Obama's Failures

It sure did. Because you were cornered and stopped replying.

And check the dates; this argument happened after the election, guy. I'm starting to maybe-possibly suspect you're not great with details. And besides, it speaks to your credibility. This "it's in the past" stuff is a BS politician's answer. You were completely in over your head and had no freaking idea what you were talking about, and now you won't even own up to it. That's shameful stuff.

It stopped because it becomes endless. I end all the discussions because you will argue ad infinitum.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Yeah, it became endless at the exact moment I showed that you were completely misreading the statistic. Funny how that works.

I know an attempt to save face when I see one. You just flat-out didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Read your last post. What were you saying there that required a rebuttal? It was rehashing the same stuff. If you think you were making some new profound point, i beg to differ.

No, I wasn't over my head. I found sources that refuted many of your historical claims.

Yeah, that's it. Flail even harder; that'll stop the drowning.

I had two "last posts," because you'd posted twice before that. You responded to neither. And this one required many very specific rebuttals. The "new point" was "uh, will, you've been completely misreading the statistic you've been arguing about for the last four posts." And then you hilariously used that misreading to argue the opposite of your position. Because that's what you do when you have a good grasp of the topic, right?

It was an absolute symphony of failure, which you're putting a note-perfect coda on right now.

I boned up I was misreading the number, so, again, what exactly is your point?

I'll say it again, if the economy is such a disaster, how did he get re-elected?

Well, first off, you never said "oops, misread a number." This is literally the first time you've admitted any mistake at all.

Second, it's really not possible for you to simply have "misread" the data but still understood the issue as a whole, since the interpretation and significance of the data was the entire point.

And third (and this is the real kick in the pants), you made an argument based on that mistake that completely flips once you correct it. Which means you've cornered yourself. Once the data is read correctly, you literally have to either argue with yourself, or concede that you were simply wrong. That's what makes the failure so spectacular.

Because of people like you.

I don't afree with what you are saying at all. The posts are there and you are suddenly arguing something you failed to do before. I made a mistake. But it doesn't make all the false statements you made about the historical data valid. so around and round we go.

Silliness. I'm referring to you admitting any mistake about this particular error, not anything, ever. It took literally eight posts to even get the word "misread" out of you. So now you're in the awkward position of arguing that this was a tiny, meaningless mistake that you nevertheless made a significant effort to avoid admitting. Yeahh...that makes sense.

And then based on that mistake you made an argument about how the direction the average is what moving matters most. When you correct the data, it shows that the average was getting worse. Ergo, you refuted your own position.

Oops.

Good lord. Do you have, like, an alternate version of every argument in your head where you're just shooting down people with your righteous fact missiles? Because the rest of us are experiencing something quite different. Something that looks more like panicked Googling.

Well, and because people like me.

Barack Obama isn't a perfect president, nor is he even a perfect man. We've yet to see one of either. But he does represent the Democratic party, and while I don't totally agree with some of the things they say and do, in the end my political leanings align most closely with that group.

I support animal rights, environmental protections, and the use of cleaner, more renewable forms of energy. I support "going green." I oppose corporate lobbying and the idea that corporations are individuals. I vehemently oppose big oil. I support taxation. I support campaign finance reform. I support regulating Wall Street. I support scaling back the military and ending our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm pro-choice. I support gay marriage rights. I support investing in healthcare, education, agriculture, science and technology, and the arts, and I believe those areas should take special priority.

In the last election, I didn't see those values on the GOP and Mitt Romney's side of the line. Obviously, not all of these values became initiatives in President Obama's first term, but a lot of them did. This is why I voted the way I did.

I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that the president, Republican or Democrat, will ever be wholly a success or wholly a failure. Nor will I suggest that the president stands alone in any continuing evaluation of the successes and failures of federal government. Finally, I will never apologize for who I vote for, or believe that my vote somehow represents a personal failure for America, any more than I'd expect others to do the same.

Yeah, I'm not being literal. will's question was ridiculous because it implied that it's impossible to get reelected when the economy's in terrible shape. Obviously it could mean one of a thousand other things; maybe they thought the labor market would get better. Maybe they thought Romney would be worse. Or maybe, like you, they care about all the other issues more. All obvious answers to a silly question.

We should argue about corporate personhood sometime, though. I think I might be able to persuade you on that; there's a lot of really terrible arguments surrounding it and a lot of very progressive reasons to support it.

Oh, like your false claim that all deep recessions/depressions have had fast recoveries except this one and the others where we didn't?

Uh, no you don't. You stopped responding completely after I pointed out the error, so what you're saying is literally impossible.

Ah, so you were spectacularly wrong about something we argued about for hours, and you thought the manly thing to do in the face of this was to go completely silent for six months and then refuse to admit it for half a dozen posts even after I pressed the issue. Whatta guy.

In case you're wondering, there's a reason I'm harping on this: because it happens all the time. You're constantly interjecting yourself into arguments you don't really understand, and what's worse, you seem to gain absolutely no humility when this is exposed.

Stop trying to wing your way through arguments. It never goes well for you, and it's pretty damn rude, besides.

Yeah, I know this game. This is where you refer back to something you merely tried to dispute as if it were a smoking gun. If I recall correctly, you tried to make a distinction between regular recessions and those involving banking crises, but all the other latter examples were utterly ancient and inapplicable.

But, if you want to say I made a false claim, prove it. Show me the precise claim, and the proof that it was false. I'll bet you it's a lot like what I just described.

Yes, exactly like that.

Yoda wins. Every time.

There, an objective verdict (though I'm sure it isn't somehow)

Then link to it already. Good grief.

My best guess is that you mean the "I understand it now" post, but that isn't correct. That's you just getting it wrong in a different way that you still don't realize argues against your position.

Not to mention that, if you had already admitted it, it would make zero sense to spend half a dozen posts evading it today.

Yeah, I expected I'd get another "No I'm not, you are" response to this. SOP.

I do the same thing, huh? I dive into arguments on topics I'm relatively ignorant of and f**k up so badly I end up arguing against myself? Sure.

I know about the topic I'm arguing. And, if I don't know about it, I refrain from arguing. I know it's a crazy idea, but give it a try.

Source the claim and we'll have the argument, guy. I shouldn't have to ask every time.

Also, the monsanto can do whatever the hell it wants without consequence bill that happened on his watch is utter fail.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

Don't forget the drone massacres Dexter

yes. ty winter, the Death from above drone strikes have been brutal.

The Shatty part of course is all the things that im Disapointed in Obama for, wouldnt be any differnt if Mittens had won.

3rd party candidates need to have ballot access across the country plus be involved in the televised debates, or going forward, it wont much matter who is selected prez.

i agree 100% with every word of this.