Wow

HeavyG

fishlessman said:

JohnInCarolina said:

I tend to agree with the sentiment that First Ladys should be off-limits.  Kids of the first family as well.  

you should try and explain that to the libs, media, and hollywood. seems to be a daily ritual against the current first lady, more than ive ever seen.

"More than you've ever seen"????

You gotta be kidding right? Tho, the comment didn't include your usual surfeit of emoticons so it is hard to tell.

I can't count how many times there were comments from "angry" white folks, many of whom were politicians, who made disparaging/racist comments about Michelle over the past eight years.

Guess this gem from a West Virginia politician is already forgotten by those on the right (perhaps because so many of them agree with the sentiments?):

 "It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels (sic)." 

Sardonicus

HeavyG said:

fishlessman said:

JohnInCarolina said:

I tend to agree with the sentiment that First Ladys should be off-limits.  Kids of the first family as well.  

you should try and explain that to the libs, media, and hollywood. seems to be a daily ritual against the current first lady, more than ive ever seen.

"More than you've ever seen"????

 . . .

Guess this gem from a West Virginia politician is already forgotten by those on the right (perhaps because so many of them agree with the sentiments?):

 "It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels (sic)." 

I've seen many such lines & memes aimed at Ms. Obama posted, re-posted, and/or "liked" by several on this very forum.  Indeed, possibly by a couple/three posters on this thread.
  

JohnInCarolina

blasting said:

JohnInCarolina said:

blasting said:

Common John, you're not really quoting Obama's job numbers with a straight face, are you?

Real apples to apples numbers will tell the whole story.  Trump will embarrass Obama, or himself.  We shall see, but no doubt it will be interesting.

What would the real "apples to apples numbers" be, in your view?  

There are many.  Gdp and # of americans receiving entitlements would be a good start.  The jobs number is a good one, but how that number was altered and needs to be measured consistently from president to president.  I hate fuzzy math.   Trump is guilty of it, just as obama was.

https://dailyreckoning.com/top-10-market-indicators-of-economic-development/

How the jobs number "was altered" ?  Not sure what you mean by that.  I mean, do you really think the administration has been falsely reporting them?

There are many indicators, and sure, we can look at more.  But let's get real: making direct connections between Presidents, their policies, and economic growth is actually fairly difficult.  There are a lot of things that happen that impact an economy that have almost nothing to do with them.  

pgprescott

Sardonicus said:

HeavyG said:

fishlessman said:

JohnInCarolina said:

I tend to agree with the sentiment that First Ladys should be off-limits.  Kids of the first family as well.  

you should try and explain that to the libs, media, and hollywood. seems to be a daily ritual against the current first lady, more than ive ever seen.

"More than you've ever seen"????

 . . .

Guess this gem from a West Virginia politician is already forgotten by those on the right (perhaps because so many of them agree with the sentiments?):

 "It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels (sic)." 

I've seen many such lines & memes aimed at Ms. Obama posted, re-posted, and/or "liked" by several on this very forum.  Indeed, possibly by a couple/three posters on this thread.
  

Like your own comments you apologized for moments ago. Point being it's easy to judge others, but it seems rare that anyone engages in a little introspection. I applaud your mea culpa.

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

blasting said:

JohnInCarolina said:

blasting said:

Common John, you're not really quoting Obama's job numbers with a straight face, are you?

Real apples to apples numbers will tell the whole story.  Trump will embarrass Obama, or himself.  We shall see, but no doubt it will be interesting.

What would the real "apples to apples numbers" be, in your view?  

There are many.  Gdp and # of americans receiving entitlements would be a good start.  The jobs number is a good one, but how that number was altered and needs to be measured consistently from president to president.  I hate fuzzy math.   Trump is guilty of it, just as obama was.

https://dailyreckoning.com/top-10-market-indicators-of-economic-development/

How the jobs number "was altered" ?  Not sure what you mean by that.  I mean, do you really think the administration has been falsely reporting them?

There are many indicators, and sure, we can look at more.  But let's get real: making direct connections between Presidents, their policies, and economic growth is actually fairly difficult.  There are a lot of things that happen that impact an economy that have almost nothing to do with them.  

You do understand how they account for things, right? First they set forth a set of rules or criteria for the counting (this is where the magic happens) then they count. It's real easy to get a certain result. For instance, not counting those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits as unemployed. This sort of thing has been going on for decades, The story is that this admin has been overly proficient using these tactics and the MSM has completely ignored the facts because they chose to fawn over the leader. 

Sardonicus

JohnInCarolina said:

blasting said:

JohnInCarolina said:

blasting said:

Common John, you're not really quoting Obama's job numbers with a straight face, are you?

Real apples to apples numbers will tell the whole story.  Trump will embarrass Obama, or himself.  We shall see, but no doubt it will be interesting.

What would the real "apples to apples numbers" be, in your view?  

There are many.  Gdp and # of americans receiving entitlements would be a good start.  The jobs number is a good one, but how that number was altered and needs to be measured consistently from president to president.  I hate fuzzy math.   Trump is guilty of it, just as obama was.

https://dailyreckoning.com/top-10-market-indicators-of-economic-development/

How the jobs number "was altered" ?  Not sure what you mean by that.  I mean, do you really think the administration has been falsely reporting them?

There are many indicators, and sure, we can look at more.  But let's get real: making direct connections between Presidents, their policies, and economic growth is actually fairly difficult.  There are a lot of things that happen that impact an economy that have almost nothing to do with them.  

And, as serious, informed observers know, the dominant economic effects of one administration/presidency tend to bleed over into the next.  Often for extended periods.  
Months.  Years, even.

So it was with the Bush 'legacy' re: the Obama Presidency - So it is now.

Trump's 'inheritance' is far, far rosier than was Obama's.

pgprescott

Sardonicus said:

JohnInCarolina said:

blasting said:

JohnInCarolina said:

blasting said:

Common John, you're not really quoting Obama's job numbers with a straight face, are you?

Real apples to apples numbers will tell the whole story.  Trump will embarrass Obama, or himself.  We shall see, but no doubt it will be interesting.

What would the real "apples to apples numbers" be, in your view?  

There are many.  Gdp and # of americans receiving entitlements would be a good start.  The jobs number is a good one, but how that number was altered and needs to be measured consistently from president to president.  I hate fuzzy math.   Trump is guilty of it, just as obama was.

https://dailyreckoning.com/top-10-market-indicators-of-economic-development/

How the jobs number "was altered" ?  Not sure what you mean by that.  I mean, do you really think the administration has been falsely reporting them?

There are many indicators, and sure, we can look at more.  But let's get real: making direct connections between Presidents, their policies, and economic growth is actually fairly difficult.  There are a lot of things that happen that impact an economy that have almost nothing to do with them.  

And, as serious, informed observers know, the dominant economic effects of one administration/presidency tend to bleed over into the next.  Often for extended periods.  
Months.  Years, even.

So it was with the Bush 'legacy' re: the Obama Presidency - So it is now.

Trump's 'inheritance' is far, far rosier than was Obama's.

So the job growth has Bush's accomplishment?  All the Clinton growth was really Bush the elder? Where do you draw the line? Oh wait. i know, its right were the jobs started to tick up, right? The economy is crap. I hope you will see a real robust economy in the coming years. I don't disagree per se, but its funny coming from you. Strange things come out of the woodwork when its convenient. Apologist alert!!!!

Sardonicus

Some us need Jesus more than others. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjz-ByF0HIo

pgprescott

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSBuDTV4VE

blasting

 
Of course there is bleed over from one admin to the next.  That said, I think this will be pretty clear - I don't think it will even be in question.  Very soon the left won't want to talk about economics.

The left has much bigger problems.  The 9th circuit has opened the floodgates from the seven countries that Trump tried to stop.  The first attack by one of these immigrants, Trump will absolutely lay it (rightly so) at the feet of the dems.  If I were a dem, I'd be furious that my party continues to walk into the buzzsaw.  I get they hate Trump, but they just are not playing smart.

Sardonicus

blasting said:

 
Of course there is bleed over from one admin to the next.  That said, I think this will be pretty clear - I don't think it will even be in question.  Very soon the left won't want to talk about economics.

. . .

And why wouldn't "the left" want to talk about economics?  Once President Trump lowers the inherited 4.8% employment rate and increases the inherited almost 20,000 pt DJIA even further, there will be elements to emulate and elements in need of rejection.  
Unless Trump proves to be perfect - something not achieved by any POTUS - there'll be something to talk about.

As an aside:
(Maybe on another un-sunken thread, someone will calmly, rationally, and hatelessly define the oft-used term, "the left".)
Or not.

Whatever.
  

JohnInCarolina

blasting said:

 
Of course there is bleed over from one admin to the next.  That said, I think this will be pretty clear - I don't think it will even be in question.  Very soon the left won't want to talk about economics.

The left has much bigger problems.  The 9th circuit has opened the floodgates from the seven countries that Trump tried to stop.  The first attack by one of these immigrants, Trump will absolutely lay it (rightly so) at the feet of the dems.  If I were a dem, I'd be furious that my party continues to walk into the buzzsaw.  I get they hate Trump, but they just are not playing smart.

Under Obama, how many terrorist attacks by citizens of these seven countries occurred inside of the United States?

Then ask yourself, why wasn't Pakistan included?

Finally, ask yourself what it means to be smart.

JohnInCarolina

How... Presidential!

pgprescott

Sardonicus said:

blasting said:

 
Of course there is bleed over from one admin to the next.  That said, I think this will be pretty clear - I don't think it will even be in question.  Very soon the left won't want to talk about economics.

. . .

And why wouldn't "the left" want to talk about economics?  Once President Trump lowers the inherited 4.8% employment rate and increases the inherited almost 20,000 pt DJIA even further, there will be elements to emulate and elements in need of rejection.  
Unless Trump proves to be perfect - something not achieved by any POTUS - there'll be something to talk about.

As an aside:
(Maybe on another un-sunken thread, someone will calmly, rationally, and hatelessly define the oft-used term, "the left".)
Or not.

Whatever.
  

Bogus number. Accounting trick. Labor participation rate is way off because he sucked so bad many have left the work force. How do you square all the college grads having trouble finding decent work. I assume you know this but refuse to admit it because it is counter to your belief system. 

Sardonicus

blasting said:

 
. . .

The left . . .   The 9th circuit has opened the floodgates from the seven countries that Trump tried to stop.  The first attack by one of these immigrants, Trump will absolutely lay it (rightly so) at the feet of the dems.  . . .

That is an absolutely horrible interpretation!  As it would be horrid to blame President Bush and the Repubs for the 911 attacks.  There are other examples re other presidents.  

We know that there will be other attacks and/or attempts.  It doesn't matter who is President.  To get involved in pre-blaming is . . .

The terrorists enjoy our silliness re this, I'd bet.

Sardonicus

Okay, @JohnInCarolina .  I'm not getting it re your current avatar.
What gives?

JohnInCarolina

"Who are you going to believe?  Your own lying eyes or the voices inside my head?"

Sardonicus

That ain't Groucho Marx.

JohnInCarolina

Sardonicus said:

Okay, @JohnInCarolina .  I'm not getting it re your current avatar.
What gives?

Sometimes all you need is a real cool hand.

Sardonicus

AH!!!!!!!!

bigbadben

Sardonicus said:

blasting said:

 
. . .

The left . . .   The 9th circuit has opened the floodgates from the seven countries that Trump tried to stop.  The first attack by one of these immigrants, Trump will absolutely lay it (rightly so) at the feet of the dems.  . . .

That is an absolutely horrible interpretation!  As it would be horrid to blame President Bush and the Repubs for the 911 attacks.  There are other examples re other presidents.  

We know that there will be other attacks and/or attempts.  It doesn't matter who is President.  To get involved in pre-blaming is . . .

The terrorists enjoy our silliness re this, I'd bet.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt are left off the travel ban. Not because the people in those countries love us, because Trump does business there. 

Sardonicus

bigbadben said:

Sardonicus said:

blasting said:

 
. . .

The left . . .   The 9th circuit has opened the floodgates from the seven countries that Trump tried to stop.  The first attack by one of these immigrants, Trump will absolutely lay it (rightly so) at the feet of the dems.  . . .

That is an absolutely horrible interpretation!  As it would be horrid to blame President Bush and the Repubs for the 911 attacks.  There are other examples re other presidents.  

We know that there will be other attacks and/or attempts.  It doesn't matter who is President.  To get involved in pre-blaming is . . .

The terrorists enjoy our silliness re this, I'd bet.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt are left off the travel ban. Not because the people in those countries love us, because Trump does business there. 

And if refugees/travelers from the places you've named perpetrate attacks, it won't be President Trump's fault.  Not individually.  
It may very well be because he/we insist on a zero-sum approach to that and every other problem we face.

blasting

Sardonicus said:

blasting said:

 
. . .

The left . . .   The 9th circuit has opened the floodgates from the seven countries that Trump tried to stop.  The first attack by one of these immigrants, Trump will absolutely lay it (rightly so) at the feet of the dems.  . . .

That is an absolutely horrible interpretation.  As it would be horrid to blame President Bush and the Repubs for the 911 attacks.  There are other examples re other presidents.  

We know that there will be other attacks and/or attempts.  It doesn't matter who is President.  To get involved in pre-blaming is . . .

The terrorists enjoy our silliness re this, I'd bet.

No, it is absolutely accurate.  

Trump tried to put a hold on specific immigration from 7 different countries.

He was protested and blocked.  

When something bad happens, something perpetrated by someone who was let in from one of the 7 countries after his attempted ban... should that be blamed on the guy who saw the threat and tried to block it?

The terrorists have said they will infiltrate the immigrants.  I suppose they might have been kidding.  Trumps actions seem to have a better chance of keeping American families safe, but then I may note fully understand the strategy of letting everyone in.

As far as the terrorists thinking we're silly... I'm guessing we are not quite as silly to them now that we have a president who can actually speak their name.

Sardonicus

blasting said:

Sardonicus said:

blasting said:

 
. . .

The left . . .   The 9th circuit has opened the floodgates from the seven countries that Trump tried to stop.  The first attack by one of these immigrants, Trump will absolutely lay it (rightly so) at the feet of the dems.  . . .

That is an absolutely horrible interpretation.  As it would be horrid to blame President Bush and the Repubs for the 911 attacks.  There are other examples re other presidents.  

We know that there will be other attacks and/or attempts.  It doesn't matter who is President.  To get involved in pre-blaming is . . .

The terrorists enjoy our silliness re this, I'd bet.

No, it is absolutely accurate.  

. . .

Okay, then.
  

pgprescott

bigbadben said:

Sardonicus said:

blasting said:

 
. . .

The left . . .   The 9th circuit has opened the floodgates from the seven countries that Trump tried to stop.  The first attack by one of these immigrants, Trump will absolutely lay it (rightly so) at the feet of the dems.  . . .

That is an absolutely horrible interpretation!  As it would be horrid to blame President Bush and the Repubs for the 911 attacks.  There are other examples re other presidents.  

We know that there will be other attacks and/or attempts.  It doesn't matter who is President.  To get involved in pre-blaming is . . .

The terrorists enjoy our silliness re this, I'd bet.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt are left off the travel ban. Not because the people in those countries love us, because Trump does business there. 

Wrong. Because they actually have a functioning government with controls on travel. One simply has to use a few brain cells to figure this out. It's hard , I know. 

JohnInCarolina

blasting said:

As far as the terrorists thinking we're silly... I'm guessing we are not quite as silly to them now that we have a president who can actually speak their name.

Do folks really believe this sort of thing?

I notice the question of why Pakistan was left off the ban was met with crickets.

Sardonicus

JohnInCarolina said:

blasting said:

As far as the terrorists thinking we're silly... I'm guessing we are not quite as silly to them now that we have a president who can actually speak their name.

Do folks really believe this sort of thing?
. . .

 

Yes, John.  Yes, they do.
Sad.

PlanSB

Some of you are really scared, must suck to live your life with such fear. If i were you i would not be worried about immigrant terrorists, the numbers say you shouod be more worried about domestic terrorism perpetrated by an american. 

HeavyG

JohnInCarolina said:

How... Presidential!

I follow this Twitter account for additional amusement to Trumpty Dumpty's tweets:

JohnInCarolina

PlanSB said:

Some of you are really scared, must suck to live your life with such fear. If i were you i would not be worried about immigrant terrorists, the numbers say you shouod be more worried about domestic terrorism perpetrated by an american. 

A lot of concealed carry folks.  Not just terrorists they're irrationally afraid of here.