Youtube Being Censored, We Can't Question the Government on Youtube

[Pumpkin Row]

Sargon of Akkad's channel was deleted, and he didn't even have any strikes.

 

[Pogo]

---- and the comparison table is where again?

Oh yeah --- MIA.

Dumbass.

PergDerp sez "muh proof"

Here's one fer ya:

"2. (Huffington Post, New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning The Election"

25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media - IVN.us

Once AGAIN --- where's the comparator? *STILL* MIA, that's where.

Besides all of which, your citation is not "fake news" anyway. If somebody analyzed a 98% shot for Clinton, then that's what they analyzed. Dumb shit.

The comparators are imbedded into the entire page, I ran down a few and everything is credible.

The only thing that can explain you not seeing them is that you're colorblind.

If you're not colorblind, you're an idiot.

Since Maid Marian flummoxed himself by diving into a question about a claim that wasn't even his in the first place, maybe it's time to review and reiterate exactly what it is that flacaltenn continues to run away from, shall we?

Here's where we have to reverse-engineer intellectuality for those who insist on using the internets to play Stupid.

Roll tape.

Youtube's Terms of Service have been changed so that nobody can discuss anything that they have decided is a "Hoax". Youtube is getting more and more strict with people it doesn't agree with.

No, it’s getting more difficult for conspiracy theory liars to post their lies and distortions on YouTube.

High time that those engaging in political discussion got called for their lies.

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the fake news, lying and the lying by omission....

Definition of "MOST":

determiner & pronoun
determiner: most; pronoun: most

1. 1.
   superlative of many, much.
2. 2.
   greatest in amount or degree.
   "they've had the most success"
   • the majority of; nearly all of.
     "most oranges are sweeter than these"
     synonyms: nearly all, almost all, the greatest part/number, the majority, the bulk, the preponderance
     "most of the guests brought gifts"
     antonyms: little, few

adverb
adverb: most

1. 1.
   superlative of much.
2. 2.
   to the greatest extent.
   "the things he most enjoyed"

Still with us class? Today we learned that the word "most" means a superlative degree. It means "more than any other in the classifiction". Another way of saying this is that no other entity in that same group is represented as much as the "MOST" is represented.

This is what we call a comparator. It compares the degree of one entity (in this case the entity is the group of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks") with all other entities in that classification, i.e. purveyors of news.

For instance take a random number like, say, 1929. Is that number greater or lesser than, say, 1933?

Take all the time you need to figure that one out.
____________

Now unless your name is Death Angel you should have concluded that "1933" is greater than "1929" Mathematically we can say "1933 > 1929". And if they were actual calendar years we would have to conclude 1933 is also "later" than 1929.

Still with us? I know, it's deep stuff.

Now then back to the question. flacaltenn claims, and cannot prove, that the aggregate output of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks" contains a greater (remember that word?) amount of fake news than the aggregate of all other sources combined -- the fake abc.co site claiming three million Amish mobilized to vote for Rump, the wacko story posted here on USMB about Hillary Clinton not showing up at a rally and being a hologram, all the various Nosebook and Tweeter fake newses about Parkinsons and crossed eyes and Vince Fosters and Bill Clinton's secret black son and of course, as originally cited here, everything on YouTube that is also bullshit.

All of THAT, combined, he says, does not measure up to the amount of fake news on ""the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks". That's his claim. He needs numbers to prove that, and he doesn't have any. Therefore and until he can come up with them, his claim is dismissed as yet more fake news.

The bottom line, again, and no pun intended on "bottom", is that you can't just pull claims out of your ass and expect them to be real without any evidence thereof.

Oh gee.. Now you're lecturing us about the word "most"??| Is THAT your problem bunky?? Pay attention class....


MOST = (CNN/WashPo/NYTimes (et al) X IMPACT) + 4(Fed Agencies in collusion) > 4(Russian trolls) + $30,000 (to the power of "facebook ads")



IOWs --- THIS FAKE NEWS impact is orders of MAGNITUDE ABOVE the fake news from crappy advertising of indicted Russian trolls by MORE than 100000%... Putin has checked my math and gives this equation a 9,9 on the truth-o-meter..



That's engineering dude..

And now he wants to morph "MOST" (< that's his all-caps) into "most IMPACT".

All just to shirk the responsibility for the original claim. Pathetic.

But go ahead, we'll allow the goalpost to be moved and you go ahead and prove your new claim of "impact". With numbers. Real numbers that link somewhere.

 

[Marion Morrison]

PergDerp sez "muh proof"

Here's one fer ya:

"2. (Huffington Post, New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning The Election"

25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media - IVN.us

Once AGAIN --- where's the comparator? *STILL* MIA, that's where.

Besides all of which, your citation is not "fake news" anyway. If somebody analyzed a 98% shot for Clinton, then that's what they analyzed. Dumb shit.

The comparators are imbedded into the entire page, I ran down a few and everything is credible.

The only thing that can explain you not seeing them is that you're colorblind.

If you're not colorblind, you're an idiot.

Since Maid Marian flummoxed himself by diving into a question about a claim that wasn't even his in the first place, maybe it's time to review and reiterate exactly what it is that flacaltenn continues to run away from, shall we?

Here's where we have to reverse-engineer intellectuality for those who insist on using the internets to play Stupid.

Roll tape.

No, it’s getting more difficult for conspiracy theory liars to post their lies and distortions on YouTube.

High time that those engaging in political discussion got called for their lies.

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the fake news, lying and the lying by omission....

Definition of "MOST":

determiner & pronoun
determiner: most; pronoun: most

1. 1.
   superlative of many, much.
2. 2.
   greatest in amount or degree.
   "they've had the most success"
   • the majority of; nearly all of.
     "most oranges are sweeter than these"
     synonyms: nearly all, almost all, the greatest part/number, the majority, the bulk, the preponderance
     "most of the guests brought gifts"
     antonyms: little, few

adverb
adverb: most

1. 1.
   superlative of much.
2. 2.
   to the greatest extent.
   "the things he most enjoyed"

Still with us class? Today we learned that the word "most" means a superlative degree. It means "more than any other in the classifiction". Another way of saying this is that no other entity in that same group is represented as much as the "MOST" is represented.

This is what we call a comparator. It compares the degree of one entity (in this case the entity is the group of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks") with all other entities in that classification, i.e. purveyors of news.

For instance take a random number like, say, 1929. Is that number greater or lesser than, say, 1933?

Take all the time you need to figure that one out.
____________

Now unless your name is Death Angel you should have concluded that "1933" is greater than "1929" Mathematically we can say "1933 > 1929". And if they were actual calendar years we would have to conclude 1933 is also "later" than 1929.

Still with us? I know, it's deep stuff.

Now then back to the question. flacaltenn claims, and cannot prove, that the aggregate output of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks" contains a greater (remember that word?) amount of fake news than the aggregate of all other sources combined -- the fake abc.co site claiming three million Amish mobilized to vote for Rump, the wacko story posted here on USMB about Hillary Clinton not showing up at a rally and being a hologram, all the various Nosebook and Tweeter fake newses about Parkinsons and crossed eyes and Vince Fosters and Bill Clinton's secret black son and of course, as originally cited here, everything on YouTube that is also bullshit.

All of THAT, combined, he says, does not measure up to the amount of fake news on ""the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks". That's his claim. He needs numbers to prove that, and he doesn't have any. Therefore and until he can come up with them, his claim is dismissed as yet more fake news.

The bottom line, again, and no pun intended on "bottom", is that you can't just pull claims out of your ass and expect them to be real without any evidence thereof.

So are you colorblind, or an idiot? I'm leaning towards colorblind, but ya never know..

So are you the Illiterati, or do you just play one on the internets?

At times when I read some of your posts, I wish I was.

 

[Pogo]

The last time I bothered replying to your economically illiterate ass was in a thread regarding FDR. You did not believe that his Socialist policies created and extended the Great Depression, in fact you seemed to support the vast majority of the policies he put in place. The only thing I recall you disagreeing with was his imprisonment of Japanese people based on their race. Supporting FDR's policies not only makes you a Socialist, but makes you economically illiterate

FDR gave us the endless Great Depression every bit as much as Obama turned a 6 month recession into the 8 year Great Recession.

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

Here's the most crucial pearl from all of this and all of these tangents:

History is not 'negotiable'. Learn that.

 

[flacaltenn]

PergDerp sez "muh proof"

Here's one fer ya:

"2. (Huffington Post, New York Times, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Hillary Has a 98% Chance of Winning The Election"

25 Fake News Stories From The Mainstream Media - IVN.us

Once AGAIN --- where's the comparator? *STILL* MIA, that's where.

Besides all of which, your citation is not "fake news" anyway. If somebody analyzed a 98% shot for Clinton, then that's what they analyzed. Dumb shit.

The comparators are imbedded into the entire page, I ran down a few and everything is credible.

The only thing that can explain you not seeing them is that you're colorblind.

If you're not colorblind, you're an idiot.

Since Maid Marian flummoxed himself by diving into a question about a claim that wasn't even his in the first place, maybe it's time to review and reiterate exactly what it is that flacaltenn continues to run away from, shall we?

Here's where we have to reverse-engineer intellectuality for those who insist on using the internets to play Stupid.

Roll tape.

Youtube's Terms of Service have been changed so that nobody can discuss anything that they have decided is a "Hoax". Youtube is getting more and more strict with people it doesn't agree with.

No, it’s getting more difficult for conspiracy theory liars to post their lies and distortions on YouTube.

High time that those engaging in political discussion got called for their lies.

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the fake news, lying and the lying by omission....

Definition of "MOST":

determiner & pronoun
determiner: most; pronoun: most

1. 1.
   superlative of many, much.
2. 2.
   greatest in amount or degree.
   "they've had the most success"
   • the majority of; nearly all of.
     "most oranges are sweeter than these"
     synonyms: nearly all, almost all, the greatest part/number, the majority, the bulk, the preponderance
     "most of the guests brought gifts"
     antonyms: little, few

adverb
adverb: most

1. 1.
   superlative of much.
2. 2.
   to the greatest extent.
   "the things he most enjoyed"

Still with us class? Today we learned that the word "most" means a superlative degree. It means "more than any other in the classifiction". Another way of saying this is that no other entity in that same group is represented as much as the "MOST" is represented.

This is what we call a comparator. It compares the degree of one entity (in this case the entity is the group of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks") with all other entities in that classification, i.e. purveyors of news.

For instance take a random number like, say, 1929. Is that number greater or lesser than, say, 1933?

Take all the time you need to figure that one out.
____________

Now unless your name is Death Angel you should have concluded that "1933" is greater than "1929" Mathematically we can say "1933 > 1929". And if they were actual calendar years we would have to conclude 1933 is also "later" than 1929.

Still with us? I know, it's deep stuff.

Now then back to the question. flacaltenn claims, and cannot prove, that the aggregate output of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks" contains a greater (remember that word?) amount of fake news than the aggregate of all other sources combined -- the fake abc.co site claiming three million Amish mobilized to vote for Rump, the wacko story posted here on USMB about Hillary Clinton not showing up at a rally and being a hologram, all the various Nosebook and Tweeter fake newses about Parkinsons and crossed eyes and Vince Fosters and Bill Clinton's secret black son and of course, as originally cited here, everything on YouTube that is also bullshit.

All of THAT, combined, he says, does not measure up to the amount of fake news on ""the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks". That's his claim. He needs numbers to prove that, and he doesn't have any. Therefore and until he can come up with them, his claim is dismissed as yet more fake news.

The bottom line, again, and no pun intended on "bottom", is that you can't just pull claims out of your ass and expect them to be real without any evidence thereof.

Oh gee.. Now you're lecturing us about the word "most"??| Is THAT your problem bunky?? Pay attention class....


MOST = (CNN/WashPo/NYTimes (et al) X IMPACT) + 4(Fed Agencies in collusion) > 4(Russian trolls) + $30,000 (to the power of "facebook ads")



IOWs --- THIS FAKE NEWS impact is orders of MAGNITUDE ABOVE the fake news from crappy advertising of indicted Russian trolls by MORE than 100000%... Putin has checked my math and gives this equation a 9,9 on the truth-o-meter..



That's engineering dude..

And now he wants to morph "MOST" (< that's his all-caps) into "most IMPACT".

All just to shirk the responsibility for the original claim. Pathetic.

But go ahead, we'll allow the goalpost to be moved and you go ahead and prove your new claim of "impact". With numbers. Real numbers that link somewhere.

When I'm pointing out a treasonous insurrection supported by a complicit media that will gladly AMPLIFY Fake News --- and you're just quibbling about "most" and ignoring the IMPACT of my comparative equation -- I think I'll just celebrate over lunch..

GGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAALLLLLLLL !

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN --- where's the comparator? *STILL* MIA, that's where.

Besides all of which, your citation is not "fake news" anyway. If somebody analyzed a 98% shot for Clinton, then that's what they analyzed. Dumb shit.

The comparators are imbedded into the entire page, I ran down a few and everything is credible.

The only thing that can explain you not seeing them is that you're colorblind.

If you're not colorblind, you're an idiot.

Since Maid Marian flummoxed himself by diving into a question about a claim that wasn't even his in the first place, maybe it's time to review and reiterate exactly what it is that flacaltenn continues to run away from, shall we?

Here's where we have to reverse-engineer intellectuality for those who insist on using the internets to play Stupid.

Roll tape.

No, it’s getting more difficult for conspiracy theory liars to post their lies and distortions on YouTube.

High time that those engaging in political discussion got called for their lies.

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the fake news, lying and the lying by omission....

Definition of "MOST":

determiner & pronoun
determiner: most; pronoun: most

1. 1.
   superlative of many, much.
2. 2.
   greatest in amount or degree.
   "they've had the most success"
   • the majority of; nearly all of.
     "most oranges are sweeter than these"
     synonyms: nearly all, almost all, the greatest part/number, the majority, the bulk, the preponderance
     "most of the guests brought gifts"
     antonyms: little, few

adverb
adverb: most

1. 1.
   superlative of much.
2. 2.
   to the greatest extent.
   "the things he most enjoyed"

Still with us class? Today we learned that the word "most" means a superlative degree. It means "more than any other in the classifiction". Another way of saying this is that no other entity in that same group is represented as much as the "MOST" is represented.

This is what we call a comparator. It compares the degree of one entity (in this case the entity is the group of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks") with all other entities in that classification, i.e. purveyors of news.

For instance take a random number like, say, 1929. Is that number greater or lesser than, say, 1933?

Take all the time you need to figure that one out.
____________

Now unless your name is Death Angel you should have concluded that "1933" is greater than "1929" Mathematically we can say "1933 > 1929". And if they were actual calendar years we would have to conclude 1933 is also "later" than 1929.

Still with us? I know, it's deep stuff.

Now then back to the question. flacaltenn claims, and cannot prove, that the aggregate output of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks" contains a greater (remember that word?) amount of fake news than the aggregate of all other sources combined -- the fake abc.co site claiming three million Amish mobilized to vote for Rump, the wacko story posted here on USMB about Hillary Clinton not showing up at a rally and being a hologram, all the various Nosebook and Tweeter fake newses about Parkinsons and crossed eyes and Vince Fosters and Bill Clinton's secret black son and of course, as originally cited here, everything on YouTube that is also bullshit.

All of THAT, combined, he says, does not measure up to the amount of fake news on ""the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks". That's his claim. He needs numbers to prove that, and he doesn't have any. Therefore and until he can come up with them, his claim is dismissed as yet more fake news.

The bottom line, again, and no pun intended on "bottom", is that you can't just pull claims out of your ass and expect them to be real without any evidence thereof.

Oh gee.. Now you're lecturing us about the word "most"??| Is THAT your problem bunky?? Pay attention class....


MOST = (CNN/WashPo/NYTimes (et al) X IMPACT) + 4(Fed Agencies in collusion) > 4(Russian trolls) + $30,000 (to the power of "facebook ads")



IOWs --- THIS FAKE NEWS impact is orders of MAGNITUDE ABOVE the fake news from crappy advertising of indicted Russian trolls by MORE than 100000%... Putin has checked my math and gives this equation a 9,9 on the truth-o-meter..



That's engineering dude..

And now he wants to morph "MOST" (< that's his all-caps) into "most IMPACT".

All just to shirk the responsibility for the original claim. Pathetic.

But go ahead, we'll allow the goalpost to be moved and you go ahead and prove your new claim of "impact". With numbers. Real numbers that link somewhere.

When I'm pointing out a treasonous insurrection supported by a complicit media that will gladly AMPLIFY Fake News --- and you're just quibbling about "most" and ignoring the IMPACT of my comparative equation -- I think I'll just celebrate over lunch..

GGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAALLLLLLLL !

In other words you still have no answer. For the 36th time.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The last time I bothered replying to your economically illiterate ass was in a thread regarding FDR. You did not believe that his Socialist policies created and extended the Great Depression, in fact you seemed to support the vast majority of the policies he put in place. The only thing I recall you disagreeing with was his imprisonment of Japanese people based on their race. Supporting FDR's policies not only makes you a Socialist, but makes you economically illiterate

FDR gave us the endless Great Depression every bit as much as Obama turned a 6 month recession into the 8 year Great Recession.

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

 

[jillian]

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission....

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Well lets talk about those shall we?

a) What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed?
It was part of the Steele dossier that was presented to the government for review- should the news ignore that? Even Fox reported on that. Is there any evidence that the report is true? Not that we know of.
b) Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia?
Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don’t Need to Agree
Actually the news reported that the intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia had tried to interfere in the election- and got the number of agencies wrong- Trump of course has repeatedly claimed Russia didn't try to interfere.
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Thursday that only “three or four” of the United States’ 17 intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia interfered in the presidential election — a statement that while technically accurate, is misleading and suggests widespread dissent among American intelligence agencies when none has emerged.

The “three or four” agencies referred to by Mr. Trump are the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, all of which determined that Russia interfered in the election. Their work was compiled into a report, and a declassified version was released on Jan. 6 by the director of national intelligence. It said that all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin.

The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign. The rest were doing other work.

c) Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it

Once again- you are playing fast and furious with the facts. Here are Trump's actual comments:

There is absolutely no evidence that President Obama- or anyone else 'tapped' Trump's phones- either during the election- or after the election.

since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission..

I will be glad to compare the record of the NY Times accuracy to that of Donald Trump tweets. Trump has a record of lying- and lying by omission that is quite comprehensive.

Actually, this is the full transcript of GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson's testimony to congress. There is a great deal of evidence that the dossier is true. They did not draw an ultimate conclusion as to the more lewd aspects because congress had questions as to sourcing, not as to veracity.

Read the full transcript of Fusion GPS co-founder's House intel panel testimony on the Trump dossier

Now that he's being sued and under oath in Britain -- the moron has changed his tune. He was passing stories to press CONFIRMING his OWN SHIT -- before the FBI stopped him. And the media obediently did not mention the connection between that source and the AUTHOR of the total fiction. Then the FBI neglects to tell the FISA court the same important connection NOR the funding source by name and association..

ONE FACT appears in there. That Page had business relations in Russia. Started out by opening a Merrill Lynch office in Moscow and then as a consultant on bringing energy cases to WTC for Russian energy companies. The rest -- is NOW - thanks to the complicit lying media --- fake news..

sorry, I don't buy it. if he's being sued in Britain (and I have no knowledge of that) it's because british libel laws don't require that your statements be false.

and I haven't seen a thing in your posts indicating you can tell the difference between "fake news" and "real" other than Donald the sociopath saying its fake.

but you sound awfully emotional on behalf of the orange Russian tool....

 

[Pogo]

The last time I bothered replying to your economically illiterate ass was in a thread regarding FDR. You did not believe that his Socialist policies created and extended the Great Depression, in fact you seemed to support the vast majority of the policies he put in place. The only thing I recall you disagreeing with was his imprisonment of Japanese people based on their race. Supporting FDR's policies not only makes you a Socialist, but makes you economically illiterate

FDR gave us the endless Great Depression every bit as much as Obama turned a 6 month recession into the 8 year Great Recession.

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

There's no hurry on figuring out those dates. I understand it may take some research. Especially with blinders on.

Perhaps a visual aid will help. Note the years listed on the bottom axis:

​

Oh look --- there's one of the dates I mentioned right there on the chart. That's a clue for ya.

So are these numbers "fake"?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

FDR gave us the endless Great Depression every bit as much as Obama turned a 6 month recession into the 8 year Great Recession.

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

There's no hurry on figuring out those dates. I understand it may take some research. Especially with blinders on.

I already addressed the dates in the post you responded with the dates TO. You just didn't read it. Clearly you just have no response to my specifics on policies, effects, and timing, and just want the last word. Otherwise, you'd have addressed my post instead of being a condescending prick.

 

[Pogo]

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

There's no hurry on figuring out those dates. I understand it may take some research. Especially with blinders on.

Perhaps a visual aid will help. Note the years listed on the bottom axis:

Oh look --- there's one of the dates I mentioned right there on the chart. That's a clue for ya.

So are these numbers "fake"?

I already addressed the dates in the post you responded with the dates TO. You just didn't read it. Clearly you just have no response to my specifics on policies, effects, and timing, and just want the last word. Otherwise, you'd have addressed my post instead of being a condescending prick.

Yyyyeah ummmm..... you just posted the last word. Until now. And none of it addressed mine.

As for 'condescending', guilty as charged. I have a notoriously low opinion of, and tolerance for, intentional stupidity. And I don't see that changing any time soon. "Enabler" is not on my résumé. Deal with it.

 

[flacaltenn]

The last time I bothered replying to your economically illiterate ass was in a thread regarding FDR. You did not believe that his Socialist policies created and extended the Great Depression, in fact you seemed to support the vast majority of the policies he put in place. The only thing I recall you disagreeing with was his imprisonment of Japanese people based on their race. Supporting FDR's policies not only makes you a Socialist, but makes you economically illiterate

FDR gave us the endless Great Depression every bit as much as Obama turned a 6 month recession into the 8 year Great Recession.

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

Don't

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Well lets talk about those shall we?

a) What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed?
It was part of the Steele dossier that was presented to the government for review- should the news ignore that? Even Fox reported on that. Is there any evidence that the report is true? Not that we know of.
b) Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia?
Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don’t Need to Agree
Actually the news reported that the intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia had tried to interfere in the election- and got the number of agencies wrong- Trump of course has repeatedly claimed Russia didn't try to interfere.
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Thursday that only “three or four” of the United States’ 17 intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia interfered in the presidential election — a statement that while technically accurate, is misleading and suggests widespread dissent among American intelligence agencies when none has emerged.

The “three or four” agencies referred to by Mr. Trump are the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, all of which determined that Russia interfered in the election. Their work was compiled into a report, and a declassified version was released on Jan. 6 by the director of national intelligence. It said that all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin.

The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign. The rest were doing other work.

c) Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it

Once again- you are playing fast and furious with the facts. Here are Trump's actual comments:

There is absolutely no evidence that President Obama- or anyone else 'tapped' Trump's phones- either during the election- or after the election.

since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission..

I will be glad to compare the record of the NY Times accuracy to that of Donald Trump tweets. Trump has a record of lying- and lying by omission that is quite comprehensive.

Actually, this is the full transcript of GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson's testimony to congress. There is a great deal of evidence that the dossier is true. They did not draw an ultimate conclusion as to the more lewd aspects because congress had questions as to sourcing, not as to veracity.

Read the full transcript of Fusion GPS co-founder's House intel panel testimony on the Trump dossier

Now that he's being sued and under oath in Britain -- the moron has changed his tune. He was passing stories to press CONFIRMING his OWN SHIT -- before the FBI stopped him. And the media obediently did not mention the connection between that source and the AUTHOR of the total fiction. Then the FBI neglects to tell the FISA court the same important connection NOR the funding source by name and association..

ONE FACT appears in there. That Page had business relations in Russia. Started out by opening a Merrill Lynch office in Moscow and then as a consultant on bringing energy cases to WTC for Russian energy companies. The rest -- is NOW - thanks to the complicit lying media --- fake news..

sorry, I don't buy it. if he's being sued in Britain (and I have no knowledge of that) it's because british libel laws don't require that your statements be false.

and I haven't seen a thing in your posts indicating you can tell the difference between "fake news" and "real" other than Donald the sociopath saying its fake.

but you sound awfully emotional on behalf of the orange Russian tool....

You don't know this because your mind has been rotted by Fake American Media.. Take a moment and treat yourself..

Christopher Steele is no-show in London court in civil case over dossier

Christopher Steele hedges on Russia dossier claims against Donald Trump

Steele is currently being sued by about 12 people/orgs in at LEAST 3 different countries. Sorry your opinions are so strong and you're so clueless because of your sources.

As for Russian tools --- all the folks INVOLVED in creating and marketing that POS are the largest "Russian Tools". Steele's Russian spy sources now have medals of honor from Putin and buildings in the GRU/FSB named after them to come.

About me being Orange. It AINT MY WAR. It's yours.. If you don't think this will happen again with YOUR team in the gunsights of Fake news and Agency collusion to sell it --- think again. Trump now has the keys to Big Brother Domestic spying. I WORRY about that. YOU SHOULD too -- if Fake News hadn't already eaten your brain..

 

[Pogo]

FDR gave us the endless Great Depression every bit as much as Obama turned a 6 month recession into the 8 year Great Recession.

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

There's no hurry on figuring out those dates. I understand it may take some research. Especially with blinders on.

Perhaps a visual aid will help. Note the years listed on the bottom axis:

​

Oh look --- there's one of the dates I mentioned right there on the chart. That's a clue for ya.

So are these numbers "fake"?

See that spike at the right edge of the pink area? The one marked "March 15, 1933 Dow gained 15.34%, largest one-day gain")?

That point would be eleven days after FDR was inaugurated.

Now look at the plunge marked "Great Depression" (the pink area) and essplain to the class how Roosevelt came into office and "brought" that retroactively.

This oughta be a hoot.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

There's no hurry on figuring out those dates. I understand it may take some research. Especially with blinders on.

Perhaps a visual aid will help. Note the years listed on the bottom axis:

​

Oh look --- there's one of the dates I mentioned right there on the chart. That's a clue for ya.

So are these numbers "fake"?

See that spike at the right edge of the pink area? The one marked "March 15, 1933 Dow gained 15.34%, largest one-day gain")?

That point would be eleven days after FDR was inaugurated.

Now look at the plunge marked "Great Depression" (the pink area) and essplain to the class how Roosevelt came into office and "brought" that retroactively.

This oughta be a hoot.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

The Stock Crash is a symptom, not a cause of the Great Depression, so the chart doesn't help your case at all.

How FDR Made the Depression Worse | Robert Higgs

FDR's policies, practically all of them, increased the cost of living and made it harder to do business. He made the Recession we were already experiencing worse in every way.

As I said earlier, combine inability to afford hiring employees with the government forcing your business to hire more employees, and your economy is destroyed. In this particular case, your economy is plunged into a Depression and then dragged through it for many years.

 

[Syriusly]

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission....

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

LIST: 24 Pieces of MSM Fake News in 5 Days

Oh, there's more..

Journalists Who Were Caught Lying

35 things the media reported as FACTS that were later found to be total lies

Lists of Donald Trump's Fake news
Opinion | President Trump’s Lies, the Definitive List

Fact check: Here are the biggest whoppers of 2017

President Trump has made more than 2,000 false or misleading claims over 355 days

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/trumps-phony-fake-news-claims/

There is no greater purveyor of Fake News in the United States today- than Donald Trump.

 

[Syriusly]

Again- we have yet to see whether Youtube's decision to censor additional content based upon its accuracy will chase away viewers- or bring in more viewers.

But in the meanwhile- there are plenty of sites on the internet that you can post any kind of fake news you want to.

It's how business works. There are other options for the content creators they're censoring. In fact, the Liberty Network is already encouraging its members and viewers to move. Meanwhile, having less content doesn't bring in new viewers, they already could have ignored the content they don't like.

Of course, if you understood business and economics, you wouldn't be a Socialist. Surprisingly, when you upset your customers, they'll go elsewhere.

LOL- I can't figure out which part is more ignorant about your post.

That I am a 'socialist'?
That I don't understand business and an economics?
Or that you do.

Everything I have posted is in support of Youtube's capitalist decision to add additional censorship to its private property.

Quoting myself

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out

I admit that either could happen- you are so blinded by your partisanship to Konspiracy Kookiness that you presume you know what the net effect of Youtube's policy will be.

All three statements are accurate. You're Socialist, you don't understand business or economics, and I do..

Okay- prove all of those things.

Go for it.

This should be interesting.

Because so far all you are doing is pulling crap out of your ass and calling it gold.

The last time I bothered replying to your economically illiterate ass was in a thread regarding FDR.

Still waiting for you to have the balls to try to stand up to your claims:
a) That I am a socialist
b) That I don't understand economics or business or
c) That you do.

Because as I pointed out before- so far all you are doing is pulling crap out of your ass and calling it gold.

Or you can just admit you were lying.

 

[Syriusly]

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

There's no hurry on figuring out those dates. I understand it may take some research. Especially with blinders on.

Perhaps a visual aid will help. Note the years listed on the bottom axis:

​

Oh look --- there's one of the dates I mentioned right there on the chart. That's a clue for ya.

So are these numbers "fake"?

See that spike at the right edge of the pink area? The one marked "March 15, 1933 Dow gained 15.34%, largest one-day gain")?

That point would be eleven days after FDR was inaugurated.

Now look at the plunge marked "Great Depression" (the pink area) and essplain to the class how Roosevelt came into office and "brought" that retroactively.

This oughta be a hoot.

Yep- I had forgotten what an idiot he/she/it is.

Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression

So you have no such data. Exactly.

See, this is what I just pointed out with what's called a rhetorical question. One for which you have no answer.

I gave you an EXTENSIVE LIST of examples of fake news and useless conspiracies. They are all MORE then adequately documented. Even here on USMB. Stop trolling me...

I just checked- you have posted 16 times in this thread- I saw no post with an 'extensive list of fake news and useless conspiracies'

Like I said before- I would be glad to compare the accuracy of the NY Times to Trump's tweets.

The greatest purveyor of fake news within the United States is our President.

Your loss -- it's there. Search for WashPo with my name on the post... Fake news? Thy name is WashPo/CNN/NYTimes... AND their fucking "fact checkers"...

It's NOT SOMEBODY ELSE'S CLAIM, Sparkles. It's YOUR claim. Ain't OUR job to go do YOUR homework. Burden of proof, etc.

Once again --- you made an ass-sertion that you can't back up. Therefore it's dismissed as empty.

What's NOT funny is you dismissing my claim ..

You still haven't provided that 'extensive list' - here is your quote:
"an EXTENSIVE LIST of examples of fake news"" you claim to have provided.

And that is pretty funny.

 

[Syriusly]

What can't you speak about on the internet?

Specifically.

Ask Google. They tell US at USMB what content we can't allow if we want their ad service. And it's CLEAR (if you read the OP) that they are acting against folks that don't follow THEIR political advocacy. Like I said theres a diff between content rules and CENSORSHIP based on political biases.

IN FACT --- since Google is NOT "the media" or journal or political advocacy group, it's not THEIR SPEECH that's being restrained. It's different because they are USING political advocacy to restrain the speech of others.

At SOME POINT -- they should be required to register as a political advocacy organization or acted on as monopolizing the available marketplace of ideas..

So you can't actually name a single thing you can't talk about on the internet.

Not one single thing.

Of course I can.. This OP names a couple. If we expand the topic to Twitter and Facebook, there's ALL KINDS of politically biased freezing, shadow banning, sanctioning of accounts goin on.. Aren't you paying attention to these free speech issues? Or is it because they are NOT going after "your kind" of content yet??

Of course I can.

Then why won't you?

Name the thing you are prevented from talking about on the internet.

Remember though- just because FB or Twitter or Youtube or USMB have policies restricting what you can post on their sites- doesn't mean you are prevented from posting on the internet.

You can start your own web-page and post whatever you want. You can post most any crazy crap on Infowars or WND- as long as it is anti-left.

So name the thing that cannot be named.

Since you say you can.

I did.. Did you READ the OP and watch the video? You wouldn't be able to make the "not a shred of evidence" claim if you did..

LOL- I ask you what you think cannot say on the Internet- and you refer me to someone else's post?

So I will ask again- you claimed you can name the things that you cannot discuss on the Internet- quoting you:

Of course I can.

Then why won't you?

Name the thing you are prevented from talking about on the internet.

Remember though- just because FB or Twitter or Youtube or USMB have policies restricting what you can post on their sites- doesn't mean you are prevented from posting on the internet.

You can start your own web-page and post whatever you want. You can post most any crazy crap on Infowars or WND- as long as it is anti-left.

So name the thing that cannot be named.

Since you say you can.

 

[Camp]

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

There's no hurry on figuring out those dates. I understand it may take some research. Especially with blinders on.

Perhaps a visual aid will help. Note the years listed on the bottom axis:

​

Oh look --- there's one of the dates I mentioned right there on the chart. That's a clue for ya.

So are these numbers "fake"?

See that spike at the right edge of the pink area? The one marked "March 15, 1933 Dow gained 15.34%, largest one-day gain")?

That point would be eleven days after FDR was inaugurated.

Now look at the plunge marked "Great Depression" (the pink area) and essplain to the class how Roosevelt came into office and "brought" that retroactively.

This oughta be a hoot.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

The Stock Crash is a symptom, not a cause of the Great Depression, so the chart doesn't help your case at all.

How FDR Made the Depression Worse | Robert Higgs

FDR's policies, practically all of them, increased the cost of living and made it harder to do business. He made the Recession we were already experiencing worse in every way.

As I said earlier, combine inability to afford hiring employees with the government forcing your business to hire more employees, and your economy is destroyed. In this particular case, your economy is plunged into a Depression and then dragged through it for many years.

Are you seriously claiming the period from 1929 through 1933 was a recession and not a depression? Kind of goofy since you also claim the crash of '29 was a "symptom" of the Grear Depression but call it a recession in '33.

 

[Syriusly]

“Youtube Being Censored”

By whom?

YouTube refusing to host rightwing lies and hate isn’t ‘censorship.’

“We Can't Question the Government on Youtube”

It’s neither the role nor responsibility of YouTube to accommodate those who wish to question government – that’s done through the political process and in the courts; the right of the people to question government exists solely between the government and those governed, having nothing to do with private hosting sites.

Now, if government were to enact a law making it illegal for YouTube to host rightwing lies and hate, then you would have a case of actual censorship, and a valid thread topic.

Great job, Clayton........you just proved that you are exactly what I have claimed you are......a good little commie!

Great job Dale.

You just proved you are exactly what we have known all along.

That you are a gaping idiot.