Facts don't lie, Ann Coulter does.

MellowFarmer

MellowFarmer

Well-Known Member
Not sure what that has to do with Ann Coulter? Here she is actually saying W got into college on his own rofl[video=youtube_share;cUY5I1QOC4g]http://youtu.be/cUY5I1QOC4g[/video]
 
rollinbud

rollinbud

Active Member
Lol, Dailykos.... What a credible source for numbers..... Maybe you and your sock puppet should have actually read the article....
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:




Click to expand...
This is a great example of "figures lie, and liars figure".

Obama took the highest (by far) spending level in history and "only increased it a little", and UB touts it as an example of frugality. Such is the "gimme more cheese" mindset of the progressive.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
This is a great example of "figures lie, and liars figure".

Obama took the highest (by far) spending level in history and "only increased it a little", and UB touts it as an example of frugality. Such is the "gimme more cheese" mindset of the progressive.
Click to expand...
UB's whole premise is that Obama hasn't INCREASED the spending over the prior president as much as others have done, In no way is he arguing that Obama is spending less, because it is obvious to see that no president has EVER spent as much as Obama has. When it comes to the total dollars spent, Obama beats all of them as #1 spender ever in the whole history of the USA.

when you spend 3.5 Trillion but only take in 1.2 trillion, its a giant red flag for poor management. We have had a long line of poor management in our history.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
and it looks like our current president is doing what he can to stop and reverse it, like clinton did over the course of 8 years.
Click to expand...
If that were true, the numbers would be negative, the fact that they are positive proves that he isn't reversing anything.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
If that were true, the numbers would be negative, the fact that they are positive proves that he isn't reversing anything.
Click to expand...
facepalm dude.

when a line that has been going up steadily since reagan got in there (save the latter clinton years) starts to flatten and eventually go down again, that is called a reversal of directions.

have you ever graphed anything like in a 5th grade math class?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
facepalm dude.

when a line that has been going up steadily since reagan got in there (save the latter clinton years) starts to flatten and eventually go down again, that is called a reversal of directions.

have you ever graphed anything like in a 5th grade math class?
Click to expand...
There is no reversal, for a reversal to happen Obama would have to spend LESS than before, but he is spending MORE than before. Just because it isn't 20 times more than previous is what you think we should all celebrate here. Very weak. Your very own graph shows that he spent more than Bush EVERY SINGLE FUCKING YEAR!!!!

I can graph a complex polynomial with my mega calculus skills, how bout you?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
There is no reversal, for a reversal to happen Obama would have to spend LESS than before, but he is spending MORE than before. Just because it isn't 20 times more than previous is what you think we should all celebrate here. Very weak.

I can graph a complex polynomial with my mega calculus skills, how bout you?
Click to expand...
well, you seem to be ignoring how graphs work and what we are seeing in reality.

the graph that has been steadily increasing has now flattened out, just like it did in the clinton years.

we need to give obama another 4 to work on getting that flattening effect to go down, like in the clinton years.

we all know every republican since reagan has ballooned that line upwards, empirical evidence shows us that.

but you go on ignoring history and reality and math and whatnot.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
well, you seem to be ignoring how graphs work and what we are seeing in reality.

the graph that has been steadily increasing has now flattened out, just like it did in the clinton years.

we need to give obama another 4 to work on getting that flattening effect to go down, like in the clinton years.

we all know every republican since reagan has ballooned that line upwards, empirical evidence shows us that.

but you go on ignoring history and reality and math and whatnot.
Click to expand...
Your argument is pure false analogy. Your own chart shows that , ultimately, spending was increased under Clinton also. So now you are just making the argument that Obama is just going to increase the spending, and I agree with that. What else can they do? There is no politically attainable situation that will also solve the problems. there is only pain ahead as the deficit is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to pay off. It can only grow bigger.

but you go on ignoring history and reality and math and whatnot.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Your argument is pure false analogy. Your own chart shows that , ultimately, spending was increased under Clinton also. So now you are just making the argument that Obama is just going to increase the spending, and I agree with that. What else can they do? There is no politically attainable situation that will also solve the problems. there is only pain ahead as the deficit is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to pay off. It can only grow bigger.

but you go on ignoring history and reality and math and whatnot.
Click to expand...
mathematically impossible to pay off?

LOL!

i'm not sure you know what that word means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top