Wow what a bunch of contortion's.
Oh, and I'm a lefty Eurotrash yuppy scumbag who thinks the GOP is pure concentrated evil. So before you consider accusing me of being Republican, know that I am critiquing the article's approach to logic, argumentation and respect for the reader's intelligence, NOT the content itself.
So many you can't even be bothered to refute them!
Bubble intact!
As Obama correctly pointed out in the past, the national debt is a serious threat to national security.
One of the ways Clinton balanced the budget was by putting the entire country on an adjustable rate mortgage. Rather than financing the government with 30 year bonds, the average maturity on government debt is now under 5 years. That means the federal budget is strongly influenced by interest rate fluctuations. The government can't balance the budget when interest rates are close to zero, so guess what would happen if China decided to dump a trillion dollars worth of US debt on the market at one time. Interest rates would go through the roof and the government would be bankrupt almost immediately. Doing so would cost China a trillion dollars, but nobody said war was cheap.
Regardless of how true these "facts" are, the article (and this thread) is deceptive. The title refers to the presidency but the facts relate to the state of the economy. The reader is encouraged to assume that the presidency is responsible for the state of the economy, but is actually given no objective evidence to support this. The implication is simply that A was followed by B, and therefore B must be directly caused by A.
If you tried to pull this in an assignment back in my uni days (political science school) you might have gotten a few points for the facts but ultimately would have failed any argumentative essay assignment.
"Interesting," isn't it?
Argue with the facts in the article.
The record speaks for itself- Repubs love debt, except when Dems are in the oval office. then it's the Devil.
Reagan/GHWB quadruped the debt. GWB doubled it again. Wake me when Obama does something similar.
Under lock & key in care of the Mullahs of... Benghazi! With guns from... Fast & Furious! All part of the evil IRS plot to persecute Uber Wealthy Repub donors & bring on Sharia Law!
Both the repubs and dems do the same old shit. Massage the real facts to say whatever you want. Stretch the truth, or bend it to whatever message you would like someone to believe.
Suck on the tit all you want. We both know the truth, these 14 points isn't the truth.
I'm voting 3rd party for the first time in my life today for that reason. I'm tired of both groups doing the same things while pointing the finger at the other party. Both the Democrats and Republicans at this point don't care about you or me, they just want to stay in power so they can continue to be elected royalty.
I'm voting 3rd party for the first time in my life today for that reason. I'm tired of both groups doing the same things while pointing the finger at the other party. Both the Democrats and Republicans at this point don't care about you or me, they just want to stay in power so they can continue to be elected royalty.
welcome to reality. Wish more people would visit.
Voting third party is pointless. Any system where 51% of the vote = 100% of the representation you will usually end up with only two parties. This is just the logical outcome.
Agitate to change our system, don't waste your time with third parties.
you are part of the political problem that i can not stand. you support your party NO MATTER WHAT. Fanatics on both sides are evil.
Don't forget that it's surrounded by a moat of ebola.
Moronic partisan twit. Spending has increased the least under Obama of any president since Eisenhower.
Don't let facts interfere with the formulation of your opinions, such as they are.
Explain the debt increase then. If spending decreased where the fuck did all the debt come from under Obama's term?
Voting third party is pointless. Any system where 51% of the vote = 100% of the representation you will usually end up with only two parties. This is just the logical outcome.
Agitate to change our system, don't waste your time with third parties.
Regardless of how true these "facts" are, the article (and this thread) is deceptive. The title refers to the presidency but the facts relate to the state of the economy. The reader is encouraged to assume that the presidency is responsible for the state of the economy, but is actually given no objective evidence to support this. The implication is simply that A was followed by B, and therefore B must be directly caused by A.
If you tried to pull this in an assignment back in my uni days (political science school) you might have gotten a few points for the facts but ultimately would have failed any argumentative essay assignment.
"Interesting," isn't it?
You'd be amazed. Jon Stewart made the same mistake when debating Bill O'Reilly. Jon thought the debt was cut in half. Bill had to correct him by saying the deficit was cut in half; the debt is cumulative and has not been reduced....Seriously? If there's a deficit, the debt goes up. Even if the deficit goes down, the debt still goes up just slower....
I ... I am massively confused as to how this isn't obvious to you. I'm pretty sure this is a concept I could've figured out by the end of 2nd grade. You were educated past the age of 7, right?
A third party candidate in my area said she would fight against Canada's tar sand. How does that work? If we're getting oil from Montana or British Columbia, there's no way of knowing what kind of oil it is. Some of it might be conventional, some of it might be shale oil, some of might be sand oil, some of it might be from Saudi Arabia. What's even more weird is that the candidates against oil from Canada never say anything about stopping oil from Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.Unfortunately - having viewed many of the 3rd party options in my area - most seem pretty crazy. One guy listed as part of his qualifications "I used to weight 450lbs but lost 250 so I know how to reign in spending" Wait...what? Or the guy who said "If the government wasn't making so many darn roads the free market would have given me a Jetsonmobile by now."
I know the person I vote for has about zero chance of winning. But, I feel the third party candidate is the best of the bunch, or at least lines up with my views best. Maybe if more people voted for third party candidates the snowball will start rolling and getting bigger. If the press has to talk about non-Dem/Repub candidates because they get a respectable number of votes, maybe things will start picking up over time for some of those parties.
But but what about Obummer is a socialist and a failed President?