The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[boilermaker55]

You say that every time you cannot prove facts wrong.
Loser!

No facts! Only opinion.
Jump into the clown car!

Typical right wing comment when you have not facts backing up your statement.
ad hominem

With that comment it seems you have no real basis. As it goes on!
You have given the subject no thought at all. Its all your thought and opinion.

Another left wing troll.

I already presented the facts. You choose to deny out of a rigidly close-minded, conservative left wing ideology. Your problem.

The facts were even listed in your previous post. You are a defeated troll. No more discussion for you.

 

[TooTall]

Republicans have to hide the gains in employment by averaging it out. With employment it is more accurate to know what figures the administration started with and where the figures are today.

And under Obama barely more people are working today than 7 years ago, which is even worse given the growth in the potential workforce.

Your hallucinations grow increasingly bizarre. In reality, there are 6.4 million more people working today than there were when Obama became president. If 6.4 million in little more than 6 years (about 1 million per year) is your idea of "barely" growing, who knows what you think of Bush41's 4 years in office, which produced only 592K jobs per year. The second lowest growth. His son, Bush43, was the only one worse producing only 547K per year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These numbers are from the BLS Data link.

You cherry pick 4 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama, so I will use 8 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama.

Number employed
142,152,000 Jan 2009
148,523,000 Apr 2015
Increase 6,371,000

136,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008
Increase 6,810,000

You will say the baby boomers just started retiring in 2009 and I will say he population growth has added more people to the work force.

All it proves is that numbers can be manipulated to satisfy one's agenda.

All you prove is that you're a rightwing imbecile. I put up all of Bush's 8 years in office against all of Obama's 75 months in office. Despite inheriting one of the worst recessions in our nation's history, there have been over 6 million jobs added since Obama became president. During Bush's 8 year reign of error, there were about 4.4 million jobs added. Putting Bush in last place in terms of job growth among every president since Herbert Hoover.

Who knows why you started counting from January, 2008, a full year before Bush became president? Mistake? Ignorance? Dishonesty?

As far as baby boomers retiring... those numbers began increasing dramatically in 2008 when that generation began hitting the early retirement age of 62.

"Who knows why you started counting from January, 2008, a full year before Bush became president?"

I erred in starting Bush's Adminstration by using Jan, 2000 instead of 2001. I missed it by 1 year and you missed it by 7 years.

 

[TooTall]

Obviously neither of them said that when the decision was being made to invade Iraq. Which is what the discussion is about. That they ever said that at any point in time in history is irrelevant.

Yet again showing the lie over Iraq is by the left and you're showing my point you don't have the gonads to take responsibility for your fuck up in doing it with the Republicans.

Umm... you claimed no one said Iraq was a threat. You're wrong, and you're just not man enough to admit it.

So when I said no one said Iraq was a threat when we were discussing invading Iraq, you took that as meaning I said no one said Iraq was a threat to anyone ever at any time in history. Got it. Thanks for that intellectual contribution to the discussion

We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.

So you believe that when we invaded Rice and Powell believed Hussein wasn't a threat. You said it and you are standing by it.

One question, can you dress yourself in the morning? Or does the nurse need to help you?

I forgot you're clairvoyant and read peoples' minds. How would I know if Powell was lying when he produced bullshit evidence to the U.N. or if he was duped with bullshit evidence? Regardless, they both said Iraq was not a threat before the administration began fixing the facts around their policy.

Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

[Faun]

Reagan:

Start: 7.6%
High: 10.8%
Finish: 5.2%

Obama:

Start 7.8%
High 10%
Now 5.4%

Advantage Obama

You play the same game, cherry picking one data point to make your argument. I fact workforce participation climbed under Reagan as more people were lured into the job market and it sank under Obama as more people were discouraged from seeking work.
Game, set, match Reagan.

Still trying to sell that workforce participation rate turkey?

Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you. Reagan benefitted from a workforce where previously unemployed women were still entering the workforce. He also had fully employed baby boomers

As expected, the workforce participation rate has been dropping for 17 years. 4 million baby boomers are retiring every year....now tell us again how that is Obamas fault

Ah yes, invoking Rush Limbaugh. The last refusge of the brain dead.
The rate dropped precipitously after Obama took office. Always in recoveries the rate increases as people are drawn back into the workforce. Except this time. Because there are no jobs.

No jobs? We're within the range of full employment. Exactly how fucked in the head are you?

 

[Faun]

Republicans have to hide the gains in employment by averaging it out. With employment it is more accurate to know what figures the administration started with and where the figures are today.

And under Obama barely more people are working today than 7 years ago, which is even worse given the growth in the potential workforce.

Your hallucinations grow increasingly bizarre. In reality, there are 6.4 million more people working today than there were when Obama became president. If 6.4 million in little more than 6 years (about 1 million per year) is your idea of "barely" growing, who knows what you think of Bush41's 4 years in office, which produced only 592K jobs per year. The second lowest growth. His son, Bush43, was the only one worse producing only 547K per year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These numbers are from the BLS Data link.

You cherry pick 4 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama, so I will use 8 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama.

Number employed
142,152,000 Jan 2009
148,523,000 Apr 2015
Increase 6,371,000

136,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008
Increase 6,810,000

You will say the baby boomers just started retiring in 2009 and I will say he population growth has added more people to the work force.

All it proves is that numbers can be manipulated to satisfy one's agenda.

All you prove is that you're a rightwing imbecile. I put up all of Bush's 8 years in office against all of Obama's 75 months in office. Despite inheriting one of the worst recessions in our nation's history, there have been over 6 million jobs added since Obama became president. During Bush's 8 year reign of error, there were about 4.4 million jobs added. Putting Bush in last place in terms of job growth among every president since Herbert Hoover.

Who knows why you started counting from January, 2008, a full year before Bush became president? Mistake? Ignorance? Dishonesty?

As far as baby boomers retiring... those numbers began increasing dramatically in 2008 when that generation began hitting the early retirement age of 62.

"Who knows why you started counting from January, 2008, a full year before Bush became president?"

I erred in starting Bush's Adminstration by using Jan, 2000 instead of 2001. I missed it by 1 year and you missed it by 7 years.

I did not miss anything, you moron. I counted all 8 years of Bush's presidency. Not only are you not bright enough to notice that, but you thought my figures were wrong because you attributed 9 years of employment growth to Bush when he was president for only 8 years. Unbelievably stupid.

 

[Faun]

Umm... you claimed no one said Iraq was a threat. You're wrong, and you're just not man enough to admit it.

So when I said no one said Iraq was a threat when we were discussing invading Iraq, you took that as meaning I said no one said Iraq was a threat to anyone ever at any time in history. Got it. Thanks for that intellectual contribution to the discussion

We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.

So you believe that when we invaded Rice and Powell believed Hussein wasn't a threat. You said it and you are standing by it.

One question, can you dress yourself in the morning? Or does the nurse need to help you?

I forgot you're clairvoyant and read peoples' minds. How would I know if Powell was lying when he produced bullshit evidence to the U.N. or if he was duped with bullshit evidence? Regardless, they both said Iraq was not a threat before the administration began fixing the facts around their policy.

Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Nope, they spoke out before then as they pointed out Iraq was not a threat. Furthermore ... nine years, 5000 American lives, and trillions of dollars later they proved to be correct.

 

[Faun]

You'll have to ask the poster who asked for a link to Bush. Again, too bad if you have a problem with that.

If you were honest you would have pointed out why it would be moot.

I couldn't have been more honest. Someone asked for a link to Bush talking about an excuse to invade Iraq and I produced one. Anything you seek beyond that stems from your own frustration that I delivered.

So you admit it's an attempt to by you to blame Bush for something most others including Clinton favored. Hypocrisy.

I admit posting a link to Bush after someone asked for a link to Bush. Nothing hypocritical about that at all except in the mind of demented rightwing nuts.

You area defeated troll. No more discussion for you.

As if you were ever part of it to begin with. Again, your frustration over me being able to provide the link another poster asked for has been noted. That will never change no matter how much you bitch & moan.

 

[TooTall]

And under Obama barely more people are working today than 7 years ago, which is even worse given the growth in the potential workforce.

Your hallucinations grow increasingly bizarre. In reality, there are 6.4 million more people working today than there were when Obama became president. If 6.4 million in little more than 6 years (about 1 million per year) is your idea of "barely" growing, who knows what you think of Bush41's 4 years in office, which produced only 592K jobs per year. The second lowest growth. His son, Bush43, was the only one worse producing only 547K per year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These numbers are from the BLS Data link.

You cherry pick 4 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama, so I will use 8 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama.

Number employed
142,152,000 Jan 2009
148,523,000 Apr 2015
Increase 6,371,000

136,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008
Increase 6,810,000

You will say the baby boomers just started retiring in 2009 and I will say he population growth has added more people to the work force.

All it proves is that numbers can be manipulated to satisfy one's agenda.

All you prove is that you're a rightwing imbecile. I put up all of Bush's 8 years in office against all of Obama's 75 months in office. Despite inheriting one of the worst recessions in our nation's history, there have been over 6 million jobs added since Obama became president. During Bush's 8 year reign of error, there were about 4.4 million jobs added. Putting Bush in last place in terms of job growth among every president since Herbert Hoover.

Who knows why you started counting from January, 2008, a full year before Bush became president? Mistake? Ignorance? Dishonesty?

As far as baby boomers retiring... those numbers began increasing dramatically in 2008 when that generation began hitting the early retirement age of 62.

"Who knows why you started counting from January, 2008, a full year before Bush became president?"

I erred in starting Bush's Adminstration by using Jan, 2000 instead of 2001. I missed it by 1 year and you missed it by 7 years.

I did not miss anything, you moron. I counted all 8 years of Bush's presidency. Not only are you not bright enough to notice that, but you thought my figures were wrong because you attributed 9 years of employment growth to Bush when he was president for only 8 years. Unbelievably stupid.

I posted:

36,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008

That sure looks like 8 years to me.

 

[TooTall]

So when I said no one said Iraq was a threat when we were discussing invading Iraq, you took that as meaning I said no one said Iraq was a threat to anyone ever at any time in history. Got it. Thanks for that intellectual contribution to the discussion

We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.

So you believe that when we invaded Rice and Powell believed Hussein wasn't a threat. You said it and you are standing by it.

One question, can you dress yourself in the morning? Or does the nurse need to help you?

I forgot you're clairvoyant and read peoples' minds. How would I know if Powell was lying when he produced bullshit evidence to the U.N. or if he was duped with bullshit evidence? Regardless, they both said Iraq was not a threat before the administration began fixing the facts around their policy.

Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Nope, they spoke out before then as they pointed out Iraq was not a threat. Furthermore ... nine years, 5000 American lives, and trillions of dollars later they proved to be correct.

The intel in 2002 and 2003 was what they and Bush was what they based their statements on. Do you even know what year we invaded Iraq?

 

[TooTall]

So when I said no one said Iraq was a threat when we were discussing invading Iraq, you took that as meaning I said no one said Iraq was a threat to anyone ever at any time in history. Got it. Thanks for that intellectual contribution to the discussion

We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.

So you believe that when we invaded Rice and Powell believed Hussein wasn't a threat. You said it and you are standing by it.

One question, can you dress yourself in the morning? Or does the nurse need to help you?

I forgot you're clairvoyant and read peoples' minds. How would I know if Powell was lying when he produced bullshit evidence to the U.N. or if he was duped with bullshit evidence? Regardless, they both said Iraq was not a threat before the administration began fixing the facts around their policy.

Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Nope, they spoke out before then as they pointed out Iraq was not a threat. Furthermore ... nine years, 5000 American lives, and trillions of dollars later they proved to be correct.

Perhaps you should read what they all stated very carefully and then tell me they were correct.

 

[TooTall]

So when I said no one said Iraq was a threat when we were discussing invading Iraq, you took that as meaning I said no one said Iraq was a threat to anyone ever at any time in history. Got it. Thanks for that intellectual contribution to the discussion

We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.

So you believe that when we invaded Rice and Powell believed Hussein wasn't a threat. You said it and you are standing by it.

One question, can you dress yourself in the morning? Or does the nurse need to help you?

I forgot you're clairvoyant and read peoples' minds. How would I know if Powell was lying when he produced bullshit evidence to the U.N. or if he was duped with bullshit evidence? Regardless, they both said Iraq was not a threat before the administration began fixing the facts around their policy.

Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Nope, they spoke out before then as they pointed out Iraq was not a threat. Furthermore ... nine years, 5000 American lives, and trillions of dollars later they proved to be correct.

Perhaps you should read what they all stated very carefully and then tell me they were correct.

Reagan:

Start: 7.6%
High: 10.8%
Finish: 5.2%

Obama:

Start 7.8%
High 10%
Now 5.4%

Advantage Obama

You play the same game, cherry picking one data point to make your argument. I fact workforce participation climbed under Reagan as more people were lured into the job market and it sank under Obama as more people were discouraged from seeking work.
Game, set, match Reagan.

Still trying to sell that workforce participation rate turkey?

Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you. Reagan benefitted from a workforce where previously unemployed women were still entering the workforce. He also had fully employed baby boomers

As expected, the workforce participation rate has been dropping for 17 years. 4 million baby boomers are retiring every year....now tell us again how that is Obamas fault

Ah yes, invoking Rush Limbaugh. The last refusge of the brain dead.
The rate dropped precipitously after Obama took office. Always in recoveries the rate increases as people are drawn back into the workforce. Except this time. Because there are no jobs.

No jobs? We're within the range of full employment. Exactly how fucked in the head are you?

No wonder Bush didn't create very many jobs. He averaged 5.7% UE for 8 years. That was within the range of full employment according to you.

 

[Faun]

Your hallucinations grow increasingly bizarre. In reality, there are 6.4 million more people working today than there were when Obama became president. If 6.4 million in little more than 6 years (about 1 million per year) is your idea of "barely" growing, who knows what you think of Bush41's 4 years in office, which produced only 592K jobs per year. The second lowest growth. His son, Bush43, was the only one worse producing only 547K per year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

These numbers are from the BLS Data link.

You cherry pick 4 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama, so I will use 8 years of Bush against 6 years and 4 months of Obama.

Number employed
142,152,000 Jan 2009
148,523,000 Apr 2015
Increase 6,371,000

136,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008
Increase 6,810,000

You will say the baby boomers just started retiring in 2009 and I will say he population growth has added more people to the work force.

All it proves is that numbers can be manipulated to satisfy one's agenda.

All you prove is that you're a rightwing imbecile. I put up all of Bush's 8 years in office against all of Obama's 75 months in office. Despite inheriting one of the worst recessions in our nation's history, there have been over 6 million jobs added since Obama became president. During Bush's 8 year reign of error, there were about 4.4 million jobs added. Putting Bush in last place in terms of job growth among every president since Herbert Hoover.

Who knows why you started counting from January, 2008, a full year before Bush became president? Mistake? Ignorance? Dishonesty?

As far as baby boomers retiring... those numbers began increasing dramatically in 2008 when that generation began hitting the early retirement age of 62.

"Who knows why you started counting from January, 2008, a full year before Bush became president?"

I erred in starting Bush's Adminstration by using Jan, 2000 instead of 2001. I missed it by 1 year and you missed it by 7 years.

I did not miss anything, you moron. I counted all 8 years of Bush's presidency. Not only are you not bright enough to notice that, but you thought my figures were wrong because you attributed 9 years of employment growth to Bush when he was president for only 8 years. Unbelievably stupid.

I posted:

36,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008

That sure looks like 8 years to me.

That looks like 8 years to you because you're a fucking retard.

Jan/2000 through Dec/2008 is 107 months. 107 months is 1 month shy of 9 years.

Why are rightards so inept when it comes to numbers??

 

[Faun]

We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.

So you believe that when we invaded Rice and Powell believed Hussein wasn't a threat. You said it and you are standing by it.

One question, can you dress yourself in the morning? Or does the nurse need to help you?

I forgot you're clairvoyant and read peoples' minds. How would I know if Powell was lying when he produced bullshit evidence to the U.N. or if he was duped with bullshit evidence? Regardless, they both said Iraq was not a threat before the administration began fixing the facts around their policy.

Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Nope, they spoke out before then as they pointed out Iraq was not a threat. Furthermore ... nine years, 5000 American lives, and trillions of dollars later they proved to be correct.

The intel in 2002 and 2003 was what they and Bush was what they based their statements on. Do you even know what year we invaded Iraq?

You mean the same intel that was determined to be almost completely flawed? That intel? Well fortunately, when Powell and Rice declared Iraq was not a threat, it wasn't with that flawed intel.

 

[Faun]

We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.

So you believe that when we invaded Rice and Powell believed Hussein wasn't a threat. You said it and you are standing by it.

One question, can you dress yourself in the morning? Or does the nurse need to help you?

I forgot you're clairvoyant and read peoples' minds. How would I know if Powell was lying when he produced bullshit evidence to the U.N. or if he was duped with bullshit evidence? Regardless, they both said Iraq was not a threat before the administration began fixing the facts around their policy.

Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Nope, they spoke out before then as they pointed out Iraq was not a threat. Furthermore ... nine years, 5000 American lives, and trillions of dollars later they proved to be correct.

Perhaps you should read what they all stated very carefully and then tell me they were correct.

Really? Hillary said, "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."

Show where Hussein worked to rebuild his WMD during those 4 years.......

 

[Faun]

We're not talking about "any time in history." Those statements were made the year before and nothing changed in Iraq during that year. It also fits into the timeframe of the discussion which encompasses the period of time Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. All that changed during that year was the Bush administration's position on Iraq as they sought to fix the intelligence around their policy.

So you believe that when we invaded Rice and Powell believed Hussein wasn't a threat. You said it and you are standing by it.

One question, can you dress yourself in the morning? Or does the nurse need to help you?

I forgot you're clairvoyant and read peoples' minds. How would I know if Powell was lying when he produced bullshit evidence to the U.N. or if he was duped with bullshit evidence? Regardless, they both said Iraq was not a threat before the administration began fixing the facts around their policy.

Perhaps Rice and Powell were listening to these virtuous, knowledgeable Democrats for their bullshit evidence.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

Nope, they spoke out before then as they pointed out Iraq was not a threat. Furthermore ... nine years, 5000 American lives, and trillions of dollars later they proved to be correct.

Perhaps you should read what they all stated very carefully and then tell me they were correct.

Reagan:

Start: 7.6%
High: 10.8%
Finish: 5.2%

Obama:

Start 7.8%
High 10%
Now 5.4%

Advantage Obama

You play the same game, cherry picking one data point to make your argument. I fact workforce participation climbed under Reagan as more people were lured into the job market and it sank under Obama as more people were discouraged from seeking work.
Game, set, match Reagan.

Still trying to sell that workforce participation rate turkey?

Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you. Reagan benefitted from a workforce where previously unemployed women were still entering the workforce. He also had fully employed baby boomers

As expected, the workforce participation rate has been dropping for 17 years. 4 million baby boomers are retiring every year....now tell us again how that is Obamas fault

Ah yes, invoking Rush Limbaugh. The last refusge of the brain dead.
The rate dropped precipitously after Obama took office. Always in recoveries the rate increases as people are drawn back into the workforce. Except this time. Because there are no jobs.

No jobs? We're within the range of full employment. Exactly how fucked in the head are you?

No wonder Bush didn't create very many jobs. He averaged 5.7% UE for 8 years. That was within the range of full employment according to you.

WTF is wrong with you? I never said 5.7% was within range of full employment. Why would I? It's not. And the reason employment averaged 5.7% during his presidency was because he inherited a low rate of 4.2% and the job market benefitted from the real estate bubble.

There is no president in BLS stats with a worse record in terms of job growth than Duhbya. The closest second is the other Bush.

 

[edthecynic]

I posted:

36,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008

That sure looks like 8 years to me.

It looks like 8 years 11 months to anyone who can tell time.

 

[edthecynic]

The intel in 2002 and 2003 was what they and Bush was what they based their statements on. Do you even know what year we invaded Iraq?

You mean the same intel that was determined to be almost completely flawed? That intel? Well fortunately, when Powell and Rice declared Iraq was not a threat, it wasn't with that flawed intel.

Prior to 9/11 and Cheney's fabrications, the intel was completely different.

"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs"
-George Tenet, 2/07/2001

"We believe the sanctions have been effective, and Saddam Hussein's regime has no weapons of mass destruction."
-Condoleeza Rice, February 16th, 2001

"Containment has been achieved, and we now believe Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction or the capability of producing them."
- Colin Powell, February 23rd, 2001

 

[Faun]

I posted:

36,559,000 Jan 2000
143,369,000 Dec 2008

That sure looks like 8 years to me.

It looks like 8 years 11 months to anyone who can tell time.

He gets the dates wrong ... he gets the president wrong ... he thinks 107 months is 8 years ... he thinks I didn't post all of Bush's 8 years ....

... but he thinks he knows what he's talking about.

 

[francoHFW]

Pub dupes! How dumb can you get? The attention span of a pygmy shrew...

a pygmy shrew has a great attention span.....for a shrew....

its heat beats 3600/minute. I don't think so....

 

[AntiParty]

The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

Barrack Obama: 8.86%

Average Unemployment Rates For US Presidents since World War II:

01. Lyndon Johnson: 4.19%
02. Harry Truman: 4.26%
03. Dwight Eisenhower: 4.89%
04. Richard Nixon: 5.00%
05. Bill Clinton: 5.20%
06. George W. Bush: 5.27%
07. John Kennedy: 5.98%
08. George H.W. Bush: 6.30%
09. Jimmy Carter: 6.54%
10. Ronald Reagan: 7.54%
11. Gerald Ford: 7.77%
12. Barack Obama: 8.86%