Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
When one (that would be Obama) does just about anything he can to retard economic growth ("growth" = increasing REAL JOBS and DOMESTIC PRODUCTION and SMALL BUSINESSES) and assure that a WELFARE NANNY STATE expands .... then one can distinguish .... which is not "having it both ways"!
"Regs and Uncertainty"!
That's an opinion and not really a very good one.
But we aren't even disagreeing. You appear to be saying that Obama owns the shitty growth and doubling of the debt. And I agree.
But I also think - unlike Bambino, apparently - that Bush owns the Great Recession. He had 8 years to guide the economy away from the shoals. But he crashed it on the rocks. So he takes the blame, too.
I don't characterize that because I don't have to, mope.
Gee, that's odd. You didn't hesitate to characterize the 3rd quarter 2016 results for the OP, did you mope?
But you won't answer my simple question on how to characterize an 8.2% drop in GDP?
It's ok. I understand. You don't want to admit to losing the argument even more decisively than you did last time.
Which has nothing to do with when the last recession officially started or ended. It has to do with when the financial meltdown occurred and when the economy tanked.
Gee, that's odd. You didn't hesitate to characterize the 3rd quarter 2016 results for the OP, did you mope?
No, not odd at all. That's because THIS thread is about the OP's desperate attempt to make 2.9% for a single quarter look like an Obama accomplishment.
Our last argument in the OTHER thread was about you acting like a know-it-all while bungling the start and end dates of the Great Recession. I made the simple and accurate statement that it began in December 2007 and you tried to "set the record straight" like a pompous ass and tried to tell us it began at the end of 2008, just before the election. When I pointed out the true dates, you tried to switch to "brunt" of the recession.
You got schooled by me. But rather than shutting up, you have turned into a stalker who followed me to this thread to try to revive the argument - even thought this thread is about something different.
THAT is how we all know that YOU know you lost the argument in the other thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
It's ok. I understand. You don't want to admit to losing the argument even more decisively than you did last time.
Look in the mirror on this one, Stalker Lad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
Which has nothing to do with when the last recession officially started or ended. It has to do with when the financial meltdown occurred and when the economy tanked.
It has EVERYTHING to do with when the Great Recession began and ended. Because that is the point YOU GOT WRONG when you tried to correct me.
And it is why you continually try to change the subject to something you think favors you.
But that won't be happening because I will not let you change the subject, Stalker Lad.
No, not odd at all. That's because THIS thread is about the OP's desperate attempt to make 2.9% for a single quarter look like an Obama accomplishment.
So you know exactly how to characterize 2.9% growth, but you don't have a clue how to describe -8.2%? How does that work again? Is it like the way you can easily characterize your own puny 3" dick - but you turn speechless at an 8-incher? You either know how to gauge and measure and evaluate these things or you don't! Which is it, mope?
Our last argument in the OTHER thread was about you acting like a know-it-all while bungling the start and end dates of the Great Recession. I made the simple and accurate statement that it began in December 2007 and you tried to "set the record straight" like a pompous ass and tried to tell us it began at the end of 2008, just before the election. When I pointed out the true dates, you tried to switch to "brunt" of the recession.
I already explained to you at least 3 times I wasn't challenging the official start and end dates for the recession. What I challenged was your reference to the "2007 financial meltdown". Only a blind masochist like you is so stubborn that he can't bring himself to say – oops, I meant 2008! There was no financial "meltdown" in 2007. I already pointed out to your willfully retarded ass that the DJIA hit an all-time high in October 2007 – if anything, that is a MELT-UP rather than a meltdown, you dolt.
You got schooled by me. But rather than shutting up, you have turned into a stalker who followed me to this thread to try to revive the argument - even thought this thread is about something different.
THAT is how we all know that YOU know you lost the argument in the other thread.
Look in the mirror on this one, Stalker Lad.
Love your Baghdad Bob imitation! Have you tried stand-up comedy? Maybe you could go back to New York and join the cast of SNL!
It has EVERYTHING to do with when the Great Recession began and ended. Because that is the point YOU GOT WRONG when you tried to correct me.
Quit lying, pinocchio. As your fellow New Yawker Warner Wolf likes to say - "let's go to the videotape!" Here is your original post and my response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant
After the 2007 financial meltdown, NOBODY on Wall Street or in government got punished....
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
The meltdown was in 2008/09, not 2007.
And it is why you continually try to change the subject to something you think favors you.
But that won't be happening because I will not let you change the subject, Stalker Lad.
Who's changing the subject? I came onto this thread to compliment you because it appeared you actually knew how to read and interpret GDP data for a change! You're too ill-mannered to accept the compliment. So I guess you want us to go back to thinking you're still an ignorant mope when it comes to economics. Ok, ignorant mope – if you insist!
Aw, fuck! I forgot you can't respond to embedded rebuttals. Oh well, I guess that means you lose again, Carlos Danger. Don't let me divert you from your next sexting session.
Originally Posted by Revenant View Post
No, not odd at all. That's because THIS thread is about the OP's desperate attempt to make 2.9% for a single quarter look like an Obama accomplishment.
STALKERLAD:
So you know exactly how to characterize 2.9% growth, but you don't have a clue how to describe -8.2%? How does that work again? Is it like the way you can easily characterize your own puny 3" dick - but you turn speechless at an 8-incher? You either know how to gauge and measure and evaluate these things or you don't! Which is it, mope?
Revenant: MORE LIES. You are trying to change the subject from the start and end date of the Great Recession - which YOU got wrong.
You are now obsessed - for reason only YOU know - with trying to get me to characterize 2.9$ growth vs. -8.2%. As if that weill somehow correct your error on the dates of the Great Recession. It won't and I won't play your game, Stalker Lad.
BTW - nice Freudian slip talking about dick sizes. I didn't realize you were a pathetic homo. I thought the tranny fuckee had that franchise locked up.
Our last argument in the OTHER thread was about you acting like a know-it-all while bungling the start and end dates of the Great Recession. I made the simple and accurate statement that it began in December 2007 and you tried to "set the record straight" like a pompous ass and tried to tell us it began at the end of 2008, just before the election. When I pointed out the true dates, you tried to switch to "brunt" of the recession.
STALKER LAD - I already explained to you at least 3 times I wasn't challenging the official start and end dates for the recession. What I challenged was your reference to the "2007 financial meltdown". Only a blind masochist like you is so stubborn that he can't bring himself to say – oops, I meant 2008! There was no financial "meltdown" in 2007. I already pointed out to your willfully retarded ass that the DJIA hit an all-time high in October 2007 – if anything, that is a MELT-UP rather than a meltdown, you dolt.
Revenant - If that was even remotely true, why was it necessary for you to clarify the "brunt" of the recession being in 2008?
You got schooled by me. But rather than shutting up, you have turned into a stalker who followed me to this thread to try to revive the argument - even thought this thread is about something different.
THAT is how we all know that YOU know you lost the argument in the other thread.
Look in the mirror on this one, Stalker Lad.
Love your Baghdad Bob imitation! Have you tried stand-up comedy? Maybe you could go back to New York and join the cast of SNL! Is that supposed to be a response to something, Stalker Lad?
STALKER LAD - Who's changing the subject? I came onto this thread to compliment you because it appeared you actually knew how to read and interpret GDP data for a change! You're too ill-mannered to accept the compliment. So I guess you want us to go back to thinking you're still an ignorant mope when it comes to economics. Ok, ignorant mope – if you insist!
Revenant - Are you fucking kidding me? The ONLY reason you came into this thread was to resume the argument with me, Stalker Lad. You didn't even address your comments to MunchMaster the OP of the thread. When was the last time you did that?
Congratulations, rev-an-anus! You gave it the old college try and responded to my embedded comments! Too bad you made such a mess of it that nobody can figure out who said what. Next time try to change the font color each time you reply, mope.
Unfortunately, you forgot to say anything about our original disagreement, as replayed in the words of your fellow New Yawker Warner Wolf in my last post.
So "let's go to videotape - again!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant
After the 2007 financial meltdown, NOBODY on Wall Street or in government got punished....
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
The meltdown was in 2008/09, not 2007.
What say you, rev-an-anus? Still clinging to your laughable argument that the financial system melted down in 2007 - a year in which the DJIA hit a record high in the final quarter? Or would you prefer to save what little face you still have by issuing a retraction?
Far be it from me to stalk you, rev-an-anus. But since you don't have enough common sense to know when to cut your losses, how can I possibly be expected to refrain from handing your ass to you over and over again? That's what you want, right?
I've already explained it to you multiple times, but now you're asking for it yet again, so here goes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
Ok ExNYer, you should know better than to fuck with me on economics. I monitored the economy carefully through the entire 2008/09 recession and remember it like yesterday. Did you even bother to open and use the link I provided? It was for real GDP, which economists measure in order to pinpoint when recessions start and end. I assumed you were smart enough to figure out how to use the link, but evidently you're too clueless. So I will do everything for you. Here are the (annualized) percentage changes in real GDP for the 6 quarters starting with Q1 2008:
Do I need to interpret it for you, mope? The economy was bouncing up/down and basically going sideways until the fourth quarter of 2008 - when it suddenly fell off a cliff! Real GDP contracted at an annual rate of 8.2%, which is alarming. It continued to shrink at an annual rate of 5.4% in the first quarter of 2009, before bottoming out. From the recession's peak to trough, 84% of the slump in output was packed into Q4 2008 and Q1 2009 (the six-month period from October 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009).
So you are completely out to lunch with your assertion that “the economy was already in shambles” by the time Lehman collapsed in Sept. 2008. It was wobbling, but hardly in shambles yet...
All the empirical data supports everything I said. YOU are the only person who thinks otherwise. The real tanking didn't start until late 2008 – just in time to impact the November election. For the economy to “tank” means to head south in a hurry...
Congratulations, rev-an-anus! You gave it the old college try and responded to my embedded comments! Too bad you made such a mess of it that nobody can figure out who said what. Next time try to change the font color each time you reply, mope.
Unfortunately, you forgot to say anything about our original disagreement, as replayed in the words of your fellow New Yawker Warner Wolf in my last post.
So "let's go to videotape - again!"
What say you, rev-an-anus? Still clinging to your laughable argument that the financial system melted down in 2007 - a year in which the DJIA hit a record high in the final quarter? Or would you prefer to save what little face you still have by issuing a retraction?
So, THAT is what you are hanging your hat on? My use of the colloquialism "financial meltdown" is what you are basing your "argument" on?
Tell me, Stalker Lad, - since you think of yourself as some kind of economist - what is the definition of "financial meltdown"?
I mean, a "recession" is a objectively defined term in economics (typically 2 successive quarters of negative GDP). But what is the agreed-upon meaning of "financial meltdown"? I want a citation to an authority, NOT your self-serving bullshit.
Strangely enough, a Google search reveals nothing for "financial meltdown". And Google has a definition for practically everything.
The housing market bubble burst in 2006. By the end of 2007, financial losses were already crushing the big banks. They had $4.1 trillion in debt. All those CDOs were coming home to roost.
Bear Stearns was defunct by March 2008 - not the end of 2008. By September 2008, Lehman declared bankruptcy and Merrill was sold for pennies on the dollar. Do you think that Lehman and Merrill were not already in deep crisis by then?
You have a subjective opinion about what constitutes a "financial meltdown". If not, then why are you quoting the DJIA? What does that have to do with either the recession or the bank problems?
What difference does it make if the DJIA was at its high in the Q4 of 2007? The DJIA does NOT always align with the economy.
It is undisputed that the Great Recession went from December 2007 to about July 2009. Do you contest the start date because the DJIA was still high?
You have NO objective arguments to make - just your own hyperbole (cratering!) that is supposed to substitute for an argument.
You jumped into the thread to try to play the part of the intellectual and you stuck your foot in your mouth. All the rest of what you are trying to do is face saving. It isn't working.
Far be it from me to stalk you, rev-an-anus. But since you don't have enough common sense to know when to cut your losses, how can I possibly be expected to refrain from handing your ass to you over and over again? That's what you want, right?
The next time you hand me my ass will be the FIRST time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
I've already explained it to you multiple times, but now you're asking for it yet again, so here goes:
What is it that you imagine this explains?
Is this another attempt to shift the argument to when the "brunt" of the recession occurred - to try to cover the fact that you were WRONG about when it started (which was MY point)?
Wobbly? Going sideways? Are those some quantifiable terms?
I cite to you AGAIN, the NBER for when Great Recession began and ended:
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Once upon a time, fact-checking meant that newspapers, radio stations and television news broadcasts were obligated to check their facts before broadcasting or publishing them. Some newspapers and magazines boasted renowned departments filled with intellectuals whose restless minds roved over each line to ensure that the fewest possible errors would appear under that publication’s masthead.
But fact-checking of the media by itself has declined almost as badly as the Roman Empire. Errors routinely appear under storied mastheads followed by corrections that are published as a janitorial duty. There is very little concern for the facts even among the great names of publishing and broadcasting.
The media has stopped fact-checking itself and it now uses fact-checking largely to refer to a type of opinion journalism in which it “checks the facts” of public figures. The fall of fact-checking within the media has paralleled the rise of fact checking by the media of its political opponents. The media has become factless even as it deploys a term that once meant self-correction to instead correct others.
Fact checks once meant that reporters were expected to be accurate. These days they’re only expected to be politically correct. The media deploys fact checks to check political correctness, not facts. Its fact checks routinely venture into areas that are not only partisan, but subjective matters of opinion.
Consider Politico’s often mocked “fact check” of Donald Trump as to whether ISIS was indeed unbelievably evil. Under a banner headline, “Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths”, it zoomed in on a quote from his Florida rally.
“We’re presiding over something that the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable," Trump had said.
Politico swooped in to correct the candidate with its fact check. “Judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.”
There were no facts being checked here because Politico doesn’t seem to know what a fact even is.
The only information conveyed by this “fact check” is that Politico, like the rest of the media, does not like Donald Trump and would find a way to argue with him if he said that the sky was blue.
In the Daily Show media culture where overt bias and trolling are virtues, fact-checking is just another snotty variety of editorializing that attempts to compensate for perceptions of bias not with higher ethical and factual standards, but by rebranding its editorials as fact checks to gain credibility.
The ISIS evil “fact check” of Trump came from the same media outlet whose White House reporter decided that the Wisconsin flag, which carries the date 1848 to mark the state’s admission to the Union, was “a flag for the local union, Wisconsin 1848”. Politico ran an entire story asserting that Obama was flying a labor flag to oppose Governor Walker because its reporter couldn’t process basic history.
This is what happens when media outlets think that fact-checking is something that they do to Republicans rather than to themselves.
Fact-checking was one of those dinosaurs of journalism, like objectivity, which is viewed as largely irrelevant in a media culture whose Edward R. Murrow is Jon Stewart. Today’s millennial journalists spend most of their time exchanging sarcastic quips with their peers on Twitter, aspire to found their own Vox sites and write viral blog posts that seek a new angle on a trending left-wing narrative.
Fact checks often function as narrative defenses and meme attacks. That’s why the Washington Post decided to “fact check” a Saturday Night Live gag about Obama’s illegal alien amnesty. It’s not that anyone imagines that Saturday Night Live is in the business of producing facts that need checking. The Post was just worried that one of its jokes would go viral and hurt Obama and his agenda.
It’s the same reason that the paper “fact checked” a 13-year-old boy who claimed he was blocked by Obama on Twitter. This isn’t about the facts. It’s paranoia about social media narratives going viral.
This is more understandable if you stop thinking of the media in the old-fashioned sense as a series of papers, radio and television stations and start thinking of it as a massive machine that advocates for left-wing policies using its massive infrastructure and wealth to monopolize internet narratives.
Media outlets trade on their history, but they don’t resemble their past selves in any meaningful way.
The New Yorker once boasted a fact-checking department that was famous for its range, its depth and its resourcefulness in running down even the most obscure facts. But what use is such a thing at David Remnick’s New Yorker whose big draw comes from Andy Borowitz’s insipid near parodies? The New Republic went from respected liberal publication to another snarky and shrill social justice blog. CBS News cited a psychic site to explain that a fly landed on Hillary’s face to help her cope with stress.
This isn’t material that exists in the same realm as facts. It’s snarky contempt alternating with lowest common denominator propaganda. Left-wing journalism, like most left-wing culture, is totalitarian anti-intellectualism masquerading as enlightened intellectualism. The Soviet Union was quite fond of culture. It just hated the creative process that produced it because it was independent of Communist ideology. The left loves journalism; it just hates the objectivity that validates journalism as more than propaganda.
It’s this perverse anti-intellectualism that turned fact-checking from self-discipline to attack ad. Once journalism became pure left-wing advocacy, it also became inherently correct by virtue of being left-wing and was not in need of having its facts checked. When fact checks stopped being something that journalists did to themselves, first facts and then fact checks became meaningless. Unable to even recognize a fact, media fact checkers just wrote editorials which spiced their left-wing attacks on Republicans liberally with cargo cult invocations to “fact” as if it were some deity.
The average media fact check is a masterpiece of unintentional comedy for thinking adults.
At the Washington Post, Michelle Yee “fact checks” Donald Trump’s comment that Hillary’s email scandal is bigger than Watergate and concludes that since Watergate led to Nixon’s resignation and Hillary’s email scandal has yet to lead to any convictions, it can’t be bigger than Watergate. Since the scandal has yet to be resolved, a fact check of it could only take place in the future.
CNN featured Toronto Star “fact checker” Daniel Dale who claimed that Trump said 35 lies in one day.
The list of “lies” included deeming Trump’s statement that Hillary would raise taxes false because her plan only taxes the rich, asserting that there is no such thing as a “phony poll” and denying that Hillary Clinton had received debate questions. Some of these “lies” are themselves lies. Others, like Yee, show an inability to even understand what a fact is and what can and can’t be deemed false.
Just how degraded fact checking had become was made manifest when Hillary Clinton pleaded at the debate, “Please, fact checkers, get to work.” Her campaign site touted its own “fact checking” which was mostly indistinguishable from the media’s fact checking. That was a commentary on the transformation of the media into a left-wing politician’s spin center.
Nearly every media outlet now boasts a fact check blog or headlines touting fact checks. But the biggest fact checking department of the media, rather than by the media, isn’t in the United States, but in Germany. In America, fact checking has become a type of partisan attack launched by media outlets at their political opponents. It’s bigger than ever and also more worthless than ever because it is factless.
And those who do it often not only don’t know the facts, but don’t even know what a fact is.
You don't like that, ManAssLuver, here's another I'm sure you will like...
