Just as much as say...." Bush Wins All 50 States ".
Here again, you have resorted to a cheap shot of sorts. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever.
Secondly, that thread was created when Bush had huge numbers and there was complete chaos in the Democratic field. It goes without saying that the possibility of such an outcome is nearly zero today. Before you flip out, someone with the life experience you constantly tout should know that twice before Presidents have won 49 states. At the height (or near it) of Bush's popularity, it was not unthinkable to wonder whether or not he could capture all 50. The thread was even called "Discuss: Bush wins all 50 states in 2004".
Here again, you have resorted to a cheap shot of sorts. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever.
Secondly, that thread was created when Bush had huge numbers and there was complete chaos in the Democratic field. It goes without saying that the possibility of such an outcome is nearly zero today. Before you flip out, someone with the life experience you constantly tout should know that twice before Presidents have won 49 states. At the height (or near it) of Bush's popularity, it was not unthinkable to wonder whether or not he could capture all 50. The thread was even called "Discuss: Bush wins all 50 states in 2004".
Ah! The lesson here grasshopper is not to judge things to early.
No. But once we get this close with the issues at hand I'm usually right about these things.
And why is that? At present, Bush would win according to most major polls. He's also picked up signficantly in the "battleground" states. I'm not saying it will stay this way, but what is the basis for that prediction?
And why is that? At present, Bush would win according to most major polls. He's also picked up signficantly in the "battleground" states. I'm not saying it will stay this way, but what is the basis for that prediction?
We've talked about this a dozen times. I guess you'll just have to see.
3.9% is still excellent growth. Honestly, it's like you guys WANT the economy to do poorly.
See thats the rub isn't it - they hope the economy does badly only until a Dem gets into office and then they will use the same numbers to bolster his/her tenure. Look at Clinton, he got the full benefit and took credit for the results of the Reagan economic policies.
See thats the rub isn't it - they hope the economy does badly only until a Dem gets into office and then they will use the same numbers to bolster his/her tenure. Look at Clinton, he got the full benefit and took credit for the results of the Reagan economic policies.
If Kerry does win, the same thing will happen.
Exactly. By almost any meaningful measurement, the US economy is doing well. GDP growth is good. Home ownership is at record levels. Unemployment is low. The markets are stable. The tech sector is recovering.
It is absurd to argue that the economy is not doing well by linking to one-day market snapshots and obscure data on the gap between the big, evil rich CEO's and the poor.
Exactly. By almost any meaningful measurement, the US economy is doing well. GDP growth is good. Home ownership is at record levels. Unemployment is low. The markets are stable. The tech sector is recovering.
It is absurd to argue that the economy is not doing well by linking to one-day market snapshots and obscure data on the gap between the big, evil rich CEO's and the poor.
By the SDW.
Something to be looked at......
I've been making those links for the better part of 2 years now for you so it's a little more than one day or obscure.
I've been making those links for the better part of 2 years now for you so it's a little more than one day or obscure.
OK...let's see then. 365 days a year multiplied by 2. That's 730 days. Let's say that in that time, you've linked to 15 negative snapshot stories...which might be generous in itself. That makes the economy bad?
jimmac, I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you. The economy is strong in nearly all areas...and there's very little you can do about it.
The economy is strong in nearly all areas...and there's very little you can do about it.
Accept one: debt. Our strength is false, and future tax increases/reduced spending (and a further slowing down of the economy) are the only things that will make this situation level off.
Why do you keep ignoring this point? Simply printing more money would create a temporary fix as well, but the repercussions would still be devastating.
OK...let's see then. 365 days a year multiplied by 2. That's 730 days. Let's say that in that time, you've linked to 15 negative snapshot stories...which might be generous in itself. That makes the economy bad?
jimmac, I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you. The economy is strong in nearly all areas...and there's very little you can do about it.
Why is it you insist on painting me as someone who wants the economy to be bad?
That's a falsehood.
I just don't look at the world through Bush colored glasses.
And by the way it's been alot more than 15 times and even a few would invalidate your argument.
So you spent the last 2 years insisting that the economy wasn't bad until it finally came true. What an accomplishment!
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's quite the iron clad prediction.
Just as much as say...." Bush Wins All 50 States ".
Originally posted by jimmac
Just as much as say...." Bush Wins All 50 States ".
Here again, you have resorted to a cheap shot of sorts. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever.
Secondly, that thread was created when Bush had huge numbers and there was complete chaos in the Democratic field. It goes without saying that the possibility of such an outcome is nearly zero today. Before you flip out, someone with the life experience you constantly tout should know that twice before Presidents have won 49 states. At the height (or near it) of Bush's popularity, it was not unthinkable to wonder whether or not he could capture all 50. The thread was even called "Discuss: Bush wins all 50 states in 2004".
Originally posted by SDW2001
Here again, you have resorted to a cheap shot of sorts. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever.
Secondly, that thread was created when Bush had huge numbers and there was complete chaos in the Democratic field. It goes without saying that the possibility of such an outcome is nearly zero today. Before you flip out, someone with the life experience you constantly tout should know that twice before Presidents have won 49 states. At the height (or near it) of Bush's popularity, it was not unthinkable to wonder whether or not he could capture all 50. The thread was even called "Discuss: Bush wins all 50 states in 2004".
Ah! The lesson here grasshopper is not to judge things to early.
Originally posted by jimmac
Ah! The lesson here grasshopper is not to judge things to early.
Well, wise old Mr. jimmac, you've really taught me a lesson. If I were you, I wouldn't be too excited about the election just yet.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, wise old Mr. jimmac, you've really taught me a lesson. If I were you, I wouldn't be too excited about the election just yet.
No. But once we get this close with the issues at hand I'm usually right about these things.
Originally posted by jimmac
No. But once we get this close with the issues at hand I'm usually right about these things.
And why is that? At present, Bush would win according to most major polls. He's also picked up signficantly in the "battleground" states. I'm not saying it will stay this way, but what is the basis for that prediction?
Originally posted by SDW2001
And why is that? At present, Bush would win according to most major polls. He's also picked up signficantly in the "battleground" states. I'm not saying it will stay this way, but what is the basis for that prediction?
We've talked about this a dozen times. I guess you'll just have to see.
Originally posted by pfflam
SLOWER AND FATTER
3.9% is still excellent growth. Honestly, it's like you guys WANT the economy to do poorly.
Originally posted by jimmac
We've talked about this a dozen times. I guess you'll just have to see.
Nice dodge. I guess I'll just have to take Uncy jimmac's word.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nice dodge. I guess I'll just have to take Uncy jimmac's word.
You'll see.
Originally posted by SDW2001
3.9% is still excellent growth. Honestly, it's like you guys WANT the economy to do poorly.
See thats the rub isn't it - they hope the economy does badly only until a Dem gets into office and then they will use the same numbers to bolster his/her tenure. Look at Clinton, he got the full benefit and took credit for the results of the Reagan economic policies.
If Kerry does win, the same thing will happen.
Originally posted by NaplesX
See thats the rub isn't it - they hope the economy does badly only until a Dem gets into office and then they will use the same numbers to bolster his/her tenure. Look at Clinton, he got the full benefit and took credit for the results of the Reagan economic policies.
If Kerry does win, the same thing will happen.
Exactly. By almost any meaningful measurement, the US economy is doing well. GDP growth is good. Home ownership is at record levels. Unemployment is low. The markets are stable. The tech sector is recovering.
It is absurd to argue that the economy is not doing well by linking to one-day market snapshots and obscure data on the gap between the big, evil rich CEO's and the poor.
Do you get the feeling that nobody's listening to your other reality take on things.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Exactly. By almost any meaningful measurement, the US economy is doing well. GDP growth is good. Home ownership is at record levels. Unemployment is low. The markets are stable. The tech sector is recovering.
It is absurd to argue that the economy is not doing well by linking to one-day market snapshots and obscure data on the gap between the big, evil rich CEO's and the poor.
By the SDW.
Something to be looked at......
I've been making those links for the better part of 2 years now for you so it's a little more than one day or obscure.
Originally posted by jimmac
By the SDW.
Something to be looked at......
I've been making those links for the better part of 2 years now for you so it's a little more than one day or obscure.
OK...let's see then. 365 days a year multiplied by 2. That's 730 days. Let's say that in that time, you've linked to 15 negative snapshot stories...which might be generous in itself. That makes the economy bad?
jimmac, I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you. The economy is strong in nearly all areas...and there's very little you can do about it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The economy is strong in nearly all areas...and there's very little you can do about it.
Accept one: debt. Our strength is false, and future tax increases/reduced spending (and a further slowing down of the economy) are the only things that will make this situation level off.
Why do you keep ignoring this point? Simply printing more money would create a temporary fix as well, but the repercussions would still be devastating.
Originally posted by SDW2001
OK...let's see then. 365 days a year multiplied by 2. That's 730 days. Let's say that in that time, you've linked to 15 negative snapshot stories...which might be generous in itself. That makes the economy bad?
jimmac, I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you. The economy is strong in nearly all areas...and there's very little you can do about it.
Why is it you insist on painting me as someone who wants the economy to be bad?
That's a falsehood.
I just don't look at the world through Bush colored glasses.
And by the way it's been alot more than 15 times and even a few would invalidate your argument.
So you spent the last 2 years insisting that the economy wasn't bad until it finally came true. What an accomplishment!
Originally posted by jimmac
Why is it you insist on painting me as someone who wants the economy to be bad?
That's a falsehood.
I just don't look at the world through Bush colored glasses.
And by the way it's been alot more than 15 times and even a few would invalidate your argument.
So you spent the last 2 years insisting that the economy wasn't bad until it finally came true. What an accomplishment!
Let's see... Every time there is bad economic news you gleefully report it and knee-jerkingly blame it on Bush.
If the shoe fits... as they say...