Make the best choices for your Medicare needs with AARP’s Medicare Made Easy. Try it today!

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
294
Views

Re: Fact Checking Trump's State Of The Union Address

294 Views
Message 11 of 73

You know,  My take. on the State of the Union Address. I thought he mad a decent speech.  so having said that. NOw, he comes down with the stupidity of the "treasonous"  statement.

Ever since I have seen a State of the Union by any Administration the opposition party does not stand up and applaud. So by calling those people that they are committing treason is more stupid that perhaps them not applauding.
This President needs to understand the value of silence.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
294
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
288
Views

Re: Fact Checking Trump's State Of The Union Address

288 Views
Message 12 of 73

Correction:

 

NBC Factcheck is Fake News!

 

Proof:

The quote from https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2018-state-of-the-union-address/fact-check-how-some-trump-s-state-... ,

 

"President Barack Obama cut black unemployment in half, from 16.8 percent to 7.8 percent during his administration. Under Trump’s administration thus far, the black unemployment rate has fallen just one point, from 7.8 percent to 6.8 percent.", is a lie because, according to the same data that NBC referenced,

 

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

 

from the table, African American Unemployment (AAU) was as follows:


12.7% (Bush 1/19/2009 and Obama 1/20/2009)
16.5% (Obama 1/19/2010)
15.8% (Obama 1/19/2011)
...
7.8% (Obama 1/19/2017 and Trump 1/20/2017)
7.7% (Trump 1/19/2018)

 

(12.7-7.8)/12.7 = 39% reduction which is less than "half." And, NBC’s “6.8%” is lower than NBC’s stated source's “7.7”which is an NBC lie in favor of Trump.

 

 

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
288
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
297
Views

Re: Fact Checking Trump's State Of The Union Address

297 Views
Message 13 of 73

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:



"Exactly which of your posts has that phrase in it."  -  What phrase? 

What you are accusing me of "immorally editing out".

 

"There is a lead time involved." Give me your estimate of the average lead time. 

It depends on whether or not they were exploring it before or, simply decide today we are going. There are discussions to be had with overseas manufacturers, possibly a factory to be built, supply chains and distribution chains to coordinate, tooling to be completed, workers to be trained, etc.  You are looking at over a year from your initial decision to go overseas, unless you started the process already, then it is much shorter.

 

"If, as you say, they moved overseas to "save money", they would have moved or will move anyway regardless of who is President. "  - Huh?

That should be an obvious statement to respond to.  We have had businesses off-shoring for years.

 


 


'"Exactly which of your posts has that phrase in it."  -  What phrase? 

What you are accusing me of "immorally editing out". '

 

Unbelievable.  You, not I, called the part of the post that you edited out a "phrase."  You edited out this entire sentence:

 

"The logic is that owners of profitable businesses, who were making money, immediately decided they needed to let American workers go to save money, and, in some cases, move operations to another country."

 

This is the third time I told you.  Just in case you didn't see it, here it is again:

 

"The logic is that owners of profitable businesses, who were making money, immediately decided they needed to let American workers go to save money, and, in some cases, move operations to another country."

 

Sorting out your ramblings is an unfair burden on me.  I am done talking to you.

 

 

 


If you go back and check, you will see that I never edited that out.  That is what you posted in response to my question of what ridiculous "logic" you were using and is just as ridiculous and uninformed as your first attempt at logic.

 

I notice you have never bothered to answer my questions, because you can't.  Instead, you are resorting to indignation.

 

Pretending to be more intelligent than you are, is not an effective strategy.

 

By the way, in your first post that I responded to about Trump's unemployment numbers, you made a very basic mathematical error, but since you are so intelligent, I'll let you figure it out.

 

Updated:  I just noticed that I was typing my reply to you, Phyllisc6781 had the same thing to say, so I am not the only one who noticed it.


"iif you go back and check, you will see that I never edited that out. " - My bad.  I incorrrecty responded to your same post twice and must have forgotten about my first response.

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
297
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
320
Views

Re: Fact Checking Trump's State Of The Union Address

320 Views
Message 14 of 73

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:



"Exactly which of your posts has that phrase in it."  -  What phrase? 

What you are accusing me of "immorally editing out".

 

"There is a lead time involved." Give me your estimate of the average lead time. 

It depends on whether or not they were exploring it before or, simply decide today we are going. There are discussions to be had with overseas manufacturers, possibly a factory to be built, supply chains and distribution chains to coordinate, tooling to be completed, workers to be trained, etc.  You are looking at over a year from your initial decision to go overseas, unless you started the process already, then it is much shorter.

 

"If, as you say, they moved overseas to "save money", they would have moved or will move anyway regardless of who is President. "  - Huh?

That should be an obvious statement to respond to.  We have had businesses off-shoring for years.

 


 


'"Exactly which of your posts has that phrase in it."  -  What phrase? 

What you are accusing me of "immorally editing out". '

 

Unbelievable.  You, not I, called the part of the post that you edited out a "phrase."  You edited out this entire sentence:

 

"The logic is that owners of profitable businesses, who were making money, immediately decided they needed to let American workers go to save money, and, in some cases, move operations to another country."

 

This is the third time I told you.  Just in case you didn't see it, here it is again:

 

"The logic is that owners of profitable businesses, who were making money, immediately decided they needed to let American workers go to save money, and, in some cases, move operations to another country."

 

Sorting out your ramblings is an unfair burden on me.  I am done talking to you.

 

 

 


If you go back and check, you will see that I never edited that out.  That is what you posted in response to my question of what ridiculous "logic" you were using and is just as ridiculous and uninformed as your first attempt at logic.

 

I notice you have never bothered to answer my questions, because you can't.  Instead, you are resorting to indignation.

 

Pretending to be more intelligent than you are, is not an effective strategy.

 

By the way, in your first post that I responded to about Trump's unemployment numbers, you made a very basic mathematical error, but since you are so intelligent, I'll let you figure it out.

 

Updated:  I just noticed that I was typing my reply to you, Phyllisc6781 had the same thing to say, so I am not the only one who noticed it.

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
320
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
315
Views

Re: Fact Checking Trump's State Of The Union Address

315 Views
Message 15 of 73

@aruzinsky wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I takes intelligence to understand how you screwed up accusing someone of using a bare plural and then using one yourself without even realizing it. Yes, "people" does imply all in the circumstance it was used in. Trying to act all intellectual isn't workin' to well for ya'.


Then, is the following how you would paraphrase phyllisc6781 without using any bare plurals?:

 


The rest of your post means nothing in reference to my saying that you used a bare plural after accusing another of doing the same and criticizing them for it. You gave very lame attempts to show that you didn't but all can see that you did. It really makes no difference what phyllisc6781 did or didn't do, dontcha see?


"you used a bare plural after accusing another of doing the same" - Wrong. Not only wrong, but, you keep repeating that untruth.  I previously said, 

 

'"People" is an ambiguous bare plural.  The usage of many bare plurals is a rhetorical device used by most people incapable of clear thought. The fact that you have used eight bare plurals shows that you have very faulty, simplistic and error riddled logic.  As proof, I defy you to paraphrase all of your above statements without using any bare plurals.'

 

1. The only "bare plural" that you accused me of using is "everyone."  Not only is "everyone" not a bare plural, it is grammatically not even a plural and it is logically equivalent to "all people" which is also not a bare plural.  

 

2. If I used one bare plural, it was not many bare plurals.

 

3. If I used any bare plurals, I can paraphrase myself without them.  Just point it out and I will do it.

 

ChasKy53, you are so inarticulate that it is an unfair burden for any articulate person to sort your ramblings. 

 

 


When a poster has to arrogantly put forth  pseudo  “academic knowledge, ” it screams insecurity and lack of self-respect. The need to discredit others shows the same.

 

In addition, bare plurals never did, and never will, have anything to do with the topic of this thread, which is why it was discarded initially as just a very transparent, a very pompous,  and a very arrogant diversion. 

 

 It is obvious that the  poster has little to add to this discussion other than to try to prove to the rest of us how smart he might be. Still waiting for a single relevant thought.

 

Gee, I miss having a real president!

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
315
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
319
Views

Re: Fact Checking Trump's State Of The Union Address

319 Views
Message 16 of 73

@aruzinsky wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I takes intelligence to understand how you screwed up accusing someone of using a bare plural and then using one yourself without even realizing it. Yes, "people" does imply all in the circumstance it was used in. Trying to act all intellectual isn't workin' to well for ya'.


Then, is the following how you would paraphrase phyllisc6781 without using any bare plurals?:

 


The rest of your post means nothing in reference to my saying that you used a bare plural after accusing another of doing the same and criticizing them for it. You gave very lame attempts to show that you didn't but all can see that you did. It really makes no difference what phyllisc6781 did or didn't do, dontcha see?


"you used a bare plural after accusing another of doing the same" - Wrong. Not only wrong, but, you keep repeating that untruth.  I previously said, 

 

'"People" is an ambiguous bare plural.  The usage of many bare plurals is a rhetorical device used by most people incapable of clear thought. The fact that you have used eight bare plurals shows that you have very faulty, simplistic and error riddled logic.  As proof, I defy you to paraphrase all of your above statements without using any bare plurals.'

 

1. The only "bare plural" that you accused me of using is "everyone."  Not only is "everyone" not a bare plural, it is grammatically not even a plural and it is logically equivalent to "all people" which is also not a bare plural.  

 

2. If I used one bare plural, it was not many bare plurals.

 

3. If I used any bare plurals, I can paraphrase myself without them.  Just point it out and I will do it.

  

@aruzinsky - That's an amusing rant.  

 

However, attacking another's language usage, as well as attacking the person of another poster, in addition to probably being a TOS and GUIDELINES violation, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of "Fact Checking Trump's State Of The Union Address"...

 

You're welcome.

 

 

 

 


 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
319
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
315
Views

Re: Fact Checking Trump's State Of The Union Address

315 Views
Message 17 of 73

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:




 

But, I submit that Obama is partially responsible for his initial increase in unemployment.  Psychological causes have nearly instantaneous effects, especially when the psychological cause is anticipation.  I believe that corporate leaders found Obama's socialist behaviour so repugnant that it caused a nearly instantaneous increase in unemployment.  Similarly, corporate leaders found Trump's pro-capitalism behaviour so agreeable, that unemployment declined nearly instantaneously.

 

 


So, you are actually stating that owners of profitable businesses who were making money immediately decided they needed to let workers go and make less money?


No. You immorally edited out the part of my quote that addressed that:

 

"The logic is that owners of profitable businesses, who were making money, immediately decided they needed to let American workers go to save money, and, in some cases, move operations to another country."

 

"Save money" means make more money than they would have, otherwise.    


Exactly which of your posts has that phrase in it. 

It is obvious you are either very naive, or have no clue how a business works.  A business does not decide to simply shut down domestics operations today and open up in a foreign country tomorrow.  There is a lead time involved.  If, as you say, they moved overseas to "save money", they would have moved or will move anyway regardless of who is President.  No profitable business is going to do what you said. 

You have to explain your " Psychological causes have nearly instantaneous effects" statement in relation to business decisions.  Business owners who practice this type of business usually have other adjectives in front of their total like "ex" or "bankrupt"."


"Exactly which of your posts has that phrase in it."  -  What phrase? 

What you are accusing me of "immorally editing out".

 

"There is a lead time involved." Give me your estimate of the average lead time. 

It depends on whether or not they were exploring it before or, simply decide today we are going. There are discussions to be had with overseas manufacturers, possibly a factory to be built, supply chains and distribution chains to coordinate, tooling to be completed, workers to be trained, etc.  You are looking at over a year from your initial decision to go overseas, unless you started the process already, then it is much shorter.

 

"If, as you say, they moved overseas to "save money", they would have moved or will move anyway regardless of who is President. "  - Huh?

That should be an obvious statement to respond to.  We have had businesses off-shoring for years.

 


 


'"Exactly which of your posts has that phrase in it."  -  What phrase? 

What you are accusing me of "immorally editing out". '

 

Unbelievable.  You, not I, called the part of the post that you edited out a "phrase."  You edited out this entire sentence:

 

"The logic is that owners of profitable businesses, who were making money, immediately decided they needed to let American workers go to save money, and, in some cases, move operations to another country."

 

This is the third time I told you.  Just in case you didn't see it, here it is again:

 

"The logic is that owners of profitable businesses, who were making money, immediately decided they needed to let American workers go to save money, and, in some cases, move operations to another country."

 

Sorting out your ramblings is an unfair burden on me.  I am done talking to you.

 

 

 

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
315
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
314
Views

Re: Fact Checking Trump's State Of The Union Address

314 Views
Message 18 of 73

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I takes intelligence to understand how you screwed up accusing someone of using a bare plural and then using one yourself without even realizing it. Yes, "people" does imply all in the circumstance it was used in. Trying to act all intellectual isn't workin' to well for ya'.


Then, is the following how you would paraphrase phyllisc6781 without using any bare plurals?:

 


The rest of your post means nothing in reference to my saying that you used a bare plural after accusing another of doing the same and criticizing them for it. You gave very lame attempts to show that you didn't but all can see that you did. It really makes no difference what phyllisc6781 did or didn't do, dontcha see?


"you used a bare plural after accusing another of doing the same" - Wrong. Not only wrong, but, you keep repeating that untruth.  I previously said, 

 

'"People" is an ambiguous bare plural.  The usage of many bare plurals is a rhetorical device used by most people incapable of clear thought. The fact that you have used eight bare plurals shows that you have very faulty, simplistic and error riddled logic.  As proof, I defy you to paraphrase all of your above statements without using any bare plurals.'

 

1. The only "bare plural" that you accused me of using is "everyone."  Not only is "everyone" not a bare plural, it is grammatically not even a plural and it is logically equivalent to "all people" which is also not a bare plural.  

 

2. If I used one bare plural, it was not many bare plurals.

 

3. If I used any bare plurals, I can paraphrase myself without them.  Just point it out and I will do it.

 

 

 

Old Witch
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
314
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
332
Views

Re: Fact Checking Trump's State Of The Union Address

332 Views
Message 19 of 73

@aruzinsky wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:




 

But, I submit that Obama is partially responsible for his initial increase in unemployment.  Psychological causes have nearly instantaneous effects, especially when the psychological cause is anticipation.  I believe that corporate leaders found Obama's socialist behaviour so repugnant that it caused a nearly instantaneous increase in unemployment.  Similarly, corporate leaders found Trump's pro-capitalism behaviour so agreeable, that unemployment declined nearly instantaneously.

 

 


So, you are actually stating that owners of profitable businesses who were making money immediately decided they needed to let workers go and make less money?


No. You immorally edited out the part of my quote that addressed that:

 

"The logic is that owners of profitable businesses, who were making money, immediately decided they needed to let American workers go to save money, and, in some cases, move operations to another country."

 

"Save money" means make more money than they would have, otherwise.    


 When Obama took office there were very high expectations. I remember people saying that they were sure that the American public would be disappointed because the expectations were so high. However,

our economy was in shambles, and Obama had nothing to do with unemployment due to the breaking down of our economy.  That  dishonor went to George W. Bush, who used trickle down economics and had no restrictions on Wall Street and banks. Of course in all his stupidity, Trump has once again instituted trickle down economics and  stripped the restrictions away, ensuring that our economy will weaken once again, 

 Mr. Obama made it quite clear that it would take four years— eight years—and  perhaps beyond to rebuild the disaster that Bush left behind. 

 

 Some may call Obama a socialist, but I’ll take a socialist over a criminal and fascist any day. 

 

 

Gee, I miss having a real president!

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
332
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
331
Views

Re: Fact Checking Trump's State Of The Union Address

331 Views
Message 20 of 73

@aruzinsky wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


I takes intelligence to understand how you screwed up accusing someone of using a bare plural and then using one yourself without even realizing it. Yes, "people" does imply all in the circumstance it was used in. Trying to act all intellectual isn't workin' to well for ya'.


Then, is the following how you would paraphrase phyllisc6781 without using any bare plurals?:

 


The rest of your post means nothing in reference to my saying that you used a bare plural after accusing another of doing the same and criticizing them for it. You gave very lame attempts to show that you didn't but all can see that you did. It really makes no difference what phyllisc6781 did or didn't do, dontcha see?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
331
Views