Just how stupid is Michele Bachmann?

[speeds]

How is that fair?

It's not the point of the thread.

Just how stupid is Michelle Bachmann?

OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

republicans = bible thumping backwoods idiots

democrats = godless gay city dwellers

 

[maxiep]

How is that fair?

It's not the point of the thread.

Just how stupid is Michelle Bachmann?

OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure it's fair. It's comparative. Michele Bachmann is less stupid than Barack Obama.

 

[speeds]

Then everyone in the thread starts arguing about Obama, and the thread is lost.

It's a transparent technique.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

some idiots think that making a mistake means you are stupid

 

[maxiep]

some idiots think that making a mistake means you are stupid

This.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

This.

 

[Ed O]

She just said she won't get into a mud-wrestling fight with Palin.

I think she meant mud-slinging?

Why do you think she meant that?

It seems clear that she meant mud wrestling.

Ed O.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

maybe she meant mud fucking

 

[Denny Crane]

Under Clinton, the budget SURPLUS last four years -- longer than the internet bubble.

The below link has a graph showing budget surplus/deficit and it's pretty interesting. Note that the deficits Bush was running in some years occurred while the economy was strong.

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/


"But even so, when the govt. ran surpluses and paid off all its debt that it could, the govt. was taking more than it needed and I see no point in that."

While I agree with that statement, I think it would be a huge luxury to be fighting over how we can make the budget surplus bigger. In fact, that would pretty much be a dream lol

D'oh! NASDAQ went up over 300% from 1995 to Sept 1999. That's a really long bubble.

 

[mobes23]

D'oh! NASDAQ went up over 300% from 1995 to Sept 1999. That's a really long bubble.

Doh!, except for the fact the first two years of the bubble you point to are at or below the level of the nasty, horrible economy that Bush supposedly had to endure when his presidency began. Depending on what you are arguing, you call it a bubble/strong economy for Clinton and a crash equivalent to the meltdown of the financial system for Bush? So which is it?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

D'oh! NASDAQ went up over 300% from 1995 to Sept 1999. That's a really long bubble.

maybe i havent been paying attention, but what is this meant to show? that as soon as bush took over the nasdaq plummeted?

 

[Denny Crane]

Doh!, except for the fact the first two years of the bubble you point to are at or below the level of the nasty, horrible economy that Bush supposedly had to endure when his presidency began. Depending on what you are arguing, you call it a bubble/strong economy for Clinton and a crash equivalent to the meltdown of the financial system for Bush? So which is it?

Sure looks like W was a lot better at running the economy after a bubble burst than Obama is.

 

[Denny Crane]

maybe i havent been paying attention, but what is this meant to show? that as soon as bush took over the nasdaq plummeted?

Bush took office on January 21, 2001.

 

[mobes23]

Sure looks like W was a lot better at running the economy after a bubble burst than Obama is.

Dang but I wish it was that simple. Our economy would be booming by now.

Again, your statement is true only if the facts and circumstances are the same. A bubble that bursts in a single sector is far different than severe problems to the financial system that sits under all sectors of the economy.

When the tech bubble burst, I worked in a tech focused firm that was on the frontlines of that dip and felt it far harder than most people. It's been clear to me that the recent problems were much, much more difficult.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Bush took office on January 21, 2001.

so like i said...when he took over the nasdaq plummeted?

not that i blame him though, that would be dumb as fuck

 

[Denny Crane]

so like i said...when he took over the nasdaq plummeted?

not that i blame him though, that would be dumb as fuck

Look again. It fell from over 4343 to ~1593 before he took office, or before he was even a candidate.

 

[mobes23]

Sure looks like W was a lot better at running the economy after a bubble burst than Obama is.

Huh, it hit me that you might be right in some respects. Start two wars to juice the economy and then leave it to your successor to figure out how to pay for them AND get out of them. Short term, that's definitely a great way to run the economy.

 

[Denny Crane]

Dang but I wish it was that simple. Our economy would be booming by now.

Again, your statement is true only if the facts and circumstances are the same. A bubble that bursts in a single sector is far different than severe problems to the financial system that sits under all sectors of the economy.

When the tech bubble burst, I worked in a tech focused firm that was on the frontlines of that dip and felt it far harder than most people. It's been clear to me that the recent problems were much, much more difficult.

9/11 happened a few months into his presidency and hit the travel industry - especially companies like Boeing and the airlines.

How did your real estate do in the 1990s? My house was underwater in 1992, but was worth 5x what I paid for it in 2000.

 

[Denny Crane]

Job creation boomed after 29 months of Bush. Compare to Obama.

 

[mobes23]

9/11 happened a few months into his presidency and hit the travel industry - especially companies like Boeing and the airlines.

How did your real estate do in the 1990s? My house was underwater in 1992, but was worth 5x what I paid for it in 2000.

Okay fine. You can add another sector two if that makes you happy, but with the near meltdown of the financial system we are talking EVERY SINGLE SECTOR...WORLDWIDE.

 

[mobes23]

Job creation boomed after 29 months of Bush. Compare to Obama.

Like I said, starting two wars is a great way to give a temporary boost. That fool peace lovin' Obama needs to get more serious about picking fights. Libya, North Korea or maybe Iran -- he just needs to pick one.

Revised: hey, wait a minute. Take out the first three months of office when "Barry" was taking out Dubya's garbage and Bush doesn't look so kickass. That plot makes a weak argument for you, maybe a better one against you.

 

[julius]

Job creation boomed after 29 months of Bush. Compare to Obama.

If red is Obama, look at how far down his start was, and how high the peak was compared to Bush's. Although his drop off around M18 was pretty bad.

 

[RoyToy]

Reading the graph it looks like Obama has basically doubled the # of jobs compared to Bush

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Look again. It fell from over 4343 to ~1593 before he took office, or before he was even a candidate.

that is simply not true at all

march 10 2000 nasdaq at 5048

march 14, bush gains nomination, it goes straight in the toilet from that point on

jan 1 2001 the nasdaq was around 2500

year and a half later around 1100...tank job

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Job creation boomed after 29 months of Bush. Compare to Obama.

lol soooo, obama has created a million jobs, and bush created zero? good chart

not to mention there are currently more jobs in america than there were at the same point in bushs regime?

GREAT chart

 

[3RA1N1AC]

maybe im not reading it right? there has to be a reason you posted it...

 

[Denny Crane]

Like I said, starting two wars is a great way to give a temporary boost. That fool peace lovin' Obama needs to get more serious about picking fights. Libya, North Korea or maybe Iran -- he just needs to pick one.

Revised: hey, wait a minute. Take out the first three months of office when "Barry" was taking out Dubya's garbage and Bush doesn't look so kickass. That plot makes a weak argument for you, maybe a better one against you.

Bush didn't spend $800B in stimulus money or have a bunch of census workers to hire. Nice try.

If red is Obama, look at how far down his start was, and how high the peak was compared to Bush's. Although his drop off around M18 was pretty bad.

 

[MARIS61]

Michele Bachmann is smarter than most posters in here and smarter than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Link?

Or maybe you should look up the definition(s) of "smarter". Or maybe you meant she wears "smart" pantsuits?

 

[speeds]

[video=youtube;5RCH1nQ1u4I]