Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,215 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

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

Kansas City Ks.

#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.
giver of blah

Conway, AR

#29329 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>

Now let me give you a case and point:
You don't give anything...except a few laughs when you share your insight!!
giver of blah

Conway, AR

#29330 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
The faithful leader Reality Check gets his ears pin backed for lying again and out pops his army of straw people.
Awe, Barn, are you pouting because you are the lone lunatic voice of crazy, and everyone knows it? Well, you just keep patting yourself on the back since no one else will.
And do you really think you,'pinned ears back'? That's got to be in your top ten list of 'stupid crazy things said by Barney'!!
duh

Conway, AR

#29331 Feb 15, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
What does minimum wage have to do with unemployment numbers?
This also goes on the stupid/crazy list...
Proof positive you are stupid/crazy
Jennifer

Jonesboro, AR

#29332 Feb 16, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
But midterms were in '10 and that is when you say obama's numbers get better. You sometimes have the facts but you still interpret them wrong.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29333 Feb 16, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
What does minimum wage have to do with unemployment numbers?
I was simply stating that minimum wage is another failed ideology of the left. But since you asked about how it relates to unemployment numbers, I will tell you. Minimum wage sucks the life out of the workforce who work for it, suppresses companies ability to grow, and prevents those employees making minimum wage from growing with those companies. It artificially assigns a value to a specific job independent of what the market says that value should be. This forces companies to raise prices on goods, hire less people, and hold down hours for those that work for minimum wage.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29334 Feb 16, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
A president losing seats in mid-term elections have happened to every president, not just Republicans. More specifically, Ronald Reagan. GW Bush in 2002 and FDR in 1934 gained seats in both houses during their first term in office which I find funny since GW Bush is the devil to liberals. It looks as though Obama is set to have a repeat of FDR's and Truman's epic losses from 1938-1950. So once again you cherry pick perceived Republican failures and paint the picture as if Republicans are the only ones that fail. This simply shows that you only see one side of the party argument and you refuse to acknowledge the successes of the other side. When someone points out the failures of your party, for which there are many, you jump out and start personally attacking the person. Your unwillingness to acknowledge Obama's failed presidency and the damage it has caused to this great nation is why you have no credibility. So personal attacks and pointing out where people misspoke is all you have left because, for you, honest assessment of the failures of the liberal agenda left a long time ago.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29335 Feb 16, 2014
Jennifer wrote:
<quoted text>
But midterms were in '10 and that is when you say obama's numbers get better. You sometimes have the facts but you still interpret them wrong
If you interpreted what I said as,

The Tea Party being sweep into office in 2010 was having a postive effect on the unemployment numbers or any thing else..........

Well, you're just wrong.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29336 Feb 16, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I was simply stating that minimum wage is another failed ideology of the left. But since you asked about how it relates to unemployment numbers, I will tell you. Minimum wage sucks the life out of the workforce who work for it, suppresses companies ability to grow, and prevents those employees making minimum wage from growing with those companies. It artificially assigns a value to a specific job independent of what the market says that value should be. This forces companies to raise prices on goods, hire less people, and hold down hours for those that work for minimum wage.

It is obvious what you were doing, but I still must ask you again, what the Hell does minimum wage have to do with the high unemployment numbers that plagued the early years of this administration .

The numbers you said were the highest in history, kind of like you telling us the CBO released a report saying Obama care kills two million jobs....

and the list is considerably longer of things you have lied about.

So you see sometimes what you happen to think is a personal attack because I pointing out where you lied.

Well, that's just a reality check Ole Buddy.

Since: Dec 10

Kansas City Ks.

#29337 Feb 16, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
A president losing seats in mid-term elections have happened to every president, not just Republicans. More specifically, Ronald Reagan. GW Bush in 2002 and FDR in 1934 gained seats in both houses during their first term in office which I find funny since GW Bush is the devil to liberals. It looks as though Obama is set to have a repeat of FDR's and Truman's epic losses from 1938-1950. So once again you cherry pick perceived Republican failures and paint the picture as if Republicans are the only ones that fail. This simply shows that you only see one side of the party argument and you refuse to acknowledge the successes of the other side. When someone points out the failures of your party, for which there are many, you jump out and start personally attacking the person. Your unwillingness to acknowledge Obama's failed presidency and the damage it has caused to this great nation is why you have no credibility. So personal attacks and pointing out where people misspoke is all you have left because, for you, honest assessment of the failures of the liberal agenda left a long time ago.
So you think Ronald Reagan gain seats in his first term?

OMG, there is just no hope for you.

The U.S. House election, 1982 was an election for the United States House of Representatives held on November 2, 1982, in the middle of President Ronald Reagan's first term, whose popularity was sinking due to economic conditions under the 1982 recession. Therefore, the President's Republican Party lost seats in the House. Unlike most midterm election cycles, the number of seats lost—27 seats to the Democratic Party—was a comparatively large swap. It included most of the seats that had been gained the previous election, cementing the Democratic majority.
Supporter

Little Rock, AR

#29338 Feb 16, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think Ronald Reagan gain seats in his first term?
OMG, there is just no hope for you.
The U.S. House election, 1982 was an election for the United States House of Representatives held on November 2, 1982, in the middle of President Ronald Reagan's first term, whose popularity was sinking due to economic conditions under the 1982 recession. Therefore, the President's Republican Party lost seats in the House. Unlike most midterm election cycles, the number of seats lost—27 seats to the Democratic Party—was a comparatively large swap. It included most of the seats that had been gained the previous election, cementing the Democratic majority.
Let's face it Barney, you just can't convince these numb nuts that can think for themselves that any of your positions are defensible. They were raised by a bunch of arrogant fools that believe that you are responsible for your own actions and you aren't going to be able to convince them otherwise until you can get the government to take away everything they have ever worked for, then they will see the wisdom of our ways.
guest

Searcy, AR

#29339 Feb 16, 2014
Nope
guest

Searcy, AR

#29340 Feb 16, 2014
Yes
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#29341 Feb 16, 2014
Supporter wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's face it Barney, you just can't convince these numb nuts that can think for themselves that any of your positions are defensible. They were raised by a bunch of arrogant fools that believe that you are responsible for your own actions and you aren't going to be able to convince them otherwise until you can get the government to take away , then they will see the wisdom of our ways.
You forgot something, most of the lazy numb nuts that post on topix are already taking away everything you have ever worked for. Hell half of every berg across the Delta is on some sort of public assistance or BS disability.

Let's face it Jock Supporter, better than a average chance, you are to.

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
Local corruption 3 hr Buffalo Bill 2
Randolph County Exposed!!! 3 hr Buffalo Bill 12
buttkissers on facebook 4 hr turty 6
sonic drive in is awful 5 hr geeeeez 16
Tweekers on Lee Street 8 hr sorryboutchadirty... 11
guess who lawrence county got 11 hr way to go 1
Dakota oneal 13 hr Really 5
More from around the web

Pocahontas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]