Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

5,930 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

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

Washington DC

#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

Washington DC

#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

Washington DC

#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.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29342 Feb 16, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I'm not doing anything but trying to tell you that I was referring to the minimum wage as another failed liberal ideology and since you opened the unemployment door to minimum wage I obliged you. Any other meaning than that was concocted by your liberal ideology.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#29343 Feb 16, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not doing anything but trying to tell you that I was referring to the minimum wage as another failed liberal ideology and since you opened the unemployment door to minimum wage I obliged you. Any other meaning than that was concocted by your liberal ideology.
Funny thing about the minimum wage, back when the minimum stood at a buck and a quarter an hour that wage had twice the purchasing power of today's minimum.

Wonder why?
Supporter

Jonesboro, AR

#29344 Feb 16, 2014
Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing about the minimum wage, back when the minimum stood at a buck and a quarter an hour that wage had twice the purchasing power of today's minimum.
Wonder why?
You don't know? You and Barney.
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29345 Feb 16, 2014
Redd wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny thing about the minimum wage, back when the minimum stood at a buck and a quarter an hour that wage had twice the purchasing power of today's minimum.
Wonder why?
That's a totally separate argument and you know it. I don't think a liberal would want to have that argument as we are experiencing the devaluation of the dollar under Barack Obama's spending and printing spree.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29346 Feb 16, 2014
Redd wrote:
<quoted text>Funny thing about the minimum wage, back when the minimum stood at a buck and a quarter an hour that wage had twice the purchasing power of today's minimum.

Wonder why?
UH-OH. This should be good
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29347 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.
Take a deep breath and read it again. If Ronald Reagan gained seats in his first mid-term election I would have included him with GW and FDR. Now you can regroup and continue proving liberalism is a failure.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29348 Feb 16, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not doing anything but trying to tell you that I was referring to the minimum wage as another failed liberal ideology and since you opened the unemployment door to minimum wage I obliged you. Any other meaning than that was concocted by your liberal ideology.
Again, I know what you were trying to say, I understand your excuse for why you said it,

and one more time, it still does NOT have a F*CKING thing to do with the original subject.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29349 Feb 16, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Take a deep breath and read it again. If Ronald Reagan gained seats in his first mid-term election I would have included him with GW and FDR. Now you can regroup and continue proving liberalism is a failure

.
Oh I see you put a period behind Reagan, that is why I asked, I thought even you caught the part where said Reagan lost seats in the mid term.

You made it obvious in one of your prior rants today, that you did not see me credit the cause for Reagan's high UE numbers to the same reason Obama got his.......... they inherited them.

It appeared to go over your head as well as what I meant when Reagan had a Democrat Majority to work with and the Dems. got the Tea Party.

So you see, a Republican president did work with Tip O'neil (D) and they got things done.

President Obama got self proclaimed obstructionist, and this is what we got today.
Redd

Little Rock, AR

#29350 Feb 16, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a totally separate argument and you know it. I don't think a liberal would want to have that argument as we are experiencing the devaluation of the dollar under Barack Obama's spending and printing spree.
We have been experiencing a slow devaluation of the dollar and the gradual destruction of the middle class for years..a great deal due to Republican legislative give-aways to the rich 1%ers who own them lock, stock and barrel..

Lucky for them, there are many just like you...always ready to defend their actions primarily because they see themselves financially, intellectually, and morally separated from the rest of us Commie rabble.

Maybe you'll live to see your error.....I certainly hope so, it will be short-lived though and won't matter by then, given our utter disregard for the future.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29351 Feb 16, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a totally separate argument and you know it. I don't think a liberal would want to have that argument as we are experiencing the devaluation of the dollar under Barack Obama's spending and printing spree.
LMFAO, yep just as lame as I expected.

I predict a reality check in your near future........

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
AR Exit polls: Boozman defeats 2-term incumbent Li... (Nov '10) 1 hr guest 844
AR Who do you support for Governor in Arkansas in ... (Oct '10) 1 hr guest 947
AR Who do you support for Commissioner of State La... (Oct '10) 1 hr guest 266
Crappy who do you support in 2010 threads 1 hr guest 3
AR Who do you support for Lieutenant Governor in A... (Oct '10) 1 hr guest 386
AR More than 1,000 dead birds fall from sky in Ark (Jan '11) 1 hr guest 10,001
AR Who do you support for Auditor in Arkansas in 2... (Oct '10) 1 hr guest 238
Mayor race 20 hr I vote for 51
•••
•••
•••

Pocahontas Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Pocahontas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Pocahontas News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pocahontas
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••