I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Funny Videos

Extreme Humor

Gorilla Mask

I hate retail

Viva La Games

Funny Stuff

Asylum

Oddee

Anon email

Chaostrophic

Funny Games

Crazy Games

Free Samples

FreeGame Heaven

Pugorama

Gamers Hood

Funny stuff

Funny Junk

123 Games

Goofy Humor

Not Healthy

Angelsfire.nl

Hot Games

Funny Picture



Back to Listing

Obama Vs Mitt: 2012 Presidential Debate Post-Game

Hits: 11583 | Rating: (2.3) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: fancylad
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5059 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 12:17:44 PM
CrakrJak

"That means Reagan had 70 months of unemployment over 10% in REAL unemployment numbers. So CLEARLY Obama didn't have more unemployment above 8% than all other presidents combined right? I'm just trying to follow. Well looky there a comparison, a comparison adding 3% to Reagan and nothing to Obama."

I feel like I'm going insane. I didn't say what Obama's number's were in that quote. All I did was turn Reagan's numbers into your "real" numbers thereby giving him 70 months of unemployment above 8%. Which is more months than Obama would have over 8%. I never said what Obama's "real" numbers would be. However, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even if Obama's "real" number is 90% unemployment he STILL wouldn't have "more months above 8%" than Reagan because he hasn't been in office 70 months.

Do you get it now?

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17293 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 12:12:03 PM
HG: You asked for it, bud.

That means Reagan had 70 months of unemployment over 10% in REAL unemployment numbers.

So CLEARLY Obama didn't have more unemployment above 8% than all other presidents combined right? I'm just trying to follow.



Well looky there a comparison, a comparison adding 3% to Reagan and nothing to Obama.

Sorry, you're wrong, just admit it bud.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5059 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 7:35:45 AM
CrakrJak

"Oh but YES YES You did, then compared that with the 10% unemployment I said Reagan inherited and then said Obama was better."

Ughhhh. No I didn't. You can say it all you want. It doesn't make it true. If you are so sure I said it quote me. Go ahead. I don't delete my posts.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a child. I don't agree with AJ, but we were able to have a back and forth debate based on facts. For whatever reason that is impossible with you. I have to spend my time repeating myself and defending myself against accusations you make that simply aren't true.

This is a fact, although I'm sure you will find SOME way to spin it:

Unemployment today is lower than when Obama took office. At this point in Reagan's first term unemployment was the same as when he took office.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 7:34:33 AM
"Now, are we going to continue to go down this road or should we go back to the way it was and simply have adult conversations? It's your call, I'm game for either."

I would rather we just not talk to each other. I should not have responded to you in the first place.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 7:34:00 AM
Suck on it hater.

So... you don't think that this was an "angry" statement and that I am just reading anger into it. Yes, I see how you came to that conclusion...

Tell yourself what you need to I guess.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 7:29:24 AM
"What is it about you libs that makes you perpetually angry?"

The people making this generalized statement are the ones that read anger into the statements, so the anger is really coming from within. But in this case I am cranky from a lack of sleep. I'm going to try to go back to bed.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 7:28:05 AM
You know, based on our previous discussions and your understanding of the term "flip-flopper", I could accuse you of being the same right here.

Before, you were trying to use the current unemployment rate as evidence that AJ was wrong; I showed you that the stats are meaningless as an attempt to dismiss AJ's comment because they occurred after 3 years.

Now, you changed your attack to be "well he never said that so there". What was the phrase you used for this...? Oh yes, that's right. You're being a shape-shifter.

Now, are we going to continue to go down this road or should we go back to the way it was and simply have adult conversations? It's your call, I'm game for either.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 7:20:45 AM
"Obama actually never said the quote that so many conservatives believe... just saying."

I never said he did. Follow the logic below and you'll see that I was being facetious (hence my light manner).

What is it about you libs that makes you perpetually angry?

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 7:11:30 AM
"Hahaha... just saying."

Obama actually never said the quote that so many conservatives believe... just saying.

DuckBoy87
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2709 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 7:04:27 AM
Unemployment is such a sketchy statistic.

Those who are full time students, active military, or those who are not collecting benefits are all not counted towards the unemployment rate, or even the employment rate.

So even though I'm a full time student with a part time job and I pay taxes, I don't count towards either group.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 7:00:38 AM
Hahaha... just saying.

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 6:58:27 AM
Suck on it hater.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 6:57:23 AM
"The jobless rate fell to 7.8% today. Suck on that haters."

It's been more than 3 years...

markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
 3784 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 6:49:57 AM
"Obama promised to have it BELOW 8% WITHIN 3 YEARS OR HE WILL NOT RUN AGAIN!"

The jobless rate fell to 7.8% today. Suck on that haters.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17293 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 6:04:03 AM
AJ: Good links man.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17293 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 5:59:01 AM
HG: Oh but YES YES You did, then compared that with the 10% unemployment I said Reagan inherited and then said Obama was better.

You can attempt to backtrack it all you want, but you did compare apples and oranges there sir.

Also Obama did say that if he couldn't get the unemployment situation fixed he'd be a "one term proposition".

Lower by what 0.2%? It's still over 8% and no president since FDR has been reelected with that high of an unemployment rate.

auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 10157 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 3:40:07 AM
Yeah, let me clarify...

Member of the workforce, with no job.

Housewives, retirees, and disability doesn't count.

The current system does not count people who have not drawn unemployment for 4 weeks. That means, if their unemployment runs out, they no longer count, even though they are still members of the workforce.

It's not an accurate number.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5059 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 1:10:25 AM
AuburnJunky

"The "true unemployment rate" is very simple to find. The total number of people who are not working, subtracted from the total number of people able to work"

So does that mean that by this method full time students without jobs, early retirees, and stay at home moms are counted as unemployed people? There are PLENTY of people who CHOOSE not to work for various reasons. They certainly shouldn't be counted as unemployed in the same way as people who want a job.

auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 10157 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 1:00:50 AM
Also, look at my link. They only count unemployed as people who have actually looked for a job in the past 4 weeks.

Unemployed should mean, no job.

auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 10157 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 12:59:52 AM
@Holygod:

If you take bodies out of the workforce, you can make the % smaller without adding any meaningful jobs.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5059 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 12:57:52 AM
AuburnJunky

"They counted under-employed people back then, they do not now. They also do not count people who no longer qualify for unemployment, but have still not found a job. They did during Reagan's time."

I have not heard that before. I will have to look into it myself. That certainly would make a difference.

However, that doesn't change anything about the main comparison that Obama has gotten unemployment LOWER than when took office when Reagan did not in the same time frame.

auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 10157 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 12:52:13 AM
The comparison you did, while numerically true, is factually false.

They counted under-employed people back then, they do not now. They also do not count people who no longer qualify for unemployment, but have still not found a job. They did during Reagan's time. They stopped counting unemployment in this manner whole Clinton was in office. Why? I dunno.

ANYWAY....

Some say that if you factor in people who have given up searching, and are no longer counted as part of the workforce, although they are able to work, unemployment is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16%. Some even say 25% or more.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5059 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 12:31:31 AM
AuburnJunky

No need to apologize. We all make mistakes. There is so much hyperbole out there and it gets passed around so much it becomes "true".

That video says if he doesn't turn the economy around in 3 years he shouldn't get re-elected. I would argue he has, you probably think he hasn't.

I'd really like a response to my other comment though, particularly where I contrast Reagan and Obama.

auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 10157 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 12:10:20 AM
drat! I did didn't I?!

Bock Bock! Polly want a cracker!

Sorry. *runs and hides*

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5059 Posts
Friday, October 05, 2012 12:06:27 AM
AuburnJunkey

"Obama promised to have it BELOW 8% WITHIN 3 YEARS OR HE WILL NOT RUN AGAIN!"

Wait. Didn't you say this once and then when I asked for a link to prove it you admitted you were mistaken and he never actually said that?

If not, please send a link. I can find no evidence that he ever said this.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.