matter? He won 2x and can't be
> re-elected (else it'd be 3x). Think he gives a
> shit?
>
> Obviously, you do.
>
> btw- He's currently ranked 14th (above your god
> Reagan)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_o
> f_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_r
> esults


Nobody likes him.

Nobody respects him.

Nobody fears him.

He's a joke.

Now go post another 10 libtard spam links out of your frustration.

Like this?

^ You're stupid enough to believe shit like this.

lulz

Rightards are dumb but you are like Sarah Palin stupid.

When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped to 7,949.09, the lowest inaugural performance for the Dow since its creation.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/where-was-dow-jones-when-obama-took-office.asp

And today: 18,224.57

https://www.google.com/finance/historical?cid=983582&startdate=Jan+20%2C+2009&enddate=Feb+26%2C+2015&num=30&ei=uZLuVNiSDKmhsAfyzIG4Bg

Need me to do the math also?

^^^ lulz@rightards

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rightards are dumb but you are like Sarah Palin
> stupid.
>
> When President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009,
> the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped to
> 7,949.09, the lowest inaugural performance for the
> Dow since its creation.
>
> http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/whe
> re-was-dow-jones-when-obama-took-office.asp
>
> And today: 18,224.57
>
> https://www.google.com/finance/historical?cid=9835
> 82&startdate=Jan+20%2C+2009&enddate=Feb+26%2C+2015
> &num=30&ei=uZLuVNiSDKmhsAfyzIG4Bg
>
> Need me to do the math also?


First, you're counting from the bottom after the crash idiot. Prior to it was at 14,164.53.

Second, that you're even using the Dow as the basis tells me that you're clueless.

Third, you're not counting things on an equal real-dollar basis. It just recently equaled the inflation adjusted high reached in 1999.

Finally, you're a dumbshit.

Yes, you really are that dumb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> First, you're counting from the bottom after the
> crash idiot. Prior to it was at 14,164.53.
>
> Second, that you're even using the Dow as the
> basis tells me that you're clueless.
>
> Third, you're not counting things on an equal
> real-dollar basis. It just recently equaled the
> inflation adjusted high reached in 1999.
>
> Finally, you're a dumbshit.

Don't know about all that mumbo jumbo but I know my 401k has double since Obama has taken office. Also, your reference to 1999 is also ironic as another Democrat was president.

Carry on.

jacey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Don't know about all that mumbo jumbo but I know
> my 401k has double since Obama has taken office.
> Also, your reference to 1999 is also ironic as
> another Democrat was president.
>
> Carry on.


Exactly. As I said, you're a dumbass.

The only way that your 401K "double" is if you didn't have much of anything in it before things went to the bottom that you're trying to count from.

Yes, you really are that dumb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> First, you're counting from the bottom after the
> crash idiot. Prior to it was at 14,164.53.
>
> Second, that you're even using the Dow as the
> basis tells me that you're clueless.
>
> Third, you're not counting things on an equal
> real-dollar basis. It just recently equaled the
> inflation adjusted high reached in 1999.
>
> Finally, you're a dumbshit.

S&P looks the same.

1/20/2009 - 805.22 (when O was inaugurated)
2/25/2015 - 2,113.86 (as in today!)

Even with inflation adjustment, you lose again. Learn to read dummy!

https://www.google.com/finance/historical?cid=626307&startdate=Jan%2020%2C%202009&enddate=Feb%2026%2C%202015&num=30&ei=zpjuVMGvBcr1sQf4tYCYBw&start=0

Yes, you really are that dumb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jacey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Don't know about all that mumbo jumbo but I
> know
> > my 401k has double since Obama has taken office.
>
> > Also, your reference to 1999 is also ironic as
> > another Democrat was president.
> >
> > Carry on.
>
>
> Exactly. As I said, you're a dumbass.
>
> The only way that your 401K "double" is if you
> didn't have much of anything in it before things
> went to the bottom that you're trying to count
> from.

I'm counting from when Obama took office. If I count from the bottom (during GWB's tenure), it would be more.

No need to get angry, it's ok to admit you made a mistake and move on.

jacey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm counting from when Obama took office. If I
> count from the bottom (during GWB's tenure), it
> would be more.
>
> No need to get angry, it's ok to admit you made a
> mistake and move on.

Idiot is trying to defend GOP failed policies. Everyone knows the economy does better with Democratic President.

jacey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm counting from when Obama took office. If I
> count from the bottom (during GWB's tenure), it
> would be more.
>
> No need to get angry, it's ok to admit you made a
> mistake and move on.


Wrong again Chum Lee.

The low of the market was in March 2009.

Quote

For Dow, another 12-year low
S&P also finishes at lowest level in more than a decade as Wall Street resumes its retreat on economic worries.

Last Updated: March 9, 2009: 6:18 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks tumbled Monday, with the Dow and S&P 500 ending at fresh 12-year lows, as Merck's $41 billion purchase of Schering-Plough failed to distract investors from worries about the economy.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) lost 80 points, or 1.2%, to end at 6,547.05, its lowest point since April 15, 1997.

The S&P 500 (SPX) index lost nearly 7 points or 1%, to end at 676.53, its lowest point since Sept. 12, 1996.

The Nasdaq composite (COMP) lost 25 points or 2%, to end at 1,268.64, its lowest point since Oct. 9, 2002.

Sorry to burst your bubble with facts.

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Everyone knows the economy does better with
> Democratic President.


And he proved that with the 1999 reference!

Yes, you prove it again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jacey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I'm counting from when Obama took office. If I
> > count from the bottom (during GWB's tenure), it
> > would be more.
> >
> > No need to get angry, it's ok to admit you made
> a
> > mistake and move on.
>
>
> Wrong again Chum Lee.
>
> The low of the market was in March 2009.
>
>

Quote

> For Dow, another 12-year low
> S&P also finishes at lowest level in more than a
> decade as Wall Street resumes its retreat on
> economic worries.
>
> Last Updated: March 9, 2009: 6:18 PM ET
>
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks tumbled Monday,
> with the Dow and S&P 500 ending at fresh 12-year
> lows, as Merck's $41 billion purchase of
> Schering-Plough failed to distract investors from
> worries about the economy.
>
> The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) lost 80
> points, or 1.2%, to end at 6,547.05, its lowest
> point since April 15, 1997.
>
> The S&P 500 (SPX) index lost nearly 7 points or
> 1%, to end at 676.53, its lowest point since Sept.
> 12, 1996.
>
> The Nasdaq composite (COMP) lost 25 points or 2%,
> to end at 1,268.64, its lowest point since Oct. 9,
> 2002.
>

>
> Sorry to burst your bubble with facts.


Fair enough. So do you want me to use the low or when he took office? Either way, my 401k returns have been pretty good the last 6 years.

jacey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> whitey righty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Everyone knows the economy does better with
> > Democratic President.
>
>
> And he proved that with the 1999 reference!


Republicans or Democrats have about as much to do with the market as beautiful women have to do with you. i.e., nothing.

The one thing that Clinton did which helped the market was to *LOWER* capital gains taxes.

jacey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Fair enough. So do you want me to use the low or
> when he took office? Either way, my 401k returns
> have been pretty good the last 6 years.

He won a battle but lost the war. Sounds a lot like the GOP! The can win majority congress (note: NOT super majority) but can never take the presidency!

Defeated by the first African American (muslim/christian/atheist/judas priest/boko haram/somalie/whatever) 2008-2016

Defeated by first Women 2016-2024

We can only speculate that a democratic homosexual transvestite will take the white house in 2024, but it'll be a safe bet against these keystone clowns.

LULZ

Just digging your hole deeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Republicans or Democrats have about as much to do
> with the market as beautiful women have to do with
> you. i.e., nothing.
>
> The one thing that Clinton did which helped the
> market was to *LOWER* capital gains taxes.

Keep telling yourself that stooge.

Here are the numbers (GDP Growth by President & Congress)

R - George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%) (divided congress 4 of 8 yrs)
R - George H.W. Bush, 2.1% (divide congress)
R - Gerald Ford, 2.2% (divided congress)
R - Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5% (all GOP)
R - Richard Nixon, 3.0% (divided congress)
D - Jimmy Carter, 3.2% (all Democrats)
R - Ronald Reagan, 3.5% (divided)
D - Bill Clinton, 3.8% (divided congress 6 of 8 yrs)
D - Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0% (all Democrats)
D - John F. Kennedy, 5.4% (all Democrats)

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just digging your hole deeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Republicans or Democrats have about as much to
> do
> > with the market as beautiful women have to do
> with
> > you. i.e., nothing.
> >
> > The one thing that Clinton did which helped the
> > market was to *LOWER* capital gains taxes.
>
> Keep telling yourself that stooge.
>
> Here are the numbers (GDP Growth by President &
> Congress)
>
> R - George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%)
> (divided congress 4 of 8 yrs)
> R - George H.W. Bush, 2.1% (divide congress)
> R - Gerald Ford, 2.2% (divided congress)
> R - Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5% (all GOP)
> R - Richard Nixon, 3.0% (divided congress)
> D - Jimmy Carter, 3.2% (all Democrats)
> R - Ronald Reagan, 3.5% (divided)
> D - Bill Clinton, 3.8% (divided congress 6 of 8
> yrs)
> D - Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0% (all Democrats)
> D - John F. Kennedy, 5.4% (all Democrats)


Well isn't that a bitch... BOOM!

Yes sir
Attachments:

jacey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Fair enough. So do you want me to use the low or
> when he took office? Either way, my 401k returns
> have been pretty good the last 6 years.


You can count whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that the dumb meme image and counting from the bottom is bullshit any way that you want to count it.

Over +6 years the market has recovered about to where it would have been had the crash not happened. Actually, it's still slightly lower than the historical curve. That is, had things continued along the same slope it would be higher today. That's especially true on a real-dollar adjusted basis.

This is a little bit old but I'm not going to bother generating a current chart and it works well enough to show the effect. You can raise the line at the end a little near to where the prior peaks are.

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just digging your hole deeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Republicans or Democrats have about as much to
> do
> > with the market as beautiful women have to do
> with
> > you. i.e., nothing.
> >
> > The one thing that Clinton did which helped the
> > market was to *LOWER* capital gains taxes.
>
> Keep telling yourself that stooge.
>
> Here are the numbers (GDP Growth by President &
> Congress)
>
> R - George W. Bush, 1.6% (previously 1.7%)
> (divided congress 4 of 8 yrs)
> R - George H.W. Bush, 2.1% (divide congress)
> R - Gerald Ford, 2.2% (divided congress)
> R - Dwight Eisenhower, 2.5% (all GOP)
> R - Richard Nixon, 3.0% (divided congress)
> D - Jimmy Carter, 3.2% (all Democrats)
> R - Ronald Reagan, 3.5% (divided)
> D - Bill Clinton, 3.8% (divided congress 6 of 8
> yrs)
> D - Lyndon B. Johnson, 5.0% (all Democrats)
> D - John F. Kennedy, 5.4% (all Democrats)


And, again, you're stupid enough to buy into crap like this.

Anybody that thinks that a Pres. has anything to do with the rise or fall of the stock market deserves a bulllet in the head, , you know ,to clear up the gene pool for rational people.

Doing good
Attachments:

Shovels for sale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jacey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Fair enough. So do you want me to use the low
> or
> > when he took office? Either way, my 401k
> returns
> > have been pretty good the last 6 years.
>
>
> You can count whatever you want. The fact of the
> matter is that the dumb meme image and counting
> from the bottom is bullshit any way that you want
> to count it.
>
> Over +6 years the market has recovered about to
> where it would have been had the crash not
> happened. Actually, it's still slightly lower
> than the historical curve. That is, had things
> continued along the same slope it would be higher
> today. That's especially true on a real-dollar
> adjusted basis.
>
> This is a little bit old but I'm not going to
> bother generating a current chart and it works
> well enough to show the effect. You can raise the
> line at the end a little near to where the prior
> peaks are.
>
> src="http://www.aboutinflation.com/_/rsrc/13718782
> 20782/Dow-Jones-vs-Inflation/Dow_Jones_Industrial_
> Average_Inflation_Adjusted_chart_May_2013.png"
> width="800">


1. Thought you said using DJIA was moronic?
2. He's counting from where Obama took office, which happens to coincide with a near bottom, which happens to be due to the prior administrations crap policy driving us into the ground.

>> And, again, you're stupid enough to buy into crap like this.

>> Anybody that thinks that a Pres. has anything to do with the rise or fall of the stock market deserves a bulllet in the head, , you know ,to clear up the gene pool for rational people.

I love how the idiots (mostly rightards) always have an explanation for everything that shows otherwise. Yet they never give any evidence. Just stated assertions like they were fact. So according to you, in response to my list, is that the dems have been lucky enough to be president at the exact times to occupy 4 of the last 10 TOP spots of economic growth for the last 50 years. That's your story?

Lemme guess, you're a climate change denier too.

The economy sucks. Read between the lines of Yellen's testimony on Tuesday to Congress. There's a reason the Fed continues to provide free money to banks and lenders. It's the only thing keeping this thing from crashing again. Full time, high paying jobs are hard to find - ask any college graduate. Almost all job growth has been in lower-paying service industry and retail.

Under democrats, the rich get much richer and the poor get a few extra goodies. The middle class takes it in the ass. Under republicans the rich get much richer and the middle class gets a few extra goodies and the poor take it in the ass. Bottom line for all you retards out there:

If you're rich, it doesn't matter who's in charge, because they're working for you.
If you're middle class, go for the republicans.
If you're poor, go for democrats

Just The Facts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The economy sucks. Read between the lines of
> Yellen's testimony on Tuesday to Congress.
> There's a reason the Fed continues to provide free
> money to banks and lenders. It's the only thing
> keeping this thing from crashing again. Full
> time, high paying jobs are hard to find - ask any
> college graduate. Almost all job growth has been
> in lower-paying service industry and retail.

This is b/c trickle down economics doesn't work outside of Government. Because the government's job is the economy and everyone else's job is for themselves (except maybe for philanthropists).

>
> Under democrats, the rich get much richer and the
> poor get a few extra goodies. The middle class
> takes it in the ass. Under republicans the rich
> get much richer and the middle class gets a few
> extra goodies and the poor take it in the ass.
> Bottom line for all you retards out there:
>


> If you're rich, it doesn't matter who's in charge,
> because they're working for you.

Dems prefer to tax the rich, support unions, and raise minwage b/c they believe there are not enough incentives for the rich to distribute their wealth in proportion to their success. But this is capitalism! People want to get richer each year! The problem is that the rich can afford to wait longer than the poor can fight against inflation. Walmart's latest $9 mw was nothing more than a move to get in front of mw laws that was demanding more. They can now say, "see, the market works" when in fact a $10+ mw was what was being pushed. Had this effort not happened, Walmart would not have been incentivize to raise their mw at all (why would they. Why would anyone?). btw- Unions can get ridiculously out of check too.

Repubs want to cut taxes, which while noble, does not work b/c while they claim they want small government, their actions speak otherwise. Recent extreme tax cutting "experiments" by GOP governor Sam Brownback has failed miserably (http://www.wsj.com/articles/sam-brownbacks-tax-cut-push-puts-kansas-out-on-its-own-1402448126). Again, capitalism expects everyone to hoard their wealth and only share when they have to. There needs to be an equalizer.

> If you're middle class, go for the republicans.

Dems want to cut middle class taxes and raise taxes for the wealthy. GOP wants to cut taxes for everyone. I don't see how the latter balances out (esp since the GOP only talks about cutting government spending and not actually apply it)

> If you're poor, go for democrats

Dems want to help the poor more (they assume the majority of the poor are already working hard) while the GOP prefer to institute policies to force the poor to work harder (they don't believe the majority of the poor are working hard enough). Of course, there are going to be examples of both players in the system. The trick is to find the right balance of help and hurt to work. If that formula was known, parents would always raise perfect children and the world would be better off.

You also forgot: vote GOP if you want a gov't that will prioritize Military growth, vote DEM if you want a gov't that will prioritize Domestic/Economic growth. The GOP may have a point in that military strength laid a foundation for economic stability for which we can build on w/o overwhelming foreign intrusion, but an argument could be made that we're sufficiently militarized at this point and can ease off a bit to the benefit of concentrating in other domestic areas.

While we've all seen graphs like this before, it's worth a reminder.

They love him in Kenya.

Crown thy good
Attachments:

...
Attachments:

"Because the government's job is the economy and everyone else's job is for themselves (except maybe for philanthropists)."


Perhaps you should brush up on the US Constitution a little.

The governments "job" has never been the economy.

EVER.

Of course that never stopped them from trying to take over the economy at every turn.

Now communism, there's a "government" that will take care of the economy for you.

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Thought you said using DJIA was moronic?

It is. And if you knew what it was, how it's calculated, and how it changes over time, then you'd understand why. But it's the meme you went with so I stuck with that. Otherwise you'd be even more lost since you have no talking points to parrot back in response to anything else.


> 2. He's counting from where Obama took office,
> which happens to coincide with a near bottom,
> which happens to be due to the prior
> administrations crap policy driving us into the
> ground.
>

Which as I explained is idiotic. Again though, I do understand that you're a moron and believe in dumb meme pics like that though so...


> >> And, again, you're stupid enough to buy into
> crap like this.
>
>
> I love how the idiots (mostly rightards) always
> have an explanation for everything that shows
> otherwise. Yet they never give any evidence.
> Just stated assertions like they were fact. So
> according to you, in response to my list, is that
> the dems have been lucky enough to be president at
> the exact times to occupy 4 of the last 10 TOP
> spots of economic growth for the last 50 years.
> That's your story?
>
> Lemme guess, you're a climate change denier too.


That's because there typically is a more complete explanation for stupid, distorted, out-of-context, bullshit memes that you believe in you fucking dolt. lmao

Look retard, although I understand that being a high school kid you wouldn't know this, but people have been putting together simple little comparisons like that forever. For a variety of obvious reasons nobody with a functioning brain takes any of it seriously.

Key among them being that economic cycles don't align with election cycles, there's a whole world of significant externalities which come into play, and, as even you seem to realize in your comments above, a President's term isn't isolated in some way from what has happened prior to. Even to the extent that what a President may do something, there is in most cases significant lag time before the full economic effects appear. If you look at a line plot of GDP for example as you gave it or whatever else, then you'll see that periods of growth/slowing begin far prior to and spill over into following terms versus your snapshot view.

Your obvious fail is that you actually do *believe* this kind of crap. Sucker. lol

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Because the government's job is the economy and
> everyone else's job is for themselves (except
> maybe for philanthropists)."
>
>
> Perhaps you should brush up on the US Constitution
> a little.
>
> The governments "job" has never been the economy.
>
> EVER.
>
> Of course that never stopped them from trying to
> take over the economy at every turn.
>
> Now communism, there's a "government" that will
> take care of the economy for you.


Let's not kid ourselves. The economy IS the most important to the USA. All the other shit is side noise (including Constitution banter). Money=Power (eg The military guys aren't working for shits and giggles).

Think 4 Yourself! Wrote:
> Let's not kid ourselves. The economy IS the most
> important to the USA. All the other shit is side
> noise (including Constitution banter).
> Money=Power (eg The military guys aren't working
> for shits and giggles).


That doesn't change the fact that the economy is not the governments job.

Don't change your slant midstream.

The government is not the USA either.

Snow shovels for sale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Look retard, although I understand that being a
> high school kid you wouldn't know this, but people
> have been putting together simple little
> comparisons like that forever. For a variety of
> obvious reasons nobody with a functioning brain
> takes any of it seriously.
>
> Key among them being that economic cycles don't
> align with election cycles, there's a whole world
> of significant externalities which come into play,
> and, as even you seem to realize in your comments
> above, a President's term isn't isolated in some
> way from what has happened prior to. Even to the
> extent that what a President may do something,
> there is in most cases significant lag time before
> the full economic effects appear. If you look at
> a line plot of GDP for example as you gave it or
> whatever else, then you'll see that periods of
> growth/slowing begin far prior to and spill over
> into following terms versus your snapshot view.
>
> Your obvious fail is that you actually do
> *believe* this kind of crap. Sucker. lol


Again, you state absolutely nothing in your response but a lot of hand waving and hot air. Yeah things don't stop and start on a dime but you're moronic if you don't think the Presidents policies can effect the economy. The decisions and the execution of those decisions is what matters (GWB complete bungling of the wars come to mind; 50B my ass). This economy was complete shit when it was handed over to Obama and his action could have made things much worse or much better. It wasn't predestined, as your "cyclic" comments would make it out to be, that it got better. Keynes won.

Deal with it.

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Again, you state absolutely nothing in your
> response but a lot of hand waving and hot air.
> Yeah things don't stop and start on a dime but
> you're moronic if you don't think the Presidents
> policies can effect the economy. The decisions
> and the execution of those decisions is what
> matters (GWB complete bungling of the wars come to
> mind; 50B my ass). This economy was complete shit
> when it was handed over to Obama and his action
> could have made things much worse or much better.
> It wasn't predestined, as your "cyclic" comments
> would make it out to be, that it got better.
> Keynes won.
>
> Deal with it.


And, once again, you don't seem to understand that your own posts as above completely undercut your idiotic GDP growth under various Presidents nonsense. lmao

You're a moron. Deal with it.

Shit shovels 4 sale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> And, once again, you don't seem to understand that
> your own posts as above completely undercut your
> idiotic GDP growth under various Presidents
> nonsense. lmao
>
> You're a moron. Deal with it.

Your reading comprehension skills suck worse than your ability to argue your points. I can't reason with stupid and you are, as I noted earlier, Palin Stupid.

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> That doesn't change the fact that the economy is
> not the governments job.
>
> Don't change your slant midstream.
>
> The government is not the USA either.

No slant. I just choose to call a spade a spade.

Who gives a shit what the Russians think?

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your reading comprehension skills suck worse than
> your ability to argue your points. I can't reason
> with stupid and you are, as I noted earlier, Palin
> Stupid.


In your own argument you concede that what happened during Bush's term affected what happened during Obama's term. Do you really not understand how that blows your entire ring-fenced GDP growth by President meme out of the water? lol

BTW, you left Obama off of the list. On the same basis, his first term would come in at 1.1%. Second term obviously isn't complete but unless something drastic happens either way, then it likely will net out in the low 2.x range.

Enjoying a day off from school? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> In your own argument you concede that what
> happened during Bush's term affected what happened
> during Obama's term. Do you really not understand
> how that blows your entire ring-fenced GDP growth
> by President meme out of the water? lol


I stated that Obama was handed a bag of shit and turned it around. I also stated that the Presidents policies DO effect the economy. Thereby negating your "Anybody that thinks that a Pres. has anything to do with the rise or fall of the stock market deserves a bulllet in the head, , you know ,to clear up the gene pool for rational people." statement. Yet you somehow read it as a supporting claim for your belief that the president has no effect on the SM (and thereby the economy).

This is exactly why you are a moron of the highest order, dimwit.

btw- Glad you learned the word "meme" today. Hint: You don't really need to use it in every response.

>Who gives a shit what the Russians think?

See, that's the problem. While far from our best president, Mr. Obama has accomplished a number of things the GOP would give their left nut to be able to claim. But since he's the opposition, there has to be some reason why these are actually scathing criticisms rather than political advantages.

Example: Bin Laden is found in Pakistan and Obama orders him killed. How to celebrate this without giving Obama a win? Why, in claiming he ordered Bin Laden killed, Obama 'claimed too much credit' for it, practically acting like he was there with a gun in his hand! What a slap in the face to our fine armed forces who actually did the deed! Except that Obama did order it, him being president and all.

The current 'scandal' about how the world 'hates obama' has gotten even more ridiculous. I'm especially enjoyed the concurrent 'Obama is acting like an dictator' bit while at the same time contrasting Obama with actual dictators to show what a toothless pussy he is, and how America would be so much better off if we had a real leader like Putin in control. The fact that this makes not a blind bit of sense doesn't slow the Fox machine down a bit, nor faze their demographic. If it did, they'd realize that Obama being demonized in Iran and Russia - probably means he's doing something right. Which I'm sure the GOP would heartily agree with except for one thing: it would give Obama a win.

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I stated that Obama was handed a bag of shit and
> turned it around. I also stated that the
> Presidents policies DO effect the economy.
> Thereby negating your "Anybody that thinks that a
> Pres. has anything to do with the rise or fall of
> the stock market deserves a bulllet in the head, ,
> you know ,to clear up the gene pool for rational
> people." statement. Yet you somehow read it as a
> supporting claim for your belief that the
> president has no effect on the SM (and thereby the
> economy).
>
> This is exactly why you are a moron of the highest
> order, dimwit.


And, once again, this is exactly how you prove that you're a dumbshit.

You posted the stupid GDP by President crap. That was what I was responding to pointing out that your own argument, which you again make here, completely undercuts how that's (disingenuously) presented.

Second, I didn't make the post that you quote. What I posted was:

> "Republicans or Democrats have about
> as much to do with the market
> as beautiful women have to do with you.
> i.e., nothing."

To which you responded, inappropriately, with your dumb off-point GDP growth by President crap.

In either case, the stock market isn't "the economy." Which, as you show above, you also seem to fail to understand.

>
> btw- Glad you learned the word "meme" today.
> Hint: You don't really need to use it in every
> response.

Just calling it for what it is. Would you rather me call it pure bullshit.

Oh, and I should clarify the numbers above. the 2.x would be that for Obama's second term. Overall net for both terms likely will work out to be 1.something. So tell him to get his ass to work, he's fucking your meme all up. lol

Stay in School Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And, once again, this is exactly how you prove
> that you're a dumbshit.
>
> You posted the stupid GDP by President crap. That
> was what I was responding to pointing out that
> your own argument, which you again make here,
> completely undercuts how that's (disingenuously)
> presented.

Please learn to read! You keep arguing from ignorance. The president policies do affect the economy during his term. Do you disagree?

>
> Second, I didn't make the post that you quote.
> What I posted was:
>
> > "Republicans or Democrats have about
> > as much to do with the market
> > as beautiful women have to do with you.
> > i.e., nothing."
>
> To which you responded, inappropriately, with your
> dumb off-point GDP growth by President crap.

Again, there is a correlation. Submitting budgets, their foreign policy, enacting/vetoing bills, etc. ALL contribute to the performance of the economy DURING their tenure. You cannot possibly be this stupid to think otherwise.

>
> In either case, the stock market isn't "the
> economy." Which, as you show above, you also seem
> to fail to understand.

blah blah. Point to when the SM wasn't in lockstep with the economy (if not a leading indicator). Stop being foolish.

>
> >
> > btw- Glad you learned the word "meme" today.
> > Hint: You don't really need to use it in every
> > response.
>
> Just calling it for what it is. Would you rather
> me call it pure bullshit.
>
> Oh, and I should clarify the numbers above. the
> 2.x would be that for Obama's second term.
> Overall net for both terms likely will work out to
> be 1.something. So tell him to get his ass to
> work, he's fucking your meme all up. lol

Actually, the photo was the meme. I guess you don't know the definition after all.

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stay in School Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > And, once again, this is exactly how you prove
> > that you're a dumbshit.
> >
> > You posted the stupid GDP by President crap.
> That
> > was what I was responding to pointing out that
> > your own argument, which you again make here,
> > completely undercuts how that's
> (disingenuously)
> > presented.
>
> Please learn to read! You keep arguing from
> ignorance. The president policies do affect the
> economy during his term. Do you disagree?


You're the one who needs to learn how to read dumbshit. Nobody said that a President's policies could not have some effect on the economy. What was said was that (1) the stock market isn't "the economy" an your posting of the GDP bs therefore was off point, and (2) even in the case that you want to talk about policies per your dumb GDP bs, that a President's policies aren't independent of other events (including policy of prior Presidents for the better or worse) and don't begin and end in some alignment with their terms as your bs presents.

Yes, I realize that's a lot to try to take into that little peanut-sized brain of yours. Sorry, I can't turn it into a meme pic for you.

> >
> > Second, I didn't make the post that you quote.
> > What I posted was:
> >
> > > "Republicans or Democrats have about
> > > as much to do with the market
> > > as beautiful women have to do with you.
> > > i.e., nothing."
> >
> > To which you responded, inappropriately, with
> your
> > dumb off-point GDP growth by President crap.
>
> Again, there is a correlation. Submitting
> budgets, their foreign policy, enacting/vetoing
> bills, etc. ALL contribute to the performance of
> the economy DURING their tenure. You cannot
> possibly be this stupid to think otherwise.

See above. Whatever the number in your bs happens to be for any given President isn't in any way solely dependent on whatever policy decisions they may make during their term. Most often they are in the position of reacting to economic and other external events than directing them. That includes the effects of policy decisions by prior Presidents. As you yourself seem to recognize and argue otherwise you fucking retard. lol

>
> >
> > In either case, the stock market isn't "the
> > economy." Which, as you show above, you also
> seem
> > to fail to understand.
>
> blah blah. Point to when the SM wasn't in
> lockstep with the economy (if not a leading
> indicator). Stop being foolish.


Uh, you mean like over the last 6 years when the market was booming while employment, wage growth, various specific sectors of the economy were not? Or like when the market fell dramatically yet GDP didn't? Or any number of other various disconnects. Maybe you should try to better define what you mean by "the economy."

>
> >
> > >
> > > btw- Glad you learned the word "meme" today.
> > > Hint: You don't really need to use it in
> every
> > > response.
> >
> > Just calling it for what it is. Would you
> rather
> > me call it pure bullshit.
> >
> > Oh, and I should clarify the numbers above.
> the
> > 2.x would be that for Obama's second term.
> > Overall net for both terms likely will work out
> to
> > be 1.something. So tell him to get his ass to
> > work, he's fucking your meme all up. lol
>
> Actually, the photo was the meme. I guess you
> don't know the definition after all.


Wrong again Short Bus. A "meme" is not necessarily limited to pictures.

>A "meme" is not necessarily limited to pictures.

I'm not sure why but I've always thought it was an inelegant word. I mean I know what the guy was going for and I can't say I have anything better, but it's just awkward somehow. Useful though.

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >A "meme" is not necessarily limited to pictures.
>
> I'm not sure why but I've always thought it was an
> inelegant word. I mean I know what the guy was
> going for and I can't say I have anything better,
> but it's just awkward somehow. Useful though.


This adds to the discussion how? More ramblings from your oxygen-deprived peanut brain. STFU dumbass.

>This adds to the discussion how? More ramblings from your oxygen-deprived peanut brain. STFU dumbass.

I thought the conversation had touched on 'memes'. When it gets round to 'gargling balls', please feel free to chime in.

Booya.

Short Bus Shorty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You're the one who needs to learn how to read
> dumbshit. Nobody said that a President's policies
> could not have some effect on the economy. What
> was said was that (1) the stock market isn't "the
> economy" an your posting of the GDP bs therefore
> was off point, and (2) even in the case that you
> want to talk about policies per your dumb GDP bs,
> that a President's policies aren't independent of
> other events (including policy of prior Presidents
> for the better or worse) and don't begin and end
> in some alignment with their terms as your bs
> presents.
>

Huh? someone did say it as you quoted it and denied responsibility for writing it (though who the hell knows if you're lying or not as you keep jumping from moniker to moniker). So you're a dumbass for missing that. Secondly, the way you've strictly argued against using the GDP numbers + your confusing statement below about Republicans and Democrats having nothing to do with the markets (what does this even mean??) lead me to believe you don't believe the President has anything to do with the direction of the economy. Now, it looks like you're changing your position to say that he does to an extent but not entirely.



>
> > >
> > > Second, I didn't make the post that you quote.
>
> > > What I posted was:
> > >
> > > > "Republicans or Democrats have about
> > > > as much to do with the market
> > > > as beautiful women have to do with you.
> > > > i.e., nothing."
> > >
> > > To which you responded, inappropriately, with
> > your
> > > dumb off-point GDP growth by President crap.
>
> >
> > Again, there is a correlation. Submitting
> > budgets, their foreign policy, enacting/vetoing
> > bills, etc. ALL contribute to the performance
> of
> > the economy DURING their tenure. You cannot
> > possibly be this stupid to think otherwise.
>
> See above. Whatever the number in your bs happens
> to be for any given President isn't in any way
> solely dependent on whatever policy decisions they
> may make during their term. Most often they are
> in the position of reacting to economic and other
> external events than directing them. That
> includes the effects of policy decisions by prior
> Presidents. As you yourself seem to recognize and
> argue otherwise you fucking retard. lol

I haven't been arguing that policies don't overlap retard. I've been arguing that their actions during their current term DO affect the economy during their tenure. You were resisting this notion prior and now are conceding it to be the case. Obama could have brought in a fed chief with a tighter monetary policy but he didn't. Because of that, the economy is in a much different state.

>
>
> Uh, you mean like over the last 6 years when the
> market was booming while employment, wage growth,
> various specific sectors of the economy were not?
> Or like when the market fell dramatically yet GDP
> didn't? Or any number of other various
> disconnects. Maybe you should try to better
> define what you mean by "the economy."

The SM is a leading indicator of the economy. By virtually all measures, thing have improved under this president. Only people looking for a reason to knock this president think otherwise.


> Wrong again Short Bus. A "meme" is not
> necessarily limited to pictures.

Look up the word meme and stop looking like an idiot (and stop using it until you know what it means). I wasn't asserting that a meme had to be a picture.

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Short Bus Shorty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You're the one who needs to learn how to read
> > dumbshit. Nobody said that a President's
> policies
> > could not have some effect on the economy.
> What
> > was said was that (1) the stock market isn't
> "the
> > economy" an your posting of the GDP bs
> therefore
> > was off point, and (2) even in the case that
> you
> > want to talk about policies per your dumb GDP
> bs,
> > that a President's policies aren't independent
> of
> > other events (including policy of prior
> Presidents
> > for the better or worse) and don't begin and
> end
> > in some alignment with their terms as your bs
> > presents.
> >
>
> Huh? someone did say it as you quoted it and
> denied responsibility for writing it (though who
> the hell knows if you're lying or not as you keep
> jumping from moniker to moniker). So you're a
> dumbass for missing that. Secondly, the way
> you've strictly argued against using the GDP
> numbers + your confusing statement below about
> Republicans and Democrats having nothing to do
> with the markets (what does this even mean??) lead
> me to believe you don't believe the President has
> anything to do with the direction of the economy.
> Now, it looks like you're changing your position
> to say that he does to an extent but not entirely.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Second, I didn't make the post that you
> quote.
> >
> > > > What I posted was:
> > > >
> > > > > "Republicans or Democrats have about
> > > > > as much to do with the market
> > > > > as beautiful women have to do with you.
> > > > > i.e., nothing."
> > > >
> > > > To which you responded, inappropriately,
> with
> > > your
> > > > dumb off-point GDP growth by President crap.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Again, there is a correlation. Submitting
> > > budgets, their foreign policy,
> enacting/vetoing
> > > bills, etc. ALL contribute to the performance
> > of
> > > the economy DURING their tenure. You cannot
> > > possibly be this stupid to think otherwise.
> >
> > See above. Whatever the number in your bs
> happens
> > to be for any given President isn't in any way
> > solely dependent on whatever policy decisions
> they
> > may make during their term. Most often they
> are
> > in the position of reacting to economic and
> other
> > external events than directing them. That
> > includes the effects of policy decisions by
> prior
> > Presidents. As you yourself seem to recognize
> and
> > argue otherwise you fucking retard. lol
>
> I haven't been arguing that policies don't overlap
> retard. I've been arguing that their actions
> during their current term DO affect the economy
> during their tenure. You were resisting this
> notion prior and now are conceding it to be the
> case. Obama could have brought in a fed chief
> with a tighter monetary policy but he didn't.
> Because of that, the economy is in a much
> different state.
>
> >
> >
> > Uh, you mean like over the last 6 years when
> the
> > market was booming while employment, wage
> growth,
> > various specific sectors of the economy were
> not?
> > Or like when the market fell dramatically yet
> GDP
> > didn't? Or any number of other various
> > disconnects. Maybe you should try to better
> > define what you mean by "the economy."
>
> The SM is a leading indicator of the economy. By
> virtually all measures, thing have improved under
> this president. Only people looking for a reason
> to knock this president think otherwise.
>
>
> > Wrong again Short Bus. A "meme" is not
> > necessarily limited to pictures.
>
> Look up the word meme and stop looking like an
> idiot (and stop using it until you know what it
> means). I wasn't asserting that a meme had to be
> a picture.

So let me get this straight. Obama, the guy that campaigned AGAINST wall street and FOR main street (remember that horse shit?) and who promised to end all the Bush tax credits but instead extended them, is responsible for the current success of the stock market?

So by continuing Bush's policies and turning his back on his voters and his campaign promises the stock market has done well.

So basically, Obama did nothing he promised but he did continue Bush's policies and passed Obamacare to help insurance companies profit and their stocks increase.

So, one can only assume the success of the stock market making the rich richer is Bush's fault.

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >This adds to the discussion how? More ramblings
> from your oxygen-deprived peanut brain. STFU
> dumbass.
>
> I thought the conversation had touched on 'memes'.
> When it gets round to 'gargling balls', please
> feel free to chime in.
>
> Booya.


You thought? That's a good one numbers abelard. Your parents are still waiting for the day their failure of a creation actually fires enough synapses to form a decent, non-faggy thought. But I'm sure your beating that little dick of yours feverishly thinking about a thread on gargling balls. Can you homos think of nothing else?

Still the most boring poster on the underground - by a mile.

>But I'm sure your beating that little dick of yours feverishly thinking about a thread on gargling balls. Can you homos think of nothing else?

Hee - you know ZZZzzzzzz, every time I'm just sure you're an obvious Eesh puppet you do something like use 'your' instead of 'you're' (which is the contraction for 'you are' - your grammar is improving, your writing ... not so much) which I'm pretty sure Eesh would never do. I will give you this - your both way too easy to bait. I'm gonna miss you when you get tired of being my punching bag.

Did you just lecture him on [your/you're] grammar then type:

I will give you this - your both way too easy to bait.

>I will give you this - your both way too easy to bait.

'ZZzzzzzz' is the sound of line going out when you've hooked a live one. That was bait for him - see how easy this is?

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >I will give you this - your both way too easy to
> bait.
>
> 'ZZzzzzzz' is the sound of line going out when
> you've hooked a live one. That was bait for him -
> see how easy this is?


Sure genius. Ouch, what one had to hurt more than usual retard. LOL

 

 
Attachments:

>Sure genius. Ouch, what one had to hurt more than usual retard. LOL

I get that a lot. So, Zzzzzz is also 'ableard'. Interesting.

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >I will give you this - your both way too easy to
> bait.
>
> 'ZZzzzzzz' is the sound of line going out when
> you've hooked a live one. That was bait for him -
> see how easy this is?


As I've told you 1000 times moron, almost everyone here hates your sorry ass. Your sad-sack coping mechanism that it's only one person just makes you more of a pathetic boor. Ask Cary how many people it is if you don't believe me.

And you fell for my trap, per usual. Always three steps behind and too smart by half. That's are abelard.

 
Attachments:

>And you fell for my trap, per usual. Always three steps behind and too smart by half. That's are abelard.

... bit more line, let 'em run a bit, then set the hook.

Come on Zzzz, I even told you this was bait. God, this is like fishing with dynamite. Not much sport, but sometimes a little is enough.

ETA: and you actually made graphics. Sigh.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 01:51PM by abelard.

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Huh? someone did say it as you quoted it and
> denied responsibility for writing it (though who
> the hell knows if you're lying or not as you keep
> jumping from moniker to moniker). So you're a
> dumbass for missing that. Secondly, the way
> you've strictly argued against using the GDP
> numbers + your confusing statement below about
> Republicans and Democrats having nothing to do
> with the markets (what does this even mean??) lead
> me to believe you don't believe the President has
> anything to do with the direction of the economy.
> Now, it looks like you're changing your position
> to say that he does to an extent but not entirely.
>

No, I didn't miss it idiot. Obviously not since I pointed out that it wasn't mine. Because you can't keep up with threads isn't my problem.

You're obviously lost here, mostly because of your own confusion in attempting to equate the stock market with "the economy."

I never argued against using GDP dummy. I pointed out that the meme pic and the information within was bullshit. And that, among the rest of the bullshit, using the *Dow* (not GDP) as a basis for calculating the long-term basis for value of the market highlights a basic lack of understanding. That was the discussion until you jumped in with your dumb GDP-by-administration bs.

Furthermore, I never argued that a President's policies could not have some effects on "the economy" as you're now trying to imply. What I said was that your GDP-by-administration post was bullshit for obvious reasons as I noted.

>
> I haven't been arguing that policies don't overlap
> retard. I've been arguing that their actions
> during their current term DO affect the economy
> during their tenure. You were resisting this
> notion prior and now are conceding it to be the
> case. Obama could have brought in a fed chief
> with a tighter monetary policy but he didn't.
> Because of that, the economy is in a much
> different state.


Now you're attempting to shift to a more rational argument which wasn't what was being discussed. But which, again as I said, still undercuts your own GDP-by-administration bs.

Let me try to explain it as clearly as possible. I'll type slow since you seem to have problems following...

If you realize that there is significant "overlap" and influence from one to another (along with a whole world of external factors which come into play), then that is implicit acknowledgement on your part that your ring-fenced GDP-by-administration "meme" based on some independent (from the economic variables) dates of their terms is bullshit.

Got it now?

>
> The SM is a leading indicator of the economy. By
> virtually all measures, thing have improved under
> this president. Only people looking for a reason
> to knock this president think otherwise.


It's not really. As I gave examples above. Again, you need to better define "the economy." You're speaking in general terms because you don't really know enough to argue otherwise.

>
> Look up the word meme and stop looking like an
> idiot (and stop using it until you know what it
> means). I wasn't asserting that a meme had to be
> a picture.

You're the one who needs to look up the term. But mostly I've been using it more just because I know that it annoys you. lol

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >And you fell for my trap, per usual. Always three
> steps behind and too smart by half. That's are
> abelard.
>
> ... bit more line, let 'em run a bit, then
> set the hook.
>
> Come on Zzzz, I even told you this was bait. God,
> this is like fishing with dynamite. Not much
> sport, but sometimes a little is enough.
>
> ETA: and you actually made graphics. Sigh.



> Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 01:51PM by abelard.

Why are you having to constantly edit your lame posts. Are you trying to make them uber-lame or (and I really hope this isn't true) are they even lamer before you edit them. How the latter is even possible is beyond comprehension.

abelard, a legend in his own shriveled brain.

BTW: sighing in a post screams "fag". More and more, abelard and numbers appear to converge.

BTW2: I'm one of the other guys retard. Yes, there really are many of us.

>BTW2: I'm one of the other guys retard.

One of the other guys has a retard and you're him? Good to know.

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >BTW2: I'm one of the other guys retard.
>
> One of the other guys has a retard and you're him?
> Good to know.


I see your comprehension skills continue to operate at the level of an over-rip potato. Good job giving the rest of the morons someone to look down on.

>Yes, there really are many of us.

Oh, don't worry about distinguishing yourself - it's readily apparent that you're quite the retard.

Back of the bus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> No, I didn't miss it idiot. Obviously not since I
> pointed out that it wasn't mine. Because you
> can't keep up with threads isn't my problem.

So why did you say no one claimed it?

>
> You're obviously lost here, mostly because of your
> own confusion in attempting to equate the stock
> market with "the economy."
>
> I never argued against using GDP dummy. I pointed
> out that the meme pic and the information within
> was bullshit. And that, among the rest of the
> bullshit, using the *Dow* (not GDP) as a basis for
> calculating the long-term basis for value of the
> market highlights a basic lack of understanding.
> That was the discussion until you jumped in with
> your dumb GDP-by-administration bs.

Let's see what the photo actually said "half of the current value of the us stock market was created between 1817 and 2009. the other half was created under barack obama".

This is technically true given where the SM is at today vs where it was in 2009 when he took office (even inflation adjusted ad you like to argue). So you've been arguing incorrectly since you didn't understand it to begin with douchebag. You're trying to make a side argument saying that it was higher at various times in the past but that's not what it says. It's saying today vs when he got into office. This is true dummy!

>
> Furthermore, I never argued that a President's
> policies could not have some effects on "the
> economy" as you're now trying to imply. What I
> said was that your GDP-by-administration post was
> bullshit for obvious reasons as I noted.
>
> >
> > I haven't been arguing that policies don't
> overlap
> > retard. I've been arguing that their actions
> > during their current term DO affect the economy
> > during their tenure. You were resisting this
> > notion prior and now are conceding it to be the
> > case. Obama could have brought in a fed chief
> > with a tighter monetary policy but he didn't.
> > Because of that, the economy is in a much
> > different state.
>
>
> Now you're attempting to shift to a more rational
> argument which wasn't what was being discussed.
> But which, again as I said, still undercuts your
> own GDP-by-administration bs.

Not shifting anything. I can't be responsible for your lack of reading comprehension (as illustrated above).

>
> Let me try to explain it as clearly as possible.
> I'll type slow since you seem to have problems
> following...
>
> If you realize that there is significant "overlap"
> and influence from one to another (along with a
> whole world of external factors which come into
> play), then that is implicit acknowledgement on
> your part that your ring-fenced
> GDP-by-administration "meme" based on some
> independent (from the economic variables) dates of
> their terms is bullshit.
>
> Got it now?

Stop right here. You claim "significant" overlap. Not me. Reread. And the external factors (or more correctly how he chooses to react to them) directly affects the economy. So quit the bullshit mantra of the sitting President has very little control of the economy. They make lots of decisions during their tenure that directly impact the economy.

>
> >
> > The SM is a leading indicator of the economy.
> By
> > virtually all measures, thing have improved
> under
> > this president. Only people looking for a
> reason
> > to knock this president think otherwise.
>
>
> It's not really. As I gave examples above.
> Again, you need to better define "the economy."
> You're speaking in general terms because you don't
> really know enough to argue otherwise.

Whatever, we know unemployment is down, inflation is tame, etc. As I said, virtually all measures have improved since his appointment.

>
> You're the one who needs to look up the term. But
> mostly I've been using it more just because I know
> that it annoys you. lol

Good come back. Use a word incorrectly b/c you don't know better and claims to do so, to annoy someone else. This is another reason you're an idiot.

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Yes, there really are many of us.
>
> Oh, don't worry about distinguishing yourself -
> it's readily apparent that you're quite the
> retard.


Why do hillbilly dumbasses like you just keep posting stupid shit like so,e 5 year old trying to get the last word? It's a fucking psychosis. You should get your two brain cells checked to see if one of them has died. In the meantime, STFU. Thanks in advance.....

 
Attachments:

>In the meantime, STFU. Thanks in advance.....

See that, you're doing great - how many of the other retards would post something they found on the internet to seem smart?

Oh, right - all of them.

ETA: >an over-rip potato.

'Overripe' is one big word, not two little ones with a hyphen, and there's an e at the end. Gonna be honest, not your best work. The other retards are catching up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 03:28PM by abelard.

whitey righty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back of the bus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > No, I didn't miss it idiot. Obviously not since
> I
> > pointed out that it wasn't mine. Because you
> > can't keep up with threads isn't my problem.
>
> So why did you say no one claimed it?

They didn't you fucking idiot.

They said:

> Anybody that thinks that a
> Pres. has anything to do with
> the rise or fall of the stock market
> deserves a bulllet in the head.

Once again, reflecting your own failure in distinguishing the stock market from "the economy."

>
> Let's see what the photo actually said "half of
> the current value of the us stock market was
> created between 1817 and 2009. the other half was
> created under barack obama".
>
> This is technically true given where the SM is at
> today vs where it was in 2009 when he took office
> (even inflation adjusted ad you like to argue).
> So you've been arguing incorrectly since you
> didn't understand it to begin with douchebag.
> You're trying to make a side argument saying that
> it was higher at various times in the past but
> that's not what it says. It's saying today vs
> when he got into office. This is true dummy!
>

No, it's not even technically correct as I previously explained. Very clearly not on a real-dollar basis. Which you obviously don't understand to even be making that claim.

> Not shifting anything. I can't be responsible for
> your lack of reading comprehension (as illustrated
> above).
>

Uh, yeah, you are. Your change in argument to whether a President can have some effect on the economy came way later and doesn't track with what was being discussed relative to the stock market and then to the obvious problems in the GDP-by-administration data that you posted. Now you're trying to turn what I'd said with respect to both of the former to imply that I was saying that a President has nothing to do with the economy. Which I'd never done. All of which anyone who's capable of following the thread will plainly see.

>
> Stop right here. You claim "significant" overlap.
> Not me. Reread. And the external factors (or
> more correctly how he chooses to react to them)
> directly affects the economy. So quit the
> bullshit mantra of the sitting President has very
> little control of the economy. They make lots of
> decisions during their tenure that directly impact
> the economy.

The policy of a prior President may significantly affect economic conditions in the case of a following President(s). Even you appear to realize that. Which means that your GDP-by-administration crap is flawed at a fundamental level.

And now once AGAIN you try the same bullshit of flipping it to me saying that a President has very little control of the economy. lol Seriously guy... Are you really that stupid?

Let me try AGAIN to get it through that thick skull of yours. Yes, what a President does can affect the economy. Nobody said otherwise despite your attempts to claim so. But what they do and whatever effects, positive or negative as they may eventually turn out, does not somehow begin and end in some alignment with the dates of their term. Therefore, your GDP-by-administration crap is crap.

Got it now or do I have to pound it in even harder?

>
> Whatever, we know unemployment is down, inflation
> is tame, etc. As I said, virtually all measures
> have improved since his appointment.
>

Yeah, whatever... lol

No, all measures have not improved since his election (not appointment). Even if they had it's still off-point with respect to the discussion of the *stock market* as you diverted from to begin with.


> Good come back. Use a word incorrectly b/c you
> don't know better and claims to do so, to annoy
> someone else. This is another reason you're an
> idiot.

Do i really have to copy and paste the definition of "meme" and (even further) prove that you're an idiot?

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >In the meantime, STFU. Thanks in advance.....
>
> See that, you're doing great - how many of the
> other retards would post something they found on
> the internet to seem smart?
>
> Oh, right - all of them.
>
> ETA: >an over-rip potato.
>
> 'Overripe' is one big word, not two little ones
> with a hyphen, and there's an e at the end. Gonna
> be honest, not your best work. The other retards
> are catching up.


> Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 03:28PM by abelard.


Oh look, another edit. Why the constant edits abelard? Didn't get a chance to fix the "you're" error earlier before someone caught it. Too funny! Spelling nazis who are always having to edit their own errors. Like I said, a stupid fucking moron of the 1st order.

 
Attachments: