Lets make a deal...

What compromise did Obama offer the Republicans?

Where did I say he offered him one?

They KMan, day one, screaming about how they were going to make no compromise, it is smart negotiation then offer them a compromise?
 
Where did I say he offered him one?

They KMan, day one, screaming about how they were going to make no compromise, it is smart negotiation then offer them a compromise?

When you said it was the Republicans who shut down government. What was Obama willing to compromise on in order to not shut down the government?
 
No, it's not.

Namecalling is NEVER on topic, but you think it is.

How far you've fallen.

Translation: I was wrong in my statement so I'm going to cry about you calling me economically ignorant.

Yes, I've fallen so far because I called you economically ignorant.
 
you are the one desperately avoiding the topic. Your concept of 'best job creation' is wrong. Plain and simple. Job creation is about NET JOBS. Not how many months it is positive.

You can have 50 consecutive months of plus 1000 jobs. Is that better than someone who had 50 months, ten negative, but netted 5,000,000 jobs?

He won't answer because he's locked into his position and won't admit he's wrong.
 
He won't answer because he's locked into his position and won't admit he's wrong.

I have answered, several times now.

You and SF simply refuse to acknowledge my response because to do so would be the same as admitting you are wrong.

And your obstinate refusal to acknowledge facts is not my problem.
 
Presidents are judged by jobs created on their watch. That is not a new concept.

I'll offer you a little friendly help Zap. Let's say you're President and in three months there are 100, -1 and 100 jobs created on your watch. On my watch there are 2, 4 and 8 jobs created. I wouldn't have a better jobs record than you because my three months were all positive.

That's not gotcha or word parsing. It's simply understanding how job creation is judged.

No Zap, you haven't addressed this. What you are claiming is I would have a better job record than you based on the above and no one, other than you, would agree with that.
 
Haha, right! If you're going to name call others don't cry when it's done back to you.

You outright ignore facts you don't like, why should I be surprised that you also ignore the fact that you and SF instigated the use of petty derision too.
 
I have answered, several times now.

You and SF simply refuse to acknowledge my response because to do so would be the same as admitting you are wrong.

And your obstinate refusal to acknowledge facts is not my problem.

Zappa... BOTH of us responded to your attempt to justify your position. YOU refused to acknowledge either of our posts.
 
You man like when you called them "hacks" while saying you were against ad hominem? That was classic

I called them hacks only AFTER I had already been attacked...

"He is full of shit."

"Zappa is almost as retarded as Desh."

"hey moron..."


Yet you simply ignore their prior personal attacks.

Why am I not surprised?
 
Americans want jobs Obama could not deliver?

Obama only delivered the BEST JOB CREATION RECORD in history.

But hey, don't let little things like FACTS get in the way of your ridiculous assumptions.

Facts? What facts back the claim in your second sentence?

You mean the biggest DROP in labor participation rate in history

More jobs were created under Clinton and Reagan so I have no idea where he's getting this BEST JOB CREATION RECORD claim from

The administration of President Obama likes to tout its string of positive-jobs-numbers months -- a streak which as of Friday now stands at 56. It is, as many have pointed out, the longest such string on record. And yet, of the six most recent presidents, Obama ranks fourth in total jobs created and jobs created per month.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mbined-but-less-than-other-recent-presidents/

How does him ranking fourth in jobs created give him claim to the best job creation record ever?

Presidents are judged on the number of jobs created under their watch not the consecutive number of months of positive job growth.

Oh BOY!

Does this mean it's time for another round of wacko's wordsmithing?

I'm not spending ANOTHER day playing your idiotic semantic word-parsing, "gotcha" games.

You wanted facts, I provided them...I was right, you were wrong...get over it.

Sorry Zappa... but it was YOU that started the name calling. You were answered by BOTH of us. YOU went negative.
 
I called them hacks only AFTER I had already been attacked...

"He is full of shit."

"Zappa is almost as retarded as Desh."

"hey moron..."


Yet you simply ignore their prior personal attacks.

Why am I not surprised?

No... I said you were full of shit AFTER you went negative. AFTER we had both responded to your nonsense.
 
Presidents are judged by jobs created on their watch. That is not a new concept.

I'll offer you a little friendly help Zap. Let's say you're President and in three months there are 100, -1 and 100 jobs created on your watch. On my watch there are 2, 4 and 8 jobs created. I wouldn't have a better jobs record than you because my three months were all positive.

That's not gotcha or word parsing. It's simply understanding how job creation is judged.

No Zap, you haven't addressed this. What you are claiming is I would have a better job record than you based on the above and no one, other than you, would agree with that.
 
Back
Top