The Leftard Cultist Talking Point of the Century

[impartialobserver]

Now to cut off the more sleuthy types, one will see the number of establishments (distinct units that report and pay UI tax) grow from 10,061,480 in 2019 q4 to 11,862,683 in 2024q1 with almost no declines. That is an increase of 1,801,023 establishments. It is deceptive because what happened is that folks went remote and became their own distinct UI item usually in another state. They essentially worked for firm xyz in San Francisco but were working remotely (and therefore started their own UI account) in idaho or utah. Conversely, now that they are moving back to San Francisco (just an example), their accounts in Idaho, Utah, Nevada, wherever are closing but not immediately. Established law says that you can't close it unless you have 8 quarters of non-reporting or the firm requests it. So for now.. the count of number of establishments is a bit inflated. 

Edited October 9, 2024 by impartialobserver

[Black Dog]

On 10/8/2024 at 4:25 PM, CdnFox said:

LOL  ahhhh yes, your usual melt down and retort when you've got nothing REEEE

Ah your usual denial of reality when it slaps you across the face.

Quote

Well, I suppose it's not an unreasonable statement to say that virtually all political rally speeches are old man yells at TV type events (except harris which is an 'Old woman giggles at tv" event) and I'm sure it does come up at a number of those events so I'm willing to spot you that as being probably an accurate statement

welll.... obviously is a strong word REEEEEEEEE  She very much has communistic elements in her platform and previous speeches. 

Doesn't matter, unless she's a card-carrying member of the communist party one call her a Communists, those are your rules.

Quote

Blah blah still can't refute and now getting more butthurt aperently.

LOL I literally refuted you.

Quote

And you're wrong, but you did provide more evidence he trafficked in slaves. 

LOL no. The slaves were sold by the state.

Quote

Yes.  Among other things, that's true. They demanded the right to set all of their own laws and saw confederation is more of a loose association than giving power to a national central government. Slavery was one of the issues where they disagree, but there were others and they worry that there would be even further ones. Laws were being proposed that would have affected their agricultural Prosperity well beyond slavery.

And they were assured this is something that wouldn't happen when they signed on to confederation

And yet when they announced they were seceding, the number one issue they mentioned was slavery.

Quote

More like you should be charged for your misinformation REEEEEEE

You haven't been able to refute any of my points or support your own, you're a fraud.

Quote

Very little of the Nazi policy had anything to do with racism.

LOL. LMAO.

Quote

And while slavery was certainly the biggest example and sorepoint, what led to the south rising up was a difference between them being able to set their own policies and laws and the north being able to set them for them. That included things like excise taxes shipping and other concerns land use and ownership and a number of other things. Let's not forget that the war started not over a conflict involving a slave but rather a conflict involving who owned a piece of land that a fort was on and the right of the north to station military there.

That's not what happened.

The actual issue that spurred the southern states to secede was the election of Lincoln (who, by the way, never owned slaves) who the Southern slave states feared would prevent slavery from spreading into the future states of the west.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Ah your usual denial of reality when it slaps you across the face.

LOL sure kid   

Quote

 

 

Quote

Doesn't matter, because i'm going to deny it's true even if it is ,

Fine, we know how badly you do with facts. 

 

Quote

LOL I literally refuted you by saying you're wrong, i shouldn't have to provide any more evidence than that

Well that's not how you refute anyone, and in fact you admitted there is evidence he did in fact traffic in it.  Swing and a miss kiddo. 

I get it. You know you lost the other part of the argument which was the important part so you're desperately trying to come up with some species of failed secondary argument you think you can win.

Sorry, lincoln was involved in slave trading and we could still think of him as a great man anyway.

 

Quote

And yet when they announced they were seceding, the number one issue they mentioned was slavery.

Nope. From your OWN SOURCE:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

I always love it when you provide your own sources for why you're wrong  

Slavery was easily the greatest example of their grievance but it was not their grievance. Had slavery been allowed by the north but the other encroachments upon their rights had continued there still would have been a civil war.

The war was about the ideology of nationalism versus the ideology of states rights to self-determination and control. Slavery was a symptom of that conflict, it wasn't the source of it. The problems regarding this went right back to confederation and there were serious problems all the way through even before the conflict over slavery rose its head

But thanks for providing the proof  

 

Quote

You haven't been able to refute any of my points or support your own, you're a fraud.

I'm sure if you keep chanting that loud enough you'll at least be able to convince the voices in your head if no one else.

Quote

LOL. LMAO.

Sorry kid but I've already proved it's true. The Nazis were horribly racist people but when you look at the totality of the policies that they brought out and introduced very few of them actually had anything to do with race. They believe that their country existed to expand their own borders by military force, and they weren't the first to believe that. So they believed in gearing the economy for that purpose and redirecting public activity to allow for it. They believed in a lot of socialistic policies for the welfare of the nation's people. They believed in repealing the Treaty of Versailles and going to war if they couldn't.

It isn't to say they didn't have racist policies. But it is certainly true that the vast majority of their policies had nothing to do with race. Even their Auntie Jewish stuff wasn't about race it was about ethnicity of the Jewish religion.

 

Quote

That's not what happened.

That is precisely what happened. After they left the union they wanted their land back.  That fort was on their land and they demanded the us recongize their right to leave confederation and returm their land. They didn't, the fort was attacked. 

That is universally held as the start of the war.

So they didn't start the war over a slave, they started it over their right to leave and to control their own property. 

Quote

The actual issue that spurred the southern states to secede was the election of Lincoln (who, by the way, never owned slaves) who the Southern slave states feared would prevent slavery from spreading into the future states of the west.

The election of the slave trader lincoln certainly increased tension but it absolutely was not the issue. The issue have been brewing for many many years long before Lincoln got into office. The north frequently hoped it snows into the business of the south, including but not limited to slavery. The house was largely incomplete revolt even before lincoln was elected.

And your entire diatribe once again is designed to take away from the original point which you desperately don't want to talk about because you know you've already lost it and you're bitter

There were many good things about the man who was Robert E lee that are worthy of praise and recognition. He certainly played a major role in the history of the united states whether you agree with what he did or not. And the statues are placed there to recognize the greatness of the man and the rules. We can do that while still recognizing that the support of slavery was morally and ethically wrong even if it was reluctant

Statues of Louis real even though he was a murdering psychopath in more than one instance and a "traitorous rebel" who set the first nations rights back by decades.  They were JUST being cleared to vote and have direct say in the future of the country when he pulled that and killed it.  But he also created a symbol for his people and raised very legitimate concerns about their treatment and future and was a very important figure in our history and we can definitely put up statues and recognize that while still acknowledging his faults

That's how history works. But you want to tear the statues down because you want to pretend that American history is absolute crap and that America is built on slavery and we should tear it all down and build our brand new communist Utopia.

Pretty sad

[Black Dog]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL sure kid REEEEEE  

Sorry you can't handle being proven wrong. Given how often it happens you should probably work on managing your emotions about it better.

Quote

Well that's not how you refute anyone, and in fact you admitted there is evidence he did in fact traffic in it.  Swing and a miss kiddo. 

Nope. Again here's what I said:

"The slaves were never property of Mary Todd Lincoln or Abraham Lincoln. The most you can say is they may have profited from the sale of slaves, but that assumes they received any money from the deal and there's no evidence of that either."

Can't traffic in something you don't own.

Quote

I get it. You know you lost the other part of the argument which was the important part so you're desperately trying to come up with some species of failed secondary argument you think you can win.

Sorry, lincoln was involved in slave trading and we could still think of him as a great man anyway.

LOL you couldn't provide any actual evidence for Lincoln owning slaves and now you're trying a different tack but you still can't help but being wrong. You must have a humiliation fetish.

Quote

Nope. From your OWN SOURCE:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

I always love it when you provide your own sources for why you're wrong  

LOL it literally says "slaveholding states" there and then when they go into detail about their main beef it says this:

Quote

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. 

It's slavery all the way down.

Quote

Slavery was easily the greatest example of their grievance but it was not their grievance. Had slavery been allowed by the north but the other encroachments upon their rights had continued there still would have been a civil war.

Those "encroachments" were entirely about slavery, specifically the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and the federal government's perceived role in attempting to abolish slavery. It says so right there in the declarations of secession. All roads here lead back to slavery.

Quote

The war was about the ideology of nationalism versus the ideology of states rights to self-determination and control. Slavery was a symptom of that conflict, it wasn't the source of it. The problems regarding this went right back to confederation and there were serious problems all the way through even before the conflict over slavery rose its head

But thanks for providing the proof REEEEEEEEEEEE

Yeah, states rights to practice slavery, which was the root cause of the conflict, which is exactly what the southern states said when they seceded. Not sure why I should take your word over theirs.

Quote

I'm sure if you keep chanting that loud enough you'll at least be able to convince the voices in your head if no one else.

Sorry kid but I've already proved it's true. The Nazis were horribly racist people but when you look at the totality of the policies that they brought out and introduced very few of them actually had anything to do with race. 

Proved? You've never offered any evidence at all! The only citation you ever provided was regarding lebensraum, which your own source proved was rooted in the ideology of German racial supremacy. You've completely failed to do anything but spout your own opinion and pretend it's fact. 

The Nazi ideology was rooted in racial supremacy and almost every thing they did flowed from those beliefs.

Quote

That is precisely what happened. After they left the union they wanted their land back.  That fort was on their land and they demanded the us recongize their right to leave confederation and returm their land. They didn't, the fort was attacked. 

That is universally held as the start of the war.

So they didn't start the war over a slave, they started it over their right to leave and to control their own property. 

LOL phenomenally stupid take. They had already seceded over slavery, war was inevitable from that point.

Quote

The election of the slave trader lincoln certainly increased tension but it absolutely was not the issue. The issue have been brewing for many many years long before Lincoln got into office. The north frequently hoped it snows into the business of the south, including but not limited to slavery. The house was largely incomplete revolt even before lincoln was elected.

You're flailing so bad here you've lost the ability to type coherently lmao.

Every beef the South had with the North was connected to slavery and you can't provide any examples otherwise.

Quote

And your entire diatribe once again is designed to take away from the original point which you desperately don't want to talk about because you know you've already lost it and you're bitter

Nope, there you go again, declaring victory when all you've done is shit yourself repeatedly.

Quote

There were many good things about the man who was Robert E lee that are worthy of praise and recognition. He certainly played a major role in the history of the united states whether you agree with what he did or not. And the statues are placed there to recognize the greatness of the man and the rules. We can do that while still recognizing that the support of slavery was morally and ethically wrong even if it was reluctant

The statues have nothing to do with his post war achievements, whatever they were. They were placed there to honour his role as a defender of slavery. It's no more complicated than that.

Quote

That's how history works. But you want to tear the statues down because you want to pretend that American history is absolute crap and that America is built on slavery and we should tear it all down and build our brand new communist Utopia.

Pretty sad

See this is another reason why you're an absolute joke. You refuse to actually engage people's ideas or viewpoints and instead tilt at strawmen. But given how poorly you do when you actually have to engage with people's ideas and support your own, it's not really a surprise, but it is pretty pathetic.

Edited October 10, 2024 by Black Dog

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Sorry you can't handle being proven wrong. Given how often it happens you should probably work on managing your emotions about it better.

 

I'm sure pretending that i've been proven wrong helps you sleep through the night  

 

Quote

I know i'm wrong but i'm going to keep denying the truth and lie about it

 Yep.  You lie a lot, so what you say isn't really of interest.  And profiting from the sale of slaves isn't really better

 

Quote

LOL you couldn't provide any actual evidence for Lincoln owning slaves 

But i did. 

Quote

LOL it literally says "slaveholding states" there but i realize it's not relevant. 

Well I'm glad you finally figured out you were wrong   It very clearly states that their concerned was the frequent interference with the states rights. As I have said a million times slavery is probably the biggest most prominent example of that. But it's not the only one and it was not the issue. The issue was the north wanted to tell the south what to do in the south didn't want to be told

Sorry kid your own document proves you're an !diot. Everyone knows that slavery was the biggest example of the issue but it wasn't the issue. the issue was they demanded their right to set their own laws and constitution

 

Quote

Those "encroachments" were entirely about slavery,

Nope. Sorry, there were many.

And here you can read it again:

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union (yale.edu)

The entire beef is that they believe that each state has the right to maintain their own laws and constitution, and should the other states make a change that they disagree with they have the right to carry on as before and that they believe this is what has been violated. 

They would not tolerate the north telling them what to do . For ANYTHING. It had happened before, it was happening now with regards to slavery, and they were NOT interested in giving up their right to have their own laws. 

It's pretty simple.  "don't tread on me"  

 

Quote

Yeah, states rights to practice slavery, which was the root cause of the conflict, 

Your own cite calls you a liar.

Quote

Proved? You've never offered any evidence at all!

Of course i did, and you spent the first half of you anger driven response trying to claim it wasn't good enough and now the back half claiming i never provided the evidence (which you complained about) in the first place.   

Swing and a miss again there little guy   

As to the rest  we've been over it.  You simply believe that if you continue to lie somehow your lies will magically become true and that's just not how it works. 

The statues represent the deeds and actions of the man in their entirety, and recognize him as a notable historical figure. Of course they include both pre and post war. It's childish to pretend otherwise 

And of course we absolutely can look at historical figures and admire the good parts without ignoring the bad parts. 

You want to tear the statues down because you want to pretend that American history is absolute crap and that America is built on slavery and we should tear it all down and build our brand new communist Utopia. That is your motivation. 

 You wallow in your own dishonesty about it. 

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I'm sure pretending that i've been proven wrong helps you sleep through the night REEEEEEEEEE

Well, you were proven wrong, but if you lie to everyone else, why not yourself. It's pretty plain that your claim that I said Communist was Trump's favourite insult was incorrect: it was a different poster that did that. But it is funny that you're so addicted to contrarianism and your ego is so fragile you can't even admit that in the face of the proof.

Quote

 Yep.  You lie a lot, so what you say isn't really of interest.  And profiting from the sale of slaves isn't really better

And there's no record of that either. Keep digging loser.

Quote

But i did. 

You posted a link to an article about a book you have not read that claimed to have evidence that has been thoroughly debunked. That you think that kind of garbage is in any way convincing says a lot about your biases and gullibility. 

Quote

Well I'm glad you finally figured out you were wrong REEEEEEE  It very clearly states that their concerned was the frequent interference with the states rights. As I have said a million times slavery is probably the biggest most prominent example of that. But it's not the only one and it was not the issue.

It's the only one they mention. Not taxes, not tariffs, only the "encroachments" relating to slavery.

Quote

The issue was the north wanted to tell the south what to do in the south didn't want to be told

Yes they didn't want the North to tell them they couldn't keep slaves. That's the issue according to the seceding slave states.

Quote

Sorry kid your own document proves you're an !diot. Everyone knows that slavery was the biggest example of the issue but it wasn't the issue. the issue was they demanded their right to set their own laws and constitution

Yes: in order to maintain slavery in their states, not for shits and giggles. As one Southern newspaper wrote in 1864:

"Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork."

Quote

Nope. Sorry, there were many.

And here you can read it again:

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union (yale.edu)

I dunno why you think posting the same thing I already posted that proves that South Carolina was seceding because of slavery is a gotcha.

Quote

 

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

 

 

Quote

The entire beef is that they believe that each state has the right to maintain their own laws and constitution, and should the other states make a change that they disagree with they have the right to carry on as before and that they believe this is what has been violated. 

They would not tolerate the north telling them what to do. For ANYTHING. It had happened before, it was happening now with regards to slavery, and they were NOT interested in giving up their right to have their own laws. 

Ah so you do concede that slavery was the motivating factor. I accept your surrender.

Quote

Your own cite calls you a liar.

LOl you would say that but you're wrong and everyone can see it.

Quote

Of course i did, and you spent the first half of you anger driven response trying to claim it wasn't good enough and now the back half claiming i never provided the evidence (which you complained about) in the first place.  REEEEE

You failed to provide evidence that supported your claims and instead provided evidence that supported mine. Because you are a huge screwup. You seem to have the impression that simply posting a link is "providing evidence" regardless of whether the information accurate or actually supports your argument, but I assure you that's not how it works.

Quote

As to the rest  we've been over it.  You simply believe that if you continue to lie somehow your lies will magically become true and that's just not how it works. 

The statues represent the deeds and actions of the man in their entirety, and recognize him as a notable historical figure. Of course they include both pre and post war. It's childish to pretend otherwise 

No, they represent a man in a specific role at a specific time, as a General of the Confederate Army. Here's a contemporaneous description of the unveiling of the Lee statue in Richmond Virginia:

“The boxes were decorated with bunting and Confederate Flags. On every hand could be seen the ‘Stars and Bars.’ Nowhere in all this procession was there a United States flag. The emblem of the union had been left behind…a glorification of the lost cause was everywhere manifest.” 

From the New York Times:

"While in no place in the land are the people more loyal to the Federal flag and the Union than in this city, it has been suggested, and meets with approval of many, that on the occasion of the unveiling of the statue here to Gen. Robert E. Lee on May 29 the bands should play exclusively the airs popular to the Southern people during the war. At this occasion is a memorial one to the great commander in chief of the Confederate armies, it is contended that all the surroundings of the day should harmonize with the period in which Gen. Lee won his fame."

Quote

And of course we absolutely can look at historical figures and admire the good parts without ignoring the bad parts. 

No one has said otherwise.

Quote

You want to tear the statues down because you want to pretend that American history is absolute crap and that America is built on slavery and we should tear it all down and build our brand new communist Utopia. That is your motivation. 

 You wallow in your own dishonesty about it. 

Anyone reading this thread can see what my argument actually is so you continuing to spew this sad little strawman argument is just so pathetic and really shows what a feeble debater you are.

Edited October 10, 2024 by Black Dog

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I'll just keep repeating the same lies till they magically become true if that's ok with you.... 

Same shit that's already been debunked. Everything you've claimed is wrong and i've already shown that. 

The civil war came about because the south refused to let the north interfere with their right to pass their own laws and constitution. Not because of slavery.  Slavery may have been a major example of that but it was not the problem. 

Lincoln trafficked in slaves at least once.

A statue of a person celebrates the person, not any one 'moment in time', sorry. 

The reason you want to get rid of statues of famous americans is that you want to pretend america is a no good very bad place so you can convince people to throw it's values out and start again. 

 

And kiddo - lol anyone reading this thread will see you've got the emotional and intellectual capacity of a labradoodle and that you've not only failed to make your own points but provided proof that mine are correct.  You're only lying to yourself to try to make yourself feel better. 

[Black Dog]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Same shit that's already been debunked. Everything you've claimed is wrong and i've already shown that. 

"Debunked" implies you've made some semblance of an argument with evidence to back it up, but you've done no such thing. All you've brought to the table is some crank's book and repurposing a source i provided that proves you wrong.

 

Quote

The civil war came about because the south refused to let the north interfere with their right to pass their own laws and constitution. Not because of slavery.  Slavery may have been a major example of that but it was not the problem. 

Lincoln trafficked in slaves at least once.

A statue of a person celebrates the person, not any one 'moment in time', sorry. 

The reason you want to get rid of statues of famous americans is that you want to pretend america is a no good very bad place so you can convince people to throw it's values out and start again. 

LOL of course you're doing that shit you always do where, rather than actually defend your arguments or provide quality supporting evidence, you simply repeat them like a magical incantation. Sorry son, that shit doesn't work.

Quote

And kiddo - lol anyone reading this thread will see you've got the emotional and intellectual capacity of a labradoodle and that you've not only failed to make your own points but provided proof that mine are correct.  You're only lying to yourself to try to make yourself feel better. 

This is cope. Anyone reading this thread will see who there is one person who marshalled sources and provided concrete arguments and it ain't you. You are an utter fraud and a loser.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

"Debunked" implies you've made some semblance of an argument with evidence to back it up, but you've done no such thing. All you've brought to the table is some crank's book and repurposing a source i provided that proves you wrong.

 

LOL of course you're doing that shit you always do where, rather than actually defend your arguments or provide quality supporting evidence, you simply repeat them like a magical incantation. Sorry son, that shit doesn't work.

This is cope. Anyone reading this thread will see who there is one person who marshalled sources and provided concrete arguments and it ain't you. You are an utter fraud and a loser.

Pretending i didn't make an argument is a pretty chickenshit way to lose an argument little guy  

And your little hissy fit doesn't change things either. 

As i demonstrated - 

 

The civil war came about because the south refused to let the north interfere with their right to pass their own laws and constitution. Not because of slavery.  Slavery may have been a major example of that but it was not the problem. 

Lincoln trafficked in slaves at least once.

A statue of a person celebrates the person, not any one 'moment in time', sorry. 

The reason you want to get rid of statues of famous americans is that you want to pretend america is a no good very bad place so you can convince people to throw it's values out and start again. 

 

Sticking your fingers in your ears and crying won't change that.  Next time maybe think before you post and you won't wind up looking dumber than a tree sloth that's been run over by a semi. 

[WestCanMan]

On 10/9/2024 at 8:23 AM, impartialobserver said:

I give no credit to Biden but in the aggregate.. jobs did increase. 

That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I talked about.

1. The jobs that the Trump economy "lost" were all due to the covid lockdowns. Biden's comment about those lost jobs doesn't reference covid at all. He acts like it was just a normal economy that failed
2. The 10M jobs that Biden cited in that particular claim were all gained from ending the covid lockdowns. They were all bounce-back jobs. Biden's comment about those jobs doesn't reference covid at all. He acts like it was just because he had some amazingly successful job strategy.

Biden absolutely lied, 100%, and it wasn't a small lie, or hard to detect. It was massive and blatant and the MSM let him get away with it. 

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Pretending i didn't make an argument is a pretty chickenshit way to lose an argument little guy REEEEEE

I don't have to pretend, you fraud. Arguments, proper arguments, are supposed to include evidence to support them. You've stated your premises and then as evidence you...repeat them. And that's why you lost. Loser.

Quote

And your little hissy fit doesn't change things either. 

As i demonstrated - 

You didn't "demonstrate" anything. You made a whole bunch of claims, with next to no supporting evidence, and I've debunked each and everyone of them with actual sources, facts and logic. You can cry and whine all you want but it's all here in this thread for all to see. But by all means: continue to double down on your childish stupidity.

Quote

The civil war came about because the south refused to let the north interfere with their right to pass their own laws and constitution. Not because of slavery.  Slavery may have been a major example of that but it was not the problem. 

Lincoln trafficked in slaves at least once.

A statue of a person celebrates the person, not any one 'moment in time', sorry. 

The reason you want to get rid of statues of famous americans is that you want to pretend america is a no good very bad place so you can convince people to throw it's values out and start again. 

LOL of course you're doing that shit you always do where, rather than actually defend your arguments or provide quality supporting evidence, you simply repeat them like a magical incantation. Sorry son, that shit doesn't work.

Quote

Sticking your fingers in your ears and crying won't change that. 

So why are you doing that?

Quote

Next time maybe think before you post and you won't wind up looking dumber than a tree sloth that's been run over by a semi. 

LOL imagine thinking this sticks when your entire performance in this thread makes Pickett's Charge look like a masterstroke.

Edited October 11, 2024 by Black Dog

[WestCanMan]

46 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I don't have to pretend, you fraud. Arguments, proper arguments, are supposed to include evidence to support them.

C'mon Black Dummy. I don't even have to look back through your posts to know you lied. It's all you do.

Read and learn:

1. The jobs that the Trump economy "lost" were all due to the covid lockdowns. Biden's comment about those lost jobs doesn't reference covid at all. He acts like it was just a normal economy that failed
2. The 10M jobs that Biden cited in that particular claim were all gained from ending the covid lockdowns. They were all bounce-back jobs. Biden's comment about those jobs doesn't reference covid at all. He acts like it was just because he had some amazingly successful job strategy.

Biden absolutely lied, 100%, and it wasn't a small lie, or hard to detect. It was massive and blatant and the MSM let him get away with it. It was one of the biggest lies of the last 10 years, and most of what has been said on CNN in the last ten years has been false.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Black Dog said:

I don't have to pretend, you fraud.

Of course you do. It's how you make yourself feel better after yet again making a buffoon of yourself with nonsense arguments lacking fact or reason.

The biggest problem is that you are so afraid of being seen to be wrong that when you are seen is wrong you run around like a little mouse as fast as you can trying to find another path through the maze to get your cheese. So you make dumber and dumber arguments that are easier and easier to counter.

You make some of the most stupid suggestions. Like statues only memorialize that moment in time, which is !diotic.

Or arguing that we can't remember the good parts about a historical figure and discuss the bad parts, they have to be thrown out if they were bad at all.

I mean like it's just stupid stuff. Then you wind up trying to introduce even more meaningless and ignorant topics or spend your time desperately trying to deny you said what you said. Honestly I barely read what you say anymore because there's nothing in it that is going to have any intelligence or deserve any particular thought

There's nothing wrong with the statues of Robert E lee. Robert E lee did a lot of really incredible things before during and after the war which are worth remembering and memorializing. We can do that and still have a conversation about slavery and the things that he thought or did that weren't ideal. And if you really want we can put up statue of Martin Luther King right beside his so we've got both sides to think about

You only want to tear down the statues because you're a hateful person with regards to the history of America and want to rewrite history so america is always bad. 

[Black Dog]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Of course you do. It's how you make yourself feel better after yet again making a buffoon of yourself with nonsense arguments lacking fact or reason.

The biggest problem is that you are so afraid of being seen to be wrong that when you are seen is wrong you run around like a little mouse as fast as you can trying to find another path through the maze to get your cheese. So you make dumber and dumber arguments that are easier and easier to counter.

And yet you're incapable of doing so. You can't marshal evidence or facts, so you have to lie. It's pitiful.

Quote

You make some of the most stupid suggestions. Like statues only memorialize that moment in time, which is !diotic.

The specific statues in question? Absolutely. I demonstrated the Lee statues and Confederate statues in general were part of an organized effort to celebrate the Confederacy and promote the Lost Cause narrative and you had no response.

Quote

Or arguing that we can't remember the good parts about a historical figure and discuss the bad parts, they have to be thrown out if they were bad at all.

Never argued that, there you go with your sad little strawmen again. Pathetic.

Quote

I mean like it's just stupid stuff. Then you wind up trying to introduce even more meaningless and ignorant topics or spend your time desperately trying to deny you said what you said.

What does it say about you that you think my arguments are stupid but you can't counter them without making shit up? lmao

Quote

Honestly I barely read what you say anymore because there's nothing in it that is going to have any intelligence or deserve any particular thought

LOL it's clear this is just another self-serving lie you're telling to save face, but it actually makes you look even sadder and more chickenshit.

Quote

There's nothing wrong with the statues of Robert E lee. Robert E lee did a lot of really incredible things before during and after the war which are worth remembering and memorializing. We can do that and still have a conversation about slavery and the things that he thought or did that weren't ideal. And if you really want we can put up statue of Martin Luther King right beside his so we've got both sides to think about

Sure that's why the statues all depict him as a General of the Confederacy: because they are commemorating all the great things he did before and after the war. You really are a deeply dumb person.

Quote

You only want to tear down the statues because you're a hateful person with regards to the history of America and want to rewrite history so america is always bad. 

Again, no one is going to take charges of "rewriting history" seriously coming from someone who has repeatedly demonstrated a total ignorance of basic historical facts. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

And yet you're incapable of doing so. You can't marshal evidence or facts, so you have to lie. It's pitiful.

The specific statues in question? Absolutely. I demonstrated the Lee statues and Confederate statues in general were part of an organized effort to celebrate the Confederacy and promote the Lost Cause narrative and you had no response.

Never argued that, there you go with your sad little strawmen again. Pathetic.

What does it say about you that you think my arguments are stupid but you can't counter them without making shit up? lmao

LOL it's clear this is just another self-serving lie you're telling to save face, but it actually makes you look even sadder and more chickenshit.

Sure that's why the statues all depict him as a General of the Confederacy: because they are commemorating all the great things he did before and after the war. You really are a deeply dumb person.

Again, no one is going to take charges of "rewriting history" seriously coming from someone who has repeatedly demonstrated a total ignorance of basic historical facts. 

Blah blah blah lie lie lie whimper whimper

 Black dog has another hissy fit because he was wrong and somehow repeating lies isnt' magically making them true for him.  Yawn.

Your arguments have been shot down already kid. Repetitively. It's not like it was hard.  We can still remember why someone was great without having to forget or dismiss bad things. 

You want to get rid of lee because you want america to be a bad evil place. 

Now stop crying, go have your cookie and your nap. and we'll talk again when you're feeling better    

[Black Dog]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Blah blah blah lie lie lie whimper whimper REEEEEEE

LOl you just can't quit can you? You just have to have the last word even if it makes you look ever more retarded and pathetic.

Quote

 Black dog has another hissy fit because he was wrong and somehow repeating lies isnt' magically making them true for him.  Yawn.

More projection from our resident IMAX.

Quote

Your arguments have been shot down already kid. Repetitively. It's not like it was hard. 

My arguments are undefeated as anyone reading this thread can see. Sorry you suck.

Quote

We can still remember why someone was great without having to forget or dismiss bad things. 

No one said otherwise, not sure why you keep blathering about that.

Quote

You want to get rid of lee because you want america to be a bad evil place. 

This doesn't make sense at all least of all because Lee doesn't represent America; he represents a failed rebellion against it.

Quote

Now stop crying, go have your cookie and your nap. and we'll talk again when you're feeling better  REEEEEE

LOL Classic coping mechanism from a snivelling chickenshit and always a sign you've been whipped.

Edited October 11, 2024 by Black Dog

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

LOl you just can't quit can you? You just have to have the last word even if it makes you look ever more retarded and pathetic.

More projection from our resident IMAX.

My arguments are undefeated as anyone reading this thread can see. Sorry you suck.

No one said otherwise, not sure why you keep blathering about that.

This doesn't make sense at all least of all because Lee doesn't represent America; he represents a failed rebellion against it.

LOL Classic coping mechanism from a snivelling chickenshit and always a sign you've been whipped.

Oh look who's lying and freaking out again. 

ALl your points were already shot down kid.  And honestly if i'd been too busy to do it i could have gotten a cocker spaniel to do it for me, it was that easy. 

At this point you're like a fish whos already in the net and in the boat but keeps flopping around like mad thinking he might get away until someone clubs him  

Better luck next time kiddo    try using facts and logic. 

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Oh look who's lying and freaking out again. 

ALl your points were already shot down kid.  And honestly if i'd been too busy to do it i could have gotten a cocker spaniel to do it for me, it was that easy. 

At this point you're like a fish whos already in the net and in the boat but keeps flopping around like mad thinking he might get away until someone clubs him REEEEEEEE

Better luck next time kiddo REEEEEEEEE  try using facts and logic. 

I know who you remind me of! It's Bruce McCulloch's character in this classic KITH sketch.

Stay down ya frig.

Edited October 11, 2024 by Black Dog

[impartialobserver]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I talked about.

1. The jobs that the Trump economy "lost" were all due to the covid lockdowns. Biden's comment about those lost jobs doesn't reference covid at all. He acts like it was just a normal economy that failed
2. The 10M jobs that Biden cited in that particular claim were all gained from ending the covid lockdowns. They were all bounce-back jobs. Biden's comment about those jobs doesn't reference covid at all. He acts like it was just because he had some amazingly successful job strategy.

Biden absolutely lied, 100%, and it wasn't a small lie, or hard to detect. It was massive and blatant and the MSM let him get away with it. 

Its simple math... I gave you the before covid jobs and then gave you the most current data. If you want the true job gain (not just those that were taken away during covid and then essentially given back), I supplied the raw data not second hand interpretations. 

politicians lie and always will. Had Trump won in 2020.. he would be touting the same job recovery. 

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Its simple math... I gave you the before covid jobs and then gave you the most current data.

That would only make sense if Biden made that comment today, and cited the actual number of jobs gained instead the number of bounceback jobs that reappeared.

1. When Biden made his comment about the Trump economy losing jobs he neglected to mention that it was only because of covid lockdowns, so his comment was a massive lie by omission.
2. When Biden made his comment about the 2022 job gains he neglected to mention that it was only because he ended covid lockdowns, he pretended that it was just because of Bidenomics. So his comment was a massive lie by exaggeration.

Biden's quote was entirely about the bounceback jobs - it had nothing to do with your stats.

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

That would only make sense if Biden made that comment today, and cited the actual number of jobs gained instead the number of bounceback jobs that reappeared.

1. When Biden made his comment about the Trump economy losing jobs he neglected to mention that it was only because of covid lockdowns, so his comment was a massive lie by omission.
2. When Biden made his comment about the 2022 job gains he neglected to mention that it was only because he ended covid lockdowns, he pretended that it was just because of Bidenomics. So his comment was a massive lie by exaggeration.

Biden's quote was entirely about the bounceback jobs - it had nothing to do with your stats.

Politicians lie and twist things to fit their narrative. Its part of their job. As Americans, we implicitly give the ok for it by re-electing them. You and I know that the true job gains are far less. Hint.. it is very fortunate that the new qcew data comes out on November 5, 2024. While it does not show a loss in most states.. it will show a slower growth rate than in past quarters. 

to give you more context.. he (and everyone else) uses CES (Current Employment Statistics) which are monthly estimates. The data that I supplied is not an estimate. The reason that few use QCEW is the lag time of six to eight months. 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

Politicians lie and twist things to fit their narrative. Its part of their job. 

Biden's lies are blatant and on a massive scale. "No inflation, transitory inflation, Putinflation...." They're ridiculous "p!ss in their faces and tell them it's raining" types of lies and the MSM and leftist cultists say "it's raining". 

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Biden's lies are blatant and on a massive scale. "No inflation, transitory inflation, Putinflation...." They're ridiculous "p!ss in their faces and tell them it's raining" types of lies and the MSM and leftist cultists say "it's raining". 

The blatantness of the lie is not what interests me. It apparently makes you lose sleep. I know the truth.. heck, I do it for a living. So in short, I am not swayed by such claims. However, must be too cynical for my own good. When I give folks the data (this forum as an example) they gloss over and start falling asleep. 

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

The blatantness of the lie is not what interests me.

I hear you loud and clear. Biden's lie is of no interest to you, personally. Other people care about lies of that magnitude, and the fact that the MSM says nothing about them. 

You should be concerned if you care about democracy, but you're not, at all.

Quote

I know the truth.. heck, I do it for a living.

Do what for a living? Lie? Are you joking right now?

Quote

So in short, I am not swayed by such claims.

That's fine, but it has nothing to do with anything I said.

Quote

However, must be too cynical for my own good. When I give folks the data (this forum as an example) they gloss over and start falling asleep. 

You're giving data that no one asked for.

If we asked how many hurricanes there were, on avg, in the first half of the 1900s, and you went on about tornadoes in the 1980s, yeah people would gloss over. 

People tend to care about the topic at hand and not so much about unrelated things. 

For some reason you're interested in jobs created in 2023 and 2024, which have nothing to do with this conversation, but you have no interest in the thread topic, or what I was talking about when you chimed in.

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Do what for a living? Lie? Are you joking right now?

I do employment data for a living (ces, laus, qcew, unemployment insurance). Mostly the last one but spent 8 years being the primary processor of the other 3 so I know them intimately. 

The point is that I gave the true data (job gains when pre-covid (2019) and the most recent (march 2024) are the endpoints not just a cherry picked, disingenuous view of it. I thought that you would appreciate that but apparently not. Oh well. Interesting how you glossed over how I pointed out that Biden's true job gains were less than Trump's.