Did you vote today?

Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,407 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#29308 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
" yet there are less people working today than ever before"
That Sir is total Bull Shit.
I will give you One chance to correct this lie, if you can, before I do it for you.
You are correct. I owe you a huge apology. Thanks for giving me one chance to correct my lie. It was in January 2010 that the real unemployment rate hit 18% under Obama's watch though he has improved that number to 13.50%(still higher than any other time in history). Please forgive me. I am SO glad that I have someone like you to draw the real truth out of me like the REAL unemployment rate.
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#29309 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
How many people are employed in the U S A today ?
Somewhere in the 145 million range. Your point?

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#29310 Feb 15, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
One thing I noticed in your statistics is who was president for 2 of those three years? Now you keep the blame it on Bush stuff to yourself. As for things that don't do any good but are still around, the Great Society is a great example of a failed experiment that still burdens us today more than ever. The great society was meant to help the poor (mainly blacks) and 49 years later we are worse off than we were then.
*60 percent of black children grow up in fatherless homes.
*800,000 black men are in jail or prison.
*70 percent of black babies are born to unwed mothers.
*Over 300,000 black babies are aborted annually.
*50 percent of new AIDS cases are in the black community.
*Almost half of young black men in America's cities are neither working nor in school. What we have here is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.
These statistics are in our face yet we are spending more in welfare programs than ever before. Why is that? One would think that with the opposite of what was intended happening, we would move to something else, yet here we are throwing money into a bottomless pit. The same goes for the minimum wage and you know it
What three years you talking about?

"Jan., 2008, till Jan., 2010 " sure seems like TWO years to me.

The Answer is.......... Bush 1, President Obama 1.

The harshest of critics do not hold a new president accountable for job numbers during his first year in office, because the new presidents policies have not had time to take effect.

The numbers and comment you have plagiarized from the, KKK Weekly Journal editorial are as bogus as your other bull shit lies you try to pull off.

That is what I know!

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#29311 Feb 15, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. I owe you a huge apology. Thanks for giving me one chance to correct my lie. It was in January 2010 that the real unemployment rate hit 18% under Obama's watch though he has improved that number to 13.50%(still higher than any other time in history). Please forgive me. I am SO glad that I have someone like you to draw the real truth out of me like the REAL unemployment rate
You do not "owe" me any thing.

I have drawn plenty out of you but it does not come any where close to the truth.

BTW- what you just posted above, just some more of what does not resemble truth, I do think it would be safe to say, more of your bull-shit .

Reagan's highest UE # 10.8%

Obama's highest UE # 10.0%

The civilian labor force was 62 million in 1950, the lowest ever .

Either way, YOU LIED AGAIN!
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#29312 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not "owe" me any thing.
I have drawn plenty out of you but it does not come any where close to the truth.
BTW- what you just posted above, just some more of what does not resemble truth, I do think it would be safe to say, more of your bull-shit .
Reagan's highest UE # 10.8%
Obama's highest UE # 10.0%
The civilian labor force was 62 million in 1950, the lowest ever .
Either way, YOU LIED AGAIN!
REAL unemployment? I don't think so. If you're 16 or over, then you're qualified to work. If your in that age range and your not working then your unemployed. Every president uses the current UE system we have but it's wrong and it doesn't change reality. I would have gladly carried the real UE back to Reagan but it only goes back to 1994. I know you liberals have trouble with reality because it so starkly contrasts with the world you live in but you'll just have to deal with it. You could step into the light but I'm not sure you could handle it so keep your head buried in the sand.
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#29313 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
What three years you talking about?
"Jan., 2008, till Jan., 2010 " sure seems like TWO years to me.
The Answer is.......... Bush 1, President Obama 1.
The harshest of critics do not hold a new president accountable for job numbers during his first year in office, because the new presidents policies have not had time to take effect.
The numbers and comment you have plagiarized from the, KKK Weekly Journal editorial are as bogus as your other bull shit lies you try to pull off.
That is what I know!
Then simply find your liberal sources to dispute the numbers and defend why liberals think a minimum wage is good for America.
Reality Check

Little Rock, AR

#29314 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not "owe" me any thing.
I have drawn plenty out of you but it does not come any where close to the truth.
BTW- what you just posted above, just some more of what does not resemble truth, I do think it would be safe to say, more of your bull-shit .
Reagan's highest UE # 10.8%
Obama's highest UE # 10.0%
The civilian labor force was 62 million in 1950, the lowest ever .
Either way, YOU LIED AGAIN!
Speaking of Reagan vs. Obama, this is a very good contrast between the two. We know the run of prosperity we had after Reagan and only time will tell what will happen after Obama. I suspect Obama will be someone's Jimmy Carter.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011...

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#29315 Feb 15, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of Reagan vs. Obama, this is a very good contrast between the two. We know the run of prosperity we had after Reagan and only time will tell what will happen after Obama. I suspect Obama will be someone's Jimmy Carter.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011...

/
"We know the run of prosperity we had after Reagan'

Would that be the same run of prosperity that got Bush 41's Ass kicked out of office after four years.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#29316 Feb 15, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Then simply find your liberal sources to dispute the numbers and defend why liberals think a minimum wage is good for America.

Nope, I can't do that.

You cannot comprehend a explanation when it is given to you.

Just as you don' t comprehend there is no need for a "liberal sources" to "dispute"
those numbers because they belong to G W. Bush and the great recession that began under his watch.

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#29317 Feb 15, 2014
My goodness, mr. Barney got ur feathers ruffled? I think I can pert near see that liberal scowl that's famous when things just ain't going your way. You sound like you got your teeth clenched and little beads of sweat on your brow.
Don't get yourself so riled up, mr. Barney. You're really just trying to convince yourself. We already know the truth about unemployment.
shut up idiot

Ashburn, VA

#29318 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>

The harshest of critics do not hold a new president accountable for job numbers during his first year in office, because the new presidents policies have not had time to take effect.
The numbers and comment you have plagiarized from the, KKK Weekly Journal editorial are as bogus as your other bull shit lies you try to pull off.
That is what I know!
You don't know anything, you big blow hard, loud moth liberal. All you know is what you know in the moment you are living. If you KNEW anything, you would KNOW to keep your fat moth shut!
The harshest of critics do indeed hold a new president accountable for whatever they find to criticize.
Case in point... 9/11 attacks. After 8 years of Clinton's lethargic approach to terrorism, somehow Bush became responsible for the atrocities of that horrible day.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...
Bogus then, and bogus now.

But you, blowing crap out of your ass as usual, blame Bush for events before he took office, during his term, and now-6 years AFTER he's been out of office, and think anybody listens to you??
Just a bunch of mindless, blaming drivel-the only requirements needed to be a blow hard liberal.
Jennifer

Jonesboro, AR

#29320 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
What three years you talking about?
"Jan., 2008, till Jan., 2010 " sure seems like TWO years to me.
The Answer is.......... Bush 1, President Obama 1.
The harshest of critics do not hold a new president accountable for job numbers during his first year in office, because the new presidents policies have not had time to take effect.
The numbers and comment you have plagiarized from the, KKK Weekly Journal editorial are as bogus as your other bull shit lies you try to pull off.
That is what I know!
We give them a break the first couple of years but blame bush for the economic decline that began in the Clinton years and 911 that was being planned during the Clinton era? Maybe we just make excess for whomever we like.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#29321 Feb 15, 2014
shut up idiot wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know anything, you big blow hard, loud moth liberal. All you know is what you know in the moment you are living. If you KNEW anything, you would KNOW to keep your fat moth shut!
The harshest of critics do indeed hold a new president accountable for whatever they find to criticize.
Case in point... 9/11 attacks. After 8 years of Clinton's lethargic approach to terrorism, somehow Bush became responsible for the atrocities of that horrible day.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...
Bogus then, and bogus now.
But you, blowing crap out of your ass as usual, blame Bush for events before he took office, during his term, and now-6 years AFTER he's been out of office, and think anybody listens to you??
Just a bunch of mindless, blaming drivel-the only requirements needed to be a blow hard liberal.
The faithful leader Reality Check gets his ears pin backed for lying again and out pops his army of straw people.

Yes I agree, new presidents do get held accountable for many things, but I assure you the unemployment numbers for his first year in office is not one of them, as I said the first time.

Now let me give you a case and point:

Both presidents inherited and economy after a brutal recessions, they both saw the unemployment rate hit 10% because of it.

Here is what happen to Reagan-

Republican Party ended up losing 26 House seats in the 1982 midterm elections (increasing the Democrats' majority). Yet only two years later, after the economy had regained its footing.

President Obama got the Tea Party in mid terms..........
and here we are.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29322 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"We know the run of prosperity we had after Reagan'
Would that be the same run of prosperity that got Bush 41's Ass kicked out of office after four years.
No, the one that ended in 2008 during the last year of Bush's presidency and has gotten worse than anyone ever imagined under Obama who had a chance to fix it though he never planned to fix anything. His policies clearly show this.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29323 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I can't do that.
You cannot comprehend a explanation when it is given to you.
Just as you don' t comprehend there is no need for a "liberal sources" to "dispute"
those numbers because they belong to G W. Bush and the great recession that began under his watch.
You simply don't have an explanation because you know I'm right. The minimum wage is just an argument the left uses to manipulate the uninformed who have no idea that the income inequality actually comes from the progressive left. What does G.W. have to do with the minimum wage.
ykhfhjhgkvhjrt

Little Rock, AR

#29324 Feb 15, 2014
yea, im really into the reailty of this convoluted non damentional dialog, what the fu$%^ does this have to do with anything relavent to everyday life, or entertainment, period. respond, please im begging you.
ykhfhjhgkvhjrt

Little Rock, AR

#29325 Feb 15, 2014
or educational value. how does this crap youre talkin, exscuse me, typin, inspire or intertain anybody but youer self. for gods sake what is youer da$^% point.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#29326 Feb 15, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
You simply don't have an explanation because you know I'm right. The minimum wage is just an argument the left uses to manipulate the uninformed who have no idea that the income inequality actually comes from the progressive left. What does G.W. have to do with the minimum wage
What does minimum wage have to do with unemployment numbers?
ykhfhjhgkvhjrt

Little Rock, AR

#29327 Feb 15, 2014
now my feelings are hurt.
lmnop

San Jose, CA

#29328 Feb 15, 2014
ykhfhjhgkvhjrt wrote:
now my feelings are hurt.
You'll get over it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pocahontas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Wonderful Peco (Feb '15) 1 hr Dry County Drinker 25
kenny adams 8 hr Amy 12
Amanda Hart Spencer 15 hr Fact 2
Stephanie 15 hr Yeah Right 25
Any nice girls looking for someone out there? 20 hr Somebodytolove 4
Pocahontas problems. Sat Guest 3
Transsexual at Walmart Sat Lol 3
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pocahontas Mortgages