She's right. The unemployment rate has been dropping. It's easy to make it so, when you STOP COUNTING PEOPLE. I find the power of Democrat lies to be unfathomably amazing. 92% of the black vote, when they are the ones who were the slavers, the segregationists, the authors of the jim crowe laws, the tax creators and the tax cheats, the over regulating money laundering union thugs. It's shameful!
OF COURSE IT IS DROPPING BY STATS , THE TWO YEAR UNEMPLOYMENT EXTENSION WAS JUST THAT BY HIS THIRD YEAR THE PEOPLE WHO NO LONGER ARE DRAWING ARE NOT COUNTED ANYMORE , MAKES BARKS OBEYME LOOK BETTER WHEN IT IS JUST A SCAM
Check the U6 numbers (those that more accurately reflect the unemployment and UNDERemployment in this country. They're at 15.1% and have been in the 15% range for quite awhile. This woman is NUTS!!!
@VintageHIppie78 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
What an absolute idiot this Wasserman-Shchultz is. Every single interview she gives she rushes to get out the same, tired 4 talking points - even though they have been de-bunked THOROUGHLY and REPEATEDLY.
She is so typical of the current Democratic establishment. They have nothing other than manufactured statistics and simple demagogaury.
Unemployment has almost doubled under obama. Go to Bureau Of Labor Statistics and look at previous years. I have the link but youtube doesn't allow me to post links.
So let me see. Debbie has admitted that from the time Obama took office in 2008 and the House and Senate were both controlled by the democrats unemployment has skyrocketed. Since the Republicans took the House in 2010 the unemployment numbers have actually begin to decline because the democrats don't control both houses. Debbie makes a good point. I think she is saying that if Obama is voted out in 2012 and the Republicans take the Senate unemployment will drop substantially. Thanks, Debbie!
This woman is a liar. Her facts are skewed and so is her warped mind. Another part of the devious and deceptive Obama regime. Before you vote this year, make sure you have all the facts. A vote for Obama is anti American.
I had a job till Barry took power! The Democrap Gov of Wash. State put 17 major jobs on hole for 6 months! That was 40 months ago! Hope and change my Bollocks!
Bush's unemployment rate ranged from 4.0%- 5.8% from 2000 to 2008. At near full employment you won't get high job creation numbers.
OWEbama stimuli bought jobs at roughly $250,000 ea. He is incompetent and has proven that his "plan" is part of the problem, NOT the solution. The market has spoken, investors find the risk too high under OWEbama-nomics.
It's a RECESSION when your neighbor is out of work.
Marxist: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society Based on the libtard party self described policies. Alot of similarities but not exactly the same. Enough to question their motives.
Progressive: making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
Forget toward better conditions, It just goes from bad to worse. As for the rest of it, that is pretty self explanatory. Try and twist this around.
If the number of Americans that "wanted jobs" was the same today as it was back in 2007, the "official" unemployment rate put out by the U.S. government would be up to 11 percent.
The libtard propaganda mouthpiece can block your comments on her site. She has a office with email and phones that she must go to. If the libtard idiots can send trash emails to me. That means we can tell her what we think of her as well. Please be polite but accurate so the libtards cannot call us tea party terrorist.
@Timasion No, can you factor in a lost labor force of 6 Million workers since 2009 into that 8.6%? Neither could or would the Bureau of Labor Statistics in that deceptive percentage. You have to use the U6 #'s to get the truth. Funny how there are less jobs from month to month but when the labor force shrinks the unemployment figure (8.6%) projects "jobs created". Nice try. LOL
@VideoSeattle I do not understand your post. Are you saying that the current 8.6% unemployment fails to capture the people who are no longer looking for a job? I concur. Are you saying that the number of jobs in America is not expanding as fast as the population? I concur again.
The number of people "not in the employment force" is rising faster than the population. This tells me people not looking for work is increasing and not being counted. So, it may be worse than what we think
@2010GOP I don't even know what to say to you. You're going to believe what you're going to believe no matter how many facts your given disputing your claims. Maybe you should look into why people support cap & trade, and more importantly discover for yourself that it was a CONSERVATIVE proposal by CONSERVATIVES, but as soon as a Dem recommends it, it's something that must be shunned.
Maybe you should find out the other sides stances, instead of making assumptions.
* 2011 U6 unemployment rate: 16.5% (rate used during 1930’s depression)
* 2011 Monthly US Population Growth: 150k
* 2011 Total Active College Class: 20.4 Million
* 2011 Total Unemployed: 24 Million
* 2011 Total Jobs Created: 1 Million
1 million new jobs in 2011, how is that dropping unemployment numbers?
It doesn’t take a mathematician to see we have an issue and discontinuing unemployment is heartless and irresponsible. Government uses deceptive stats.
Look up the jobs "Bikini graph" and maybe you will understand what she is talking about. Make sure you see the one filled out until now. Then you will see how we were truly on the brink of a great depression and to be where we are now is kind of miraculous.
This is why the Lefties have failed. Debbie WasAMan Schultz doesnt see a problem. If you go to her youtube posts she doesn' let you post any comments, and she will not say that the economy is in serious trouble after three years of legtie policies. See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil. Leftie Mantra until B.O. is voted out.
@TheChap36 That is because the older generation of machinist is getting ready retirement. The problem is we have generation of leftist taught youth, and they was grossly cheated out of a good education. Before you people call me a liar check where the US stands in the education ranking. If you need more proof of this than you really are in need of help.
@PatriotTexas I agree, brother. Long live Momma South Pride. Yeeha. Yes, some of these leftist youth have absolutely no idea how ludicrously tedious working on a time-machine is. First off, we need to master cold fission, and this is made possible by regulating the perpetual motion of quarks being observed in the LCH. Then we need tons of argon, human clones and mastodons. We need a superman strength GOP candidate like Rick Perry to show us the way. A country boy can survive.
The unemployment rate was skyrocketing as the GOP was thrown out in 2008. That you would try to fool people with a technicality that it was still lower 12/08 from what it became as more industries contracted from the Bush crash, proves that only dim bulbs are Republicans.
Google "2.6 million jobs lost 2008". Everyone knows Bush crashed the economy by totally failing to regulate and oversee banks. Next you'll be claiming Obama was president in 2007-2008.
@mikewalker789 Um, Bush started in 2002 to try to get Congress to regulate Fannie and Freddie and continued just about every year after that. Waters, Rangel, Dodds, and Franks are all on you tube avowing that there was "nothing to fix". That F & F were doing what they were supposed to be doing. F & F brought down the economy with a little help from theur friends.
@mcv47 Ditto! The root problem that dangerously drove up housing prices began in 1977 with the CRA, but things really took off in 1995 when Clinton imposed penalties on banks that failed to meet lending quotas to HIGH RISK BORROWERS. F&F anxiously bought/bundled/sold those toxic loans, cooked the books and when the economy soured then those loans created massive defaults. The housing BUBBLE, manufactured by "high-minded ideals" (bureaucracy), BURST. Raines stole $90M yet advised OWEbama.
It did go up during his presidency, but it also lowered she was telling the truth fox is trying to spin it. A simple google would shut these foxnews fanatics down.
This broad is on crack or something, she has lost reality saying that unemployment HASN'T gone up, maybe she cannot read the news because her hair curls are too tight ? Maybe she lives in a cave ? Regardless, the facts are all there, they have been in place since obammy took office, HE is doing a shit job, and he will NOT last another term, Thanks to the educated American public.Vote obammy out and save America !!!
@calmike14 And let's get past this myth that NATO is some respectable organization in which we just participate in, and then we let them do their own thing when we're done. We pay for around 80% of everything they do, and contribute far more than any other country into it. It was simply ousting someone we didn't like. I bet you haven't heard about all of the rebels executing prisoners and black people after the "war".
I'm not fucking ignorant. I just see past the rhetoric.
She also wouldn't be trapped into suggesting a Yes or No answer would so easily sum up the topic they were discussing, what's that called by Reps; that's right, "Gotcha Questions."
If the blond wanted to ask about the bold claim that we'd never get above 8%, that's one thing, kinda childish, but w/e; its another thing to suggest we haven't continually gained jobs since Bush left office—not enough, but growth nevertheless.
No one is neglecting those numbers, but there's a reason they aren't cited, because they can't be accurately calculated; everyone has theirown version for what group, what sub-group, for what part of the country is higher based upon what you've said—fine, but we can only talk about what we know for sure.
That's how we gave the overall %; not a Dem or Rep thing: It is what It is.
@willdrake1 Sorry, Shultz LIED by omission. US has LOST 2 MILLION JOBS & workforce of 6 MILLION since Jan 2009: Jobless rate in Jan 2009: 7.8%. Jobless rate in Nov 2011: 8.6%. # of employed in Jan 2009, in thousands: 133,563. In Nov 2011: 131,708 Civilian participation rate in Jan 2009: 65.7%. In Nov 2011: 64.0% Unemployment level in Jan 2009, in thousands: 11,984. In Nov 2011: 13,303 # not in labor force, Jan 2009, in thousands: 80,554. In Nov 2011: 86,558
The rise and fall of jobs is an inverted mountain: The peek accruing under Bush, but extending through Obama—From the economy’s peak to its low point, the nation lost 8.75 million jobs. Here’s the problem: The peak for jobs (lost) January 2008, while the low point for jobs (lost) February 2010.
The starting point for measurement came seven years into Bush’s eight-year tenure; the low point about a year into Obama’s tenure: two-year period shared equally between them.
@willdrake1 Both Bush & OWEbama are progressives that push unsustainable spending programs, which is why we are in this mess. OWEbama's policies are exponentially more fatal. Even when it fails to work, double down as in another stimulus named a "jobs bill".
And give credit where it is due, Bush tried to impose regulations on Freddie & Fannie, but even his progressive counterparts rejected that notion. Namely Dodd & Frank. OWEbama received $129,000 from those corrupt institutions.
@willdrake1 Seriously. Bush is indeed a progressive when it comes to spending & EXPANDING GOV'T, as MOST in Congress behave. Progressive is just another word for tax & spend liberal, but republicans like Bush are relatively subtle. Most Republicans are progressive. For example, Gingrich is a progressive, he hails FDR as the "greatest president of the 20th century". He didn't say Reagan, who to his credit was no progressive. Bush approved reckless (liberal) policies as would a Gingrich admin.
As I thought I explained, SPENDING and EXPANDING GOV, doesn't necessarily make you a Progressive; its all in the details: how/why you use that spending, what parts of Gov you expand and why.
Got any details or you just going to gloss over that stuff?
Progressive doesn't = tax & spend liberal, its an ideology; I suggest you familiarize yourself with it if you're going to rail against it.
@willdrake1 Are you saying progressives don't increase the SIZE & SCOPE of gov't? C'mon, it costs a fortune to fund generational welfare. In the Trillions of $'s. The progressive goal is revolution by baby steps. Overwhelming the system takes time. The CRA was a progressive implement. The housing bubble was a manufactured crisis, when it burst it created a crisis where tyrants could impose policies like OWEbamacare costing $2-3 Trillion and call it "deficit neutral". Thats "PROGRESS"
Did I say they didn't? No I didn't; If you can read, what I said was: Spending and Expanding Gov ALONE doesn't make you progressive; its the W's. You're really making me think you have noidea what a progressive really is.
Progressive aren't Anarchists and confusing the two, shows me how little you really know.
LOL Manufactured Crises. I got it. Bet you think 9/11 was an inside job too?
@willdrake1 Another wrong assumption. No, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. But I'm guilty of thinking that of you. LOL
You honestly deny the CRA generated skyrocketing home prices? You had better do some honest research...then you can come back and make up some other excuse that it was anything other than the debacle is. The ruling class (progressives) in DC are to blame, both parties. And YES, liberal-minded (dumb) and power hungry Republicans too. They created "fairness".
Many dispute that the CRA was a significant cause of the subprime crisis. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.
In a Bank for International Settlements working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.
Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky.
@willdrake1 NICE TRY! LOL Dude, the complete house of card has yet to come down. Right now, I kid you not, there is a hearing on F&F and how they went bananas enticing loan officers with then new sub-prime opportunities. As in no interest JUMBO loans. Just you wait, what you just quoted is simply BS. The truth has yet to completely surface. Keep tuned to MSNBC and you miss the REAL story. LOL
Let me help you stay on track; first you attacked CRA, now you're going after F&F:
Even if (and I agree) F&F are guilty, the fact they didn't regulate doesn't mean CRA caused it.
CRA was for people on the cusp; they weren't HIGH RISK and if you read what I showed you, CRA didn't have oversight over the vast majority of Private/Independent M.C's.
@willdrake1 Another nice try...LOL R U sayin I changed my story and somehow proven your point? How delusional can you get? LOL Barney Frank, NOT ME, said F&F were both in good fiscal standing. He lied. Why don't you know this fact??? Hmmm?
Did you not say, "You honestly deny the CRA generated skyrocketing home prices?"
Did you then, after I showed you all the evidence to clear the CRA as the LONE problem ( since its unable to ACT by itself) you turned this into, "Right now, I kid you not, there is a hearing on F&F and how they went bananas enticing loan officers with then new sub-prime opportunities."
Again: CRA isn't F&F; stop blaming the Red Light for bad drivers.
Barr noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight"
@willdrake1 It didn't matter if ONLY half were regulated by the CRA. F&F pushed these loans and it was NOT REGULATED. F&F was so corrupt for so many years, many were called for oversight and Frank denied the need. The point is, what the CRA and F&F did was a scandal. They promoted Government secured HIGH RISK loans, which increased demand and drove housing prices WAY UP. The graph line really took off in 1995 when Clinton had penalties imposed on banks to lend to high risk borrowers.
Now you're saying if only half were regulated, it didn't matter, cause of what F&F did—cause they weren't regulated.
So doesn't that prove my point: It wasn't CRA's fault alone, but the lack of regulation/oversight, which I could agree with; though the two aren't the same thing.
People on the cusp isn't H.R.
What you're saying is like suggesting a Red Light is to blame when people DON'T stop.
Anyone who can read and follow what we've said can see it but you.
Over and over again you blame the Stop Sign instead of the Speeder; I don't care if the limit is 100mph, at the RED you stop. So, the banks were given guide lines, the chose to go deeper out of greed and got burned—a vast majority NON CRA compliant, meaning private or independent, who then traded their poor investments to others, adding insurance and it all came down.
According to Janet L. Yellen, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.
A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.
Now you can dismiss all that under your Conspiracy/Progressive Umbrella or you can accept the rational idea: What should've been (first intended) used in small amounts to help people at the cups, when gotten ahold of by greedy fucks, was turned out like a trick addicted to smack till the point she dropped dead in the middle of the street—her pimp pointing the finger at everyone else but himself.
@willdrake1 What? Are you smokin' dat crack pipe AGAIN? LOL Hey, have yourself a good one (not that I'm advocating such drug abuse), just try to stay out of trouble. Kay?
First, dismiss anything (people/data) that doesn't keep-up your story.
Second, turn to blaming something else (F&F) not CRA, which is where you started.
Third, blame Gov first, instead of realizing Greedy (Private/Independent and some Gov) fucks, took something which should've helped people nearly there on theirown and ran with it—till they broke everything.
@willdrake1 Yet another nice try! LOL Again, I didn't change my story. I keep referring to both the CRA (Community Investment Act of 1977) and the penalties that were added in 1995 for the sake of "Fair-ness". I blame Progressive polices that started the ball rolling in this case, which snow balled into a housing bubble. F&F (Freddie & Fannie) enticed lenders and cooked the books, F Raines (OweBama's economic adviser) made $90Million in bonuses. Why, can't you face reality??? Hmmm???
@VideoSeattle "I keep referring to both the CRA & penalties" ? What you've said, jist, so far: 1"Debbie" Jump 2“Bush tried to impose...F&F...” Jump 3“The CRA...Prog-implement...” Jump 4“You honestly...CRA...home prices...” 5“Right now...F&F...new s.p-ops...” Jump 6“It didn’t matter...Only Half..CRA. F&F pushed loans, corrupt...scandal...Clinton...penalties...” A) I agree, after Deb, you started with CRA B) ONCE about Penalties (no specif): NOT KEEP referring too.
@willdrake1 Easly now lil' feller. You can't help yourself, can ya? Don't take yourself so seriously, go sip some more Koolaid and relax. Nitey-nite. LOL
C) So you blame an ACT, meant to assist people on the cusp, a small %, not those who took it and used it for something forwhich it wasn't intended?
You further don't blame the Banks/Mhouses/Investment Groups/Brokerage House and so on, WHO KNOWINGLY pooled their purposefully poor investments, after turning them and turning them, into a bundle, selling them; while at the same time taking insurance out on them if they should go up in flames?
@willdrake1 I think it's all YOUR fault. Your ilk voted for progressive creeps, did you not? Decades of this progressive crapolla, and how's it working for you? LBJ deemed Detroit the model city in his "great society". Look at it now, a pile of rubble, thanks to idiotic progressive policies that cursed this society, pitted class against class for political advantage (voting base). You support it, do you not? You like European Socialism, look how grand that...ooopsie, falling apart...
@willdrake1 And just created the vacuum for Fox News? Wanna guess? It's called liberal monopoly of most every media source. Sorry, to burst your bubble. That's the old media, more irrelevant every election cycle. Always pushing liberals, always opposing conservatives. That's the problem, liberal bias. Then there's other indoctrination sources, our celebrated yet lousy public school system. Teachers unions screwed up education for power. Don't believe, b/c the truth hurts. Jump 101!
Fraud News claims to have the highest ratings/most viewers, as does talk radio, right papers/mags and yet they claim to be the minority—they don't seem to realize that's not possible; you can't both be the only source that people listen to while at the same time being drowned by other media outlets. IF ten people speak, but you're the only one anyone listens to, it doesn't matter; there could be 100; you therefore can't be the victim.
@willdrake1 Sorry, but the frauds are ABC, CBS & NBC. Again, if you think they are not bias then you are either completely oblivious or in denial. Is denial your happy place?
This isn't about biases, I never said any of the others aren't bias.
What I said was (I know you've a reading comp issue) is that Fraud News is a FRAUD; they don't simply lean one way, they've fallen over. They LIE. You can Google all the stories inwhich they've blatantly LIED. They live within a bubble and like you, no matter how many times they're shown where they've gone wrong, how they've misread the data, they can't see it or admit it.
@willdrake1 CBS news with Dan Rather with the false story about George Bush. There are various other sample, again YOU do the research. Don't waste my time b/c you are oblivious.
I don't have to do my research, I'm not the one crying wolf about b.s that doesn't exist; you are the one making the claim, therefore the burden of proof if on you—if you can't point it out, than my point is made.
@willdrake1 No, according to you I'm a "retard" and therefore I can't cite much. Again, if you are so issue by issue you would have at least heard of this story. You sound like a fraud. But here's another hint just for the fun of it: Why did Dan Rather leave 60 Minutes? Now don't come back with more excuses, don't be such a big dope.
@willdrake1 Again, You're the one "on the hook". You are obsessed with race, I'm not. The burden is on you, pal.
But, it's a convenient distraction to accuse me and change the subject. You are nothing but a troll. You were caught POSING as someone else (another race) and as someone who is objective ("issue by issue"). Typical liberal (fraud). And have the nerve to attack those who disagree with this lying DNC attack poodle.
When did I ever pose as anything? I'm sorry you blatantly assumed something which wasn't the truth; that's why you shouldn't assume, though I know how hard it is for you to do.
No, I'm not a Troll; I just think you're wrong and have given you ample time to explain yourself, your positions, your points, cite them at length, which you've since failed to do.
You jumped from the subject of this video, to CRA, to F&F; each time running from your failed assertions.
@willdrake1 The only thing I assumed that turned out wrong was to assume you were intellectual enough to have rational debate. Instead, you go into cry baby mode when I don't agree with you. Then you impose all sorts of "prove this and that".
Again, I don't follow orders from some ass that can't admit he's a liberal (loser), a poser and a troll. Follow that, buddy? Of course not, b/c you are a certified big DOPE.
@willdrake1 Yes, you are a cry baby. When someone does not do as you "suggest" then you through a fit and berate them with intent to dishonor.
You are a clown, and like I've pointed out for all to see you are a POSER. Nothing better to do, Mr. Liberal? You have to "occupy" YouTube to feel useful for George Soros.
Now you attack Beck too? You have all sorts of vendettas. Well, George Soros is someone that aligns with you liberals and seems to hate everything conservative like you. He funds Media Matters, the Tides Foundation, Move on dot org and other liberal whacko groups. Why lie that you don't like ole George?
Isn't he the guy who always goes after Soros? Yes.
Because you two think alike, I asked if you were personal friends; which isn't an attack, unless being friends with Beck would be bad in your opinion?
I care about Soros as much as I care about the Kock Brothers (who're into everything) or Rupert M (who's invested in alot of things/groups/tanks/funds/orgs and so on) I Don't have a Boogie Man cause I'm not a conspiracy person like you.
@willdrake1 Okay, Mr. Liberal. So you hate Beck, you hate Mark Levin and me. But you won't admit hating us. Instead, you berate us for no good reason. That reason stem from your warped sense of politics. There is a remedy, and I repeat:
If you can read, read the book, 'LIBERTY AND TYRANNY'.
In it you will see, that while the chain of ownership for the documents wasn't properly identified (thus costing CBS alot of time/money/manpower: resulting in Rather losing his job; but not all to blame for his Interview: A black eye is a black eye and Rather isn't just a talking head) the points he made concerning BUSH remained ACCURATE.
@willdrake1 Mary Mapes provided false information to purposely defame Bush, and Rather ran with it without validating that information in his hit piece. That's reckless "journalism".
You, being such a genius, "decided to show how wrong you are". You made another bad decision.
Yea, that isn't true at all; read the details about the story, the court proceedings, the results of the investigations—its sad, this was your "AH HA moment" and it again seems you don't know what you're talking about, maybe just enough to kinda pretend.
Its OK though, I understand since you exist among parrots. I got it.
@willdrake1 Paint it your way, you can cherry pick all the crap you want. But the reality is it was a hit piece based on lies. That's fraud, but the ends justify the means for you liberal parrots. It's sad.
Its OK though, I understand since you exist among parrots. I got it.
Paint it my way? This isn't a dodge where you can somehow claim victory.
A) I admitted Rather/Mapes were journalisticly in the wrong.
B) I showed how based on CONTENT, they (despite costing CBS alot of time and money) were still correct given the outcome of the investigation, trial, panel and soforth.
C) Unlike you, I don't cherry pick: I spoke about the whole story; while you simply want to claim fraud of content, not approach, which aren't the same or true at all.
@willdrake1 Again, you are mistaken about liberal bias and what the true frauds are. And you accuse me of living in a bubble, but you Mr. Liberal (despite your issue by issue claim) live in a fantasy land. Utopia. Google that, kay? LOL
Liberal bias is a joke; they're out for the same thing, if and when and far inbetween when they can get the other side to speak with them—they don't usually pound them with tough questions or make them unconformable by pulling out their records; no, they want them to come back and do it again and again. What's sad is that two few people will go to the otherside where their opinions will be challenged, they go where they'll be cuddled and kissed if they get a boo-boo
@willdrake1 Again, you don't understand. You are either completely oblivious or in denial about liberal bias in the "main stream" media. Ever wonder why they are going out of business, and their ratings have collapsed? Answer, there are plenty of alternatives with blogs, with cable, with radio. Remember how Air America flopped? Liberals don't have enough credibility to run all 3 major networks anymore with FOX in town. Sorry, but it's true.
@willdrake1 Again, flattery will get you no where, like I sound "retarded". How pathetic to say. Anyway, and I don't read books according to you. From experience, here's one that's worth reading if you want to know what progressive, statist, liberal and main stream really mean. Learn by reading 'Liberty & Tyranny' by Mark Levin. That's IF you are serious about overcoming your lack of understanding & your incessant need to ask little ole me about politics.
M.L is a talking head, a blow-hard pundent up there with Hannity and Limbaugh.
Sorry, not considered scholarly at all; maybe if about the Law, his profession before learning he could make more money on the radio (where he's judge and jury despite evidence to conflict with his narrow/ignorant views), but otherwise, he's just talking out of his ass.
@willdrake1 Why wouldn't you read a book to enlighten you and remove you from that pit of indoctrination that the liberal machine has fed you all your life. You are so indoctrinated you make lame excuse why you shouldn't read it. You are dying from thirst and refuse to drink fresh water.
If you are 20 and conservative you lack a heart.
If you are 40 and liberal you lack a brain.
Now, go get some...BRAINS that is.
READ THIS NYTIMES BEST SELLER, 'LIBERTY AND TYRANNY'.
@willdrake1 How do you know so much about the book. Is it not good based on your assumption?
Levin is a far better man they you will ever become. Sorry, perhaps you will become a woman. That's not something Levin would advocate. So, are you a girl or a boy? LOL
@willdrake1 Oh, and Mr. Liberal. You made a funny. You said, "Exactly as I thought". By that you have proven my point that you are a LIAR. You are incapable of "thought". It's the standard irrational liberal knee jerk reaction on display, but what else can anyone expect from such an indoctrinated useful idiot you've proven to be. Keep sippin' dat Kool-Aid and eating dat chocolate puddin'. You pathetic, but funny! Write back, I can't wait! LOL
I'm a liar, because I can see the data and make the correct assessment, while people like you, regurgitate the same diatribe, oblivious to anything else—unable to adapt?
I can't think, because I don't buy-into your fantasy, that some behind-the-scene master plan set by liberals and progressives, is out destroy the world of Ayn Rand make-believe?
I thought I asked earlier if you were a conspiracy person...
@willdrake1 Okay, maybe you lie only frequently. Any liberal can "craft" their politics into some moral high ground. The problem is, it fails to work on me and millions who refuse to be bullied by the liberal echo chamber. It's everywhere, pro-liberal PC (Political Correctness) that is, which squelches honest debate. You accuse me of racism, of conspiracies and other crap. The funny part is, you tried to accuse me of something I'm not, just b/c you can't win a debate. Sorry! LOL
I think you meant infrequently? And that's not true either.
PC? You think that breaks down your ability to talk—do you have a very limited vocab or something? You feel you have to be rude or ignorant to get your points across...now that's sad.
No, I didn't accuse you of racism, I questioned WHY you said what you said and gave you a chance to explain...which it now seems you can't or won't.
You admit the liberal/progressive conspiracy idea though, not my fault.
@willdrake1 Obviously you don't understand what PC accomplishes. It's about intolerance and the double standard by liberal media. And when something that deserves to be "newsworthy" but is at odds with liberalism, it becomes a non-story. That's the way it is, I didn't concoct these unwritten rules.
Obviously you don't understand what PC means, lets start there before you further confuse yourself by trying to jump ahead with what it accomplishes.
PC
A) Doesn't promote INtolerance; its the opposite.
Ex: Calling a white guy a Redneck (not in an attempt to pay compliment or joke in a friendly way), isn't PC; its promotes INTOLERANCE = rude/offensive and therefore doesn't help communication.
@willdrake1 There you go again. Look it up yourself, I'm not going to hold your hand any longer. If you are intelligent and impartial (I doubt that) then you will conclude the same.
@willdrake1 Again, I"m not playing your game. This is how you "work"...you made insulting accusations that simply don't wash. Very absurd and hypocritical of you, frankly.
@willdrake1 Are you saying progressives don't increase the SIZE & SCOPE of gov't? C'mon, it costs a fortune to fund generational welfare. In the Trillions of $'s. The progressive goal is revolution by baby steps. Overwhelming the system takes time. The CRA was a progressive implement. The housing bubble was a manufactured crisis, when it burst it created a crisis where tyrants could impose policies like OWEbamacare costing $2-3 Trillion and call it "deficit neutral". Thats "PROGRESS"
@willdrake1 Are you saying progressives don't increase the SIZE & SCOPE of gov't? C'mon, it costs a fortune to fund generational welfare. In the Trillions of $'s. The progressive goal is revolution by baby steps. Overwhelming the system takes time. The CRA was a progressive implement. The housing bubble was a manufactured crisis, when it burst it created a crisis where tyrants could impose policies like OWEbamacare costing $2-3 Trillion and call it "deficit neutral". Thats "PROGRESS"
@willdrake1 PROGRESSIVES can't help but increase the SIZE & SCOPE of gov't. C'mon. it costs a FORTUNE to fund generational WELFARE. In the TRILLIONS of $'s. The progressive goal is REVOLUTION in baby steps. Overwhelming the system takes time.
The CRA was a progressive implement. The housing bubble was a MANUFACTURED CRISIS, when it burst it created a crisis where TYRANTS could impose policies like OWEbamacare costing $2-3 Trillion and call it "deficit neutral". That's "PROGRESS".
@willdrake1 Nice assumption. But all but the last attempt was followed by an error message, must have be a series of progressive hiccups aimed at censorship! LOL I only wanted to send the 1st edit. Of course, I did revise each one after the error messages and I didn't attempt to post them immediately. Must have tried 6 times, but only 3 went thru! LOL Am I getting under your skin, mr. Liberal??? LOL
And why am I a Liberal? Cause I'm calling you out? Oh, I see; if they don't agree with you, they must be your enemy (I haven't said if I agree with you or not, simply that you're blurring things, making one sound like the other when they're not.)
@willdrake1 Dude, uh Mr. Liberal, you obviously have issues. You can't handle someone like me who does not share your zest for progressive ideals. Too bad. Progressive ideals are really a pile of crap, and IF you were smart enough you would stop eating it up like chocolate puddin'. LOL
I've never said I agree or disagree with any ideals, I've only said you're wrong based upon evidence shown; infact, I've said on certain issues I would agree with you.
Its funny how much you assume, how because I argue against you that obviously makes me agree with the subject, instead of simply correcting you—you know what that makes you right?
Are you familiar with Debate?
Debaters are not necessarily for or against their topic.
She is a commie!
OneNBK 1 day ago
So, this is Obama's "Squealer". (Reference to Animal Farm)
DireWeevil 6 days ago
@DireWeevil
And she's here to plead with us that if we don't re-elect Obama, Bush will surely come back.
Just in case, please don't misunderstand me. I don't want another four years of Obama; just writing in the spirit of the referenced story.
Bush = Jones
Watcher3223 2 days ago
shes an IDIOT
Mycommentsgethumbsup 6 days ago 2
She's right. The unemployment rate has been dropping. It's easy to make it so, when you STOP COUNTING PEOPLE. I find the power of Democrat lies to be unfathomably amazing. 92% of the black vote, when they are the ones who were the slavers, the segregationists, the authors of the jim crowe laws, the tax creators and the tax cheats, the over regulating money laundering union thugs. It's shameful!
GrandFunker 1 week ago 3
Yea, this is our opinion on this topic... believe
ThunderfishProd 2 weeks ago
OF COURSE IT IS DROPPING BY STATS , THE TWO YEAR UNEMPLOYMENT EXTENSION WAS JUST THAT BY HIS THIRD YEAR THE PEOPLE WHO NO LONGER ARE DRAWING ARE NOT COUNTED ANYMORE , MAKES BARKS OBEYME LOOK BETTER WHEN IT IS JUST A SCAM
bizcuitzngravy 2 weeks ago
Check the U6 numbers (those that more accurately reflect the unemployment and UNDERemployment in this country. They're at 15.1% and have been in the 15% range for quite awhile. This woman is NUTS!!!
VintageHIppie78 2 weeks ago 2
@VintageHIppie78 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 2 weeks ago
This woman is stupid! How can someone defend something she knows is a lie?
MegaKc69 3 weeks ago
Wasserman is a certified Whacko!
TheGoodFight916 3 weeks ago 2
Make up facts. Ignore facts. Demonize the opposition. Rules for Radicals student strikes again.
vinofiamma 3 weeks ago
is she related to Ed Schultz cuz they are both stupid as fuck
seizetheweakened 3 weeks ago
Debbie Was-A-Man Schmutz is a putz.
frederick4455 3 weeks ago
I'm pretty sure the office of DNC Chair was created solely for our amusement.
deyvi69 4 weeks ago
Wanna make easy money...
Buy stocks in the stock market, Vote OUT Obama.
Instant win.
corporate confidence increases, we get a bull market. and you make money. :)
Jhootman460 1 month ago
What an absolute idiot this Wasserman-Shchultz is. Every single interview she gives she rushes to get out the same, tired 4 talking points - even though they have been de-bunked THOROUGHLY and REPEATEDLY.
She is so typical of the current Democratic establishment. They have nothing other than manufactured statistics and simple demagogaury.
somuchmorethanu 1 month ago
Anthony Weiner in drag!
janelasdedeus 1 month ago
Unemployment has almost doubled under obama. Go to Bureau Of Labor Statistics and look at previous years. I have the link but youtube doesn't allow me to post links.
bls gov/cps/prev_yrs htm Insert dots.
JawsJaws 1 month ago
Either Wasserman is a liar or just stupid!
715596 1 month ago
Debbie Watchamanns-Putz is a lying byatch. But that's a key piece of her résumé in order to be a dyed in the wool liberal.
chkrat22 1 month ago
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz - will even argue with facts
15Arigold 1 month ago
Debbie Was-A-Man Schmutz is a sick cow.
frederick4455 1 month ago
lying bitch
neverbeenarab 1 month ago
Wasserman-MUTS is a liar!
merks1 1 month ago
So let me see. Debbie has admitted that from the time Obama took office in 2008 and the House and Senate were both controlled by the democrats unemployment has skyrocketed. Since the Republicans took the House in 2010 the unemployment numbers have actually begin to decline because the democrats don't control both houses. Debbie makes a good point. I think she is saying that if Obama is voted out in 2012 and the Republicans take the Senate unemployment will drop substantially. Thanks, Debbie!
OCIR7135 1 month ago 8
This woman is a liar. Her facts are skewed and so is her warped mind. Another part of the devious and deceptive Obama regime. Before you vote this year, make sure you have all the facts. A vote for Obama is anti American.
jekyllheckler 1 month ago
Admittedly, unemployment increased under Bush. Unemployment skyrocketed under Obama.
DrComputerGuy 1 month ago
Lying Bitch!
Cygnus325 1 month ago 2
She must think that people watching this are not able to understand the English language. Even a 6 year old would see through her B.S.!!!
sjk2146 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There are over 25 House of Reps jobs-related bills now sitting in the Senate which Reid will 'not' bring to the floor for discussion - Dead on Arrival
The Barack Obama “Re-elect me because I offered a jobs bill that even my own party hates” tour continues
Searching4Truth1 1 month ago in playlist More videos from GOPICYMI
How quickly liberals forget. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in 07&08 and up until 2010
Searching4Truth1 1 month ago 6
I had a job till Barry took power! The Democrap Gov of Wash. State put 17 major jobs on hole for 6 months! That was 40 months ago! Hope and change my Bollocks!
1eyednewt 1 month ago
CHEMTRAILS=GENOCIDE 2012!
changethecurrent 1 month ago
Bush's unemployment rate ranged from 4.0%- 5.8% from 2000 to 2008. At near full employment you won't get high job creation numbers.
OWEbama stimuli bought jobs at roughly $250,000 ea. He is incompetent and has proven that his "plan" is part of the problem, NOT the solution. The market has spoken, investors find the risk too high under OWEbama-nomics.
It's a RECESSION when your neighbor is out of work.
It's a DEPRESSION when you are out of work.
It's a RECOVERY when OWEbama is out of work!
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
Marxist: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society Based on the libtard party self described policies. Alot of similarities but not exactly the same. Enough to question their motives.
PatriotTexas 2 months ago
Progressive: making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
Forget toward better conditions, It just goes from bad to worse. As for the rest of it, that is pretty self explanatory. Try and twist this around.
PatriotTexas 2 months ago
If the number of Americans that "wanted jobs" was the same today as it was back in 2007, the "official" unemployment rate put out by the U.S. government would be up to 11 percent.
demonpreyer 2 months ago
@demonpreyer Interesting theory, have any data to back it up.
PatriotTexas 2 months ago
The libtard propaganda mouthpiece can block your comments on her site. She has a office with email and phones that she must go to. If the libtard idiots can send trash emails to me. That means we can tell her what we think of her as well. Please be polite but accurate so the libtards cannot call us tea party terrorist.
PatriotTexas 2 months ago
Unemployment when Obama took office: 8.2%
Unemployment today: 8.6%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
'nuff said.
Timasion 2 months ago
@Timasion No, can you factor in a lost labor force of 6 Million workers since 2009 into that 8.6%? Neither could or would the Bureau of Labor Statistics in that deceptive percentage. You have to use the U6 #'s to get the truth. Funny how there are less jobs from month to month but when the labor force shrinks the unemployment figure (8.6%) projects "jobs created". Nice try. LOL
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle I do not understand your post. Are you saying that the current 8.6% unemployment fails to capture the people who are no longer looking for a job? I concur. Are you saying that the number of jobs in America is not expanding as fast as the population? I concur again.
The number of people "not in the employment force" is rising faster than the population. This tells me people not looking for work is increasing and not being counted. So, it may be worse than what we think
Timasion 2 months ago
@2010GOP I don't even know what to say to you. You're going to believe what you're going to believe no matter how many facts your given disputing your claims. Maybe you should look into why people support cap & trade, and more importantly discover for yourself that it was a CONSERVATIVE proposal by CONSERVATIVES, but as soon as a Dem recommends it, it's something that must be shunned.
Maybe you should find out the other sides stances, instead of making assumptions.
shalcall 2 months ago
Her rapid eye-blinking shows she's lying and she knows it. She's a pathological liar -- more so than Slick Willie.
blainenay 2 months ago
@blainenay The rapid eye-blinking indicates switching between spin cycle to ultra spin cycle and back again.
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
How are unemployment numbers going down?
* 2011 U6 unemployment rate: 16.5% (rate used during 1930’s depression)
* 2011 Monthly US Population Growth: 150k
* 2011 Total Active College Class: 20.4 Million
* 2011 Total Unemployed: 24 Million
* 2011 Total Jobs Created: 1 Million
1 million new jobs in 2011, how is that dropping unemployment numbers?
It doesn’t take a mathematician to see we have an issue and discontinuing unemployment is heartless and irresponsible. Government uses deceptive stats.
NewtsNews 2 months ago
Look up the jobs "Bikini graph" and maybe you will understand what she is talking about. Make sure you see the one filled out until now. Then you will see how we were truly on the brink of a great depression and to be where we are now is kind of miraculous.
Pennee101 2 months ago
This is why the Lefties have failed. Debbie WasAMan Schultz doesnt see a problem. If you go to her youtube posts she doesn' let you post any comments, and she will not say that the economy is in serious trouble after three years of legtie policies. See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil. Leftie Mantra until B.O. is voted out.
mueygringo 2 months ago
There's tons of jobs. Working on time machines and what-not.
TheChap36 2 months ago
@TheChap36 That is because the older generation of machinist is getting ready retirement. The problem is we have generation of leftist taught youth, and they was grossly cheated out of a good education. Before you people call me a liar check where the US stands in the education ranking. If you need more proof of this than you really are in need of help.
PatriotTexas 2 months ago
@PatriotTexas I agree, brother. Long live Momma South Pride. Yeeha. Yes, some of these leftist youth have absolutely no idea how ludicrously tedious working on a time-machine is. First off, we need to master cold fission, and this is made possible by regulating the perpetual motion of quarks being observed in the LCH. Then we need tons of argon, human clones and mastodons. We need a superman strength GOP candidate like Rick Perry to show us the way. A country boy can survive.
TheChap36 2 months ago
The unemployment rate was skyrocketing as the GOP was thrown out in 2008. That you would try to fool people with a technicality that it was still lower 12/08 from what it became as more industries contracted from the Bush crash, proves that only dim bulbs are Republicans.
Google "2.6 million jobs lost 2008". Everyone knows Bush crashed the economy by totally failing to regulate and oversee banks. Next you'll be claiming Obama was president in 2007-2008.
mikewalker789 2 months ago
@mikewalker789 Um, Bush started in 2002 to try to get Congress to regulate Fannie and Freddie and continued just about every year after that. Waters, Rangel, Dodds, and Franks are all on you tube avowing that there was "nothing to fix". That F & F were doing what they were supposed to be doing. F & F brought down the economy with a little help from theur friends.
mcv47 2 months ago
@mcv47 Ditto! The root problem that dangerously drove up housing prices began in 1977 with the CRA, but things really took off in 1995 when Clinton imposed penalties on banks that failed to meet lending quotas to HIGH RISK BORROWERS. F&F anxiously bought/bundled/sold those toxic loans, cooked the books and when the economy soured then those loans created massive defaults. The housing BUBBLE, manufactured by "high-minded ideals" (bureaucracy), BURST. Raines stole $90M yet advised OWEbama.
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
It did go up during his presidency, but it also lowered she was telling the truth fox is trying to spin it. A simple google would shut these foxnews fanatics down.
Sp0ilTheFun 2 months ago
This broad is on crack or something, she has lost reality saying that unemployment HASN'T gone up, maybe she cannot read the news because her hair curls are too tight ? Maybe she lives in a cave ? Regardless, the facts are all there, they have been in place since obammy took office, HE is doing a shit job, and he will NOT last another term, Thanks to the educated American public.Vote obammy out and save America !!!
sidneybear 2 months ago
@sidneybear Unemployment is down. Live with it and actually look at the facts next time.
Sp0ilTheFun 2 months ago
@Sp0ilTheFun Are you including the people that have given up looking? The gov't ignores them in their %
mcv47 2 months ago
@mcv47 That would be like saying "We should also include the deceased in the unemployment % because they are out of work".
Sp0ilTheFun 2 months ago
@calmike14 And let's get past this myth that NATO is some respectable organization in which we just participate in, and then we let them do their own thing when we're done. We pay for around 80% of everything they do, and contribute far more than any other country into it. It was simply ousting someone we didn't like. I bet you haven't heard about all of the rebels executing prisoners and black people after the "war".
I'm not fucking ignorant. I just see past the rhetoric.
joker52mlb 2 months ago
@joker52mlb Do you mean the UN?
mcv47 2 months ago
@mcv47 No. I was referring to NATO. But I suppose that could apply for the UN as well.
joker52mlb 2 months ago
Rep Wasserman did a good job against Fraud News.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 So by your definition, "doing a good job" is to lie. That's fraud.
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
She didn't lie.
She also wouldn't be trapped into suggesting a Yes or No answer would so easily sum up the topic they were discussing, what's that called by Reps; that's right, "Gotcha Questions."
If the blond wanted to ask about the bold claim that we'd never get above 8%, that's one thing, kinda childish, but w/e; its another thing to suggest we haven't continually gained jobs since Bush left office—not enough, but growth nevertheless.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 However, Debbie the attack poodle is neglecting the ppl that have dropped out of the job market and have given up looking.
mcv47 2 months ago
@mcv47
No one is neglecting those numbers, but there's a reason they aren't cited, because they can't be accurately calculated; everyone has theirown version for what group, what sub-group, for what part of the country is higher based upon what you've said—fine, but we can only talk about what we know for sure.
That's how we gave the overall %; not a Dem or Rep thing: It is what It is.
Sorry you don't like it.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Sorry, Shultz LIED by omission. US has LOST 2 MILLION JOBS & workforce of 6 MILLION since Jan 2009: Jobless rate in Jan 2009: 7.8%. Jobless rate in Nov 2011: 8.6%. # of employed in Jan 2009, in thousands: 133,563. In Nov 2011: 131,708 Civilian participation rate in Jan 2009: 65.7%. In Nov 2011: 64.0% Unemployment level in Jan 2009, in thousands: 11,984. In Nov 2011: 13,303 # not in labor force, Jan 2009, in thousands: 80,554. In Nov 2011: 86,558
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
The rise and fall of jobs is an inverted mountain: The peek accruing under Bush, but extending through Obama—From the economy’s peak to its low point, the nation lost 8.75 million jobs. Here’s the problem: The peak for jobs (lost) January 2008, while the low point for jobs (lost) February 2010.
The starting point for measurement came seven years into Bush’s eight-year tenure; the low point about a year into Obama’s tenure: two-year period shared equally between them.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
See:
politicalirony (dot)com/2010/02/06/jobs-lost-bush-v-obama/
willdrake1 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
Bush's 8 years of collapse mirror Obama's first 4 of recovery.
In another 4, who knows...
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Both Bush & OWEbama are progressives that push unsustainable spending programs, which is why we are in this mess. OWEbama's policies are exponentially more fatal. Even when it fails to work, double down as in another stimulus named a "jobs bill".
And give credit where it is due, Bush tried to impose regulations on Freddie & Fannie, but even his progressive counterparts rejected that notion. Namely Dodd & Frank. OWEbama received $129,000 from those corrupt institutions.
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
LOL really? Bush is a progressive mmmmmm, don't think I've heard that before.
You're going to have to explain how he's a progressive, and spending alot doesn't simply make you a progressive.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Seriously. Bush is indeed a progressive when it comes to spending & EXPANDING GOV'T, as MOST in Congress behave. Progressive is just another word for tax & spend liberal, but republicans like Bush are relatively subtle. Most Republicans are progressive. For example, Gingrich is a progressive, he hails FDR as the "greatest president of the 20th century". He didn't say Reagan, who to his credit was no progressive. Bush approved reckless (liberal) policies as would a Gingrich admin.
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
As I thought I explained, SPENDING and EXPANDING GOV, doesn't necessarily make you a Progressive; its all in the details: how/why you use that spending, what parts of Gov you expand and why.
Got any details or you just going to gloss over that stuff?
Progressive doesn't = tax & spend liberal, its an ideology; I suggest you familiarize yourself with it if you're going to rail against it.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Are you saying progressives don't increase the SIZE & SCOPE of gov't? C'mon, it costs a fortune to fund generational welfare. In the Trillions of $'s. The progressive goal is revolution by baby steps. Overwhelming the system takes time. The CRA was a progressive implement. The housing bubble was a manufactured crisis, when it burst it created a crisis where tyrants could impose policies like OWEbamacare costing $2-3 Trillion and call it "deficit neutral". Thats "PROGRESS"
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
Did I say they didn't? No I didn't; If you can read, what I said was: Spending and Expanding Gov ALONE doesn't make you progressive; its the W's. You're really making me think you have noidea what a progressive really is.
Progressive aren't Anarchists and confusing the two, shows me how little you really know.
LOL Manufactured Crises. I got it. Bet you think 9/11 was an inside job too?
Sad.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Another wrong assumption. No, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. But I'm guilty of thinking that of you. LOL
You honestly deny the CRA generated skyrocketing home prices? You had better do some honest research...then you can come back and make up some other excuse that it was anything other than the debacle is. The ruling class (progressives) in DC are to blame, both parties. And YES, liberal-minded (dumb) and power hungry Republicans too. They created "fairness".
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
Many dispute that the CRA was a significant cause of the subprime crisis. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
In a Bank for International Settlements working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
Legal and financial experts have noted that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 NICE TRY! LOL Dude, the complete house of card has yet to come down. Right now, I kid you not, there is a hearing on F&F and how they went bananas enticing loan officers with then new sub-prime opportunities. As in no interest JUMBO loans. Just you wait, what you just quoted is simply BS. The truth has yet to completely surface. Keep tuned to MSNBC and you miss the REAL story. LOL
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
You know the CRA isn't F&F right?
Let me help you stay on track; first you attacked CRA, now you're going after F&F:
Even if (and I agree) F&F are guilty, the fact they didn't regulate doesn't mean CRA caused it.
CRA was for people on the cusp; they weren't HIGH RISK and if you read what I showed you, CRA didn't have oversight over the vast majority of Private/Independent M.C's.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Another nice try...LOL R U sayin I changed my story and somehow proven your point? How delusional can you get? LOL Barney Frank, NOT ME, said F&F were both in good fiscal standing. He lied. Why don't you know this fact??? Hmmm?
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
Did you not say, "You honestly deny the CRA generated skyrocketing home prices?"
Did you then, after I showed you all the evidence to clear the CRA as the LONE problem ( since its unable to ACT by itself) you turned this into, "Right now, I kid you not, there is a hearing on F&F and how they went bananas enticing loan officers with then new sub-prime opportunities."
Again: CRA isn't F&F; stop blaming the Red Light for bad drivers.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
Barr noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight"
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 It didn't matter if ONLY half were regulated by the CRA. F&F pushed these loans and it was NOT REGULATED. F&F was so corrupt for so many years, many were called for oversight and Frank denied the need. The point is, what the CRA and F&F did was a scandal. They promoted Government secured HIGH RISK loans, which increased demand and drove housing prices WAY UP. The graph line really took off in 1995 when Clinton had penalties imposed on banks to lend to high risk borrowers.
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
You realize you've just proven my point.
First you said CRA was to blame.
Now you're saying if only half were regulated, it didn't matter, cause of what F&F did—cause they weren't regulated.
So doesn't that prove my point: It wasn't CRA's fault alone, but the lack of regulation/oversight, which I could agree with; though the two aren't the same thing.
People on the cusp isn't H.R.
What you're saying is like suggesting a Red Light is to blame when people DON'T stop.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 NIce try...LOL
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
I'm not trying, it happened.
Anyone who can read and follow what we've said can see it but you.
Over and over again you blame the Stop Sign instead of the Speeder; I don't care if the limit is 100mph, at the RED you stop. So, the banks were given guide lines, the chose to go deeper out of greed and got burned—a vast majority NON CRA compliant, meaning private or independent, who then traded their poor investments to others, adding insurance and it all came down.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
According to Janet L. Yellen, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
Now you can dismiss all that under your Conspiracy/Progressive Umbrella or you can accept the rational idea: What should've been (first intended) used in small amounts to help people at the cups, when gotten ahold of by greedy fucks, was turned out like a trick addicted to smack till the point she dropped dead in the middle of the street—her pimp pointing the finger at everyone else but himself.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 What? Are you smokin' dat crack pipe AGAIN? LOL Hey, have yourself a good one (not that I'm advocating such drug abuse), just try to stay out of trouble. Kay?
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
Exactly as I thought.
First, dismiss anything (people/data) that doesn't keep-up your story.
Second, turn to blaming something else (F&F) not CRA, which is where you started.
Third, blame Gov first, instead of realizing Greedy (Private/Independent and some Gov) fucks, took something which should've helped people nearly there on theirown and ran with it—till they broke everything.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Yet another nice try! LOL Again, I didn't change my story. I keep referring to both the CRA (Community Investment Act of 1977) and the penalties that were added in 1995 for the sake of "Fair-ness". I blame Progressive polices that started the ball rolling in this case, which snow balled into a housing bubble. F&F (Freddie & Fannie) enticed lenders and cooked the books, F Raines (OweBama's economic adviser) made $90Million in bonuses. Why, can't you face reality??? Hmmm???
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Easly now lil' feller. You can't help yourself, can ya? Don't take yourself so seriously, go sip some more Koolaid and relax. Nitey-nite. LOL
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
C) So you blame an ACT, meant to assist people on the cusp, a small %, not those who took it and used it for something forwhich it wasn't intended?
You further don't blame the Banks/Mhouses/Investment Groups/Brokerage House and so on, WHO KNOWINGLY pooled their purposefully poor investments, after turning them and turning them, into a bundle, selling them; while at the same time taking insurance out on them if they should go up in flames?
Its all F&F's fault?
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 I think it's all YOUR fault. Your ilk voted for progressive creeps, did you not? Decades of this progressive crapolla, and how's it working for you? LBJ deemed Detroit the model city in his "great society". Look at it now, a pile of rubble, thanks to idiotic progressive policies that cursed this society, pitted class against class for political advantage (voting base). You support it, do you not? You like European Socialism, look how grand that...ooopsie, falling apart...
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
There you go, let it out; let all of it out.
Fraud News can't hurt you anymore.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 And just created the vacuum for Fox News? Wanna guess? It's called liberal monopoly of most every media source. Sorry, to burst your bubble. That's the old media, more irrelevant every election cycle. Always pushing liberals, always opposing conservatives. That's the problem, liberal bias. Then there's other indoctrination sources, our celebrated yet lousy public school system. Teachers unions screwed up education for power. Don't believe, b/c the truth hurts. Jump 101!
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
This is what makes no sense.
Fraud News claims to have the highest ratings/most viewers, as does talk radio, right papers/mags and yet they claim to be the minority—they don't seem to realize that's not possible; you can't both be the only source that people listen to while at the same time being drowned by other media outlets. IF ten people speak, but you're the only one anyone listens to, it doesn't matter; there could be 100; you therefore can't be the victim.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Sorry, but the frauds are ABC, CBS & NBC. Again, if you think they are not bias then you are either completely oblivious or in denial. Is denial your happy place?
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
This isn't about biases, I never said any of the others aren't bias.
What I said was (I know you've a reading comp issue) is that Fraud News is a FRAUD; they don't simply lean one way, they've fallen over. They LIE. You can Google all the stories inwhich they've blatantly LIED. They live within a bubble and like you, no matter how many times they're shown where they've gone wrong, how they've misread the data, they can't see it or admit it.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1
Cite 10 Fraudulent stories done by ABC, CBS or NBC.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 CBS news with Dan Rather with the false story about George Bush. There are various other sample, again YOU do the research. Don't waste my time b/c you are oblivious.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
Do you know how to cite?
Date: Source: Content: Issue.
"False story about George Bush" says nothing.
I don't have to do my research, I'm not the one crying wolf about b.s that doesn't exist; you are the one making the claim, therefore the burden of proof if on you—if you can't point it out, than my point is made.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 No, according to you I'm a "retard" and therefore I can't cite much. Again, if you are so issue by issue you would have at least heard of this story. You sound like a fraud. But here's another hint just for the fun of it: Why did Dan Rather leave 60 Minutes? Now don't come back with more excuses, don't be such a big dope.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
So either you're saying you're a retard, or you're trying to use that to get off the hook of proving your case? Which is it?
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Again, You're the one "on the hook". You are obsessed with race, I'm not. The burden is on you, pal.
But, it's a convenient distraction to accuse me and change the subject. You are nothing but a troll. You were caught POSING as someone else (another race) and as someone who is objective ("issue by issue"). Typical liberal (fraud). And have the nerve to attack those who disagree with this lying DNC attack poodle.
R U obsessed with the attack poodle too? LOL
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
When did I ever pose as anything? I'm sorry you blatantly assumed something which wasn't the truth; that's why you shouldn't assume, though I know how hard it is for you to do.
No, I'm not a Troll; I just think you're wrong and have given you ample time to explain yourself, your positions, your points, cite them at length, which you've since failed to do.
You jumped from the subject of this video, to CRA, to F&F; each time running from your failed assertions.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 The only thing I assumed that turned out wrong was to assume you were intellectual enough to have rational debate. Instead, you go into cry baby mode when I don't agree with you. Then you impose all sorts of "prove this and that".
Again, I don't follow orders from some ass that can't admit he's a liberal (loser), a poser and a troll. Follow that, buddy? Of course not, b/c you are a certified big DOPE.
Happy New Year! Buh-Bye!
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
LOL cry baby mode? Really?
Impose? I know, how dare I suggest you prove the b.s you just vomit out.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Yes, you are a cry baby. When someone does not do as you "suggest" then you through a fit and berate them with intent to dishonor.
You are a clown, and like I've pointed out for all to see you are a POSER. Nothing better to do, Mr. Liberal? You have to "occupy" YouTube to feel useful for George Soros.
Sad.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
Yes, I berate you:
Like a child, you insist on having your lies simply accepted without proof.
LOLOLOL George Soros!
God I've been wondering how long it would take you to go there.
Do you get a Christmas card from Fraud News or are you personal friends with Beck?
How great is this, I love running into tards who believe Soros is the Boogie Man.
I don't think you know what Poser means or will you again insert yourown meaning?
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 How do you "wonder" without a brain?
Now you attack Beck too? You have all sorts of vendettas. Well, George Soros is someone that aligns with you liberals and seems to hate everything conservative like you. He funds Media Matters, the Tides Foundation, Move on dot org and other liberal whacko groups. Why lie that you don't like ole George?
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
How did I attack Beck?
Isn't he the guy who always goes after Soros? Yes.
Because you two think alike, I asked if you were personal friends; which isn't an attack, unless being friends with Beck would be bad in your opinion?
I care about Soros as much as I care about the Kock Brothers (who're into everything) or Rupert M (who's invested in alot of things/groups/tanks/funds/orgs and so on) I Don't have a Boogie Man cause I'm not a conspiracy person like you.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Okay, Mr. Liberal. So you hate Beck, you hate Mark Levin and me. But you won't admit hating us. Instead, you berate us for no good reason. That reason stem from your warped sense of politics. There is a remedy, and I repeat:
If you can read, read the book, 'LIBERTY AND TYRANNY'.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
I decided to show you how wrong you are about D.R
See: The Flawed Report on Dan Rather
April 7, 2005
James C. Goodale;
In it you will see, that while the chain of ownership for the documents wasn't properly identified (thus costing CBS alot of time/money/manpower: resulting in Rather losing his job; but not all to blame for his Interview: A black eye is a black eye and Rather isn't just a talking head) the points he made concerning BUSH remained ACCURATE.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Mary Mapes provided false information to purposely defame Bush, and Rather ran with it without validating that information in his hit piece. That's reckless "journalism".
You, being such a genius, "decided to show how wrong you are". You made another bad decision.
Nice try ya big DOPE.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
Yea, that isn't true at all; read the details about the story, the court proceedings, the results of the investigations—its sad, this was your "AH HA moment" and it again seems you don't know what you're talking about, maybe just enough to kinda pretend.
Its OK though, I understand since you exist among parrots. I got it.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Paint it your way, you can cherry pick all the crap you want. But the reality is it was a hit piece based on lies. That's fraud, but the ends justify the means for you liberal parrots. It's sad.
Its OK though, I understand since you exist among parrots. I got it.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
Paint it my way? This isn't a dodge where you can somehow claim victory.
A) I admitted Rather/Mapes were journalisticly in the wrong.
B) I showed how based on CONTENT, they (despite costing CBS alot of time and money) were still correct given the outcome of the investigation, trial, panel and soforth.
C) Unlike you, I don't cherry pick: I spoke about the whole story; while you simply want to claim fraud of content, not approach, which aren't the same or true at all.
willdrake1 1 month ago
Comment removed
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Again, you are mistaken about liberal bias and what the true frauds are. And you accuse me of living in a bubble, but you Mr. Liberal (despite your issue by issue claim) live in a fantasy land. Utopia. Google that, kay? LOL
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
Liberal bias is a joke; they're out for the same thing, if and when and far inbetween when they can get the other side to speak with them—they don't usually pound them with tough questions or make them unconformable by pulling out their records; no, they want them to come back and do it again and again. What's sad is that two few people will go to the otherside where their opinions will be challenged, they go where they'll be cuddled and kissed if they get a boo-boo
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Again, you don't understand. You are either completely oblivious or in denial about liberal bias in the "main stream" media. Ever wonder why they are going out of business, and their ratings have collapsed? Answer, there are plenty of alternatives with blogs, with cable, with radio. Remember how Air America flopped? Liberals don't have enough credibility to run all 3 major networks anymore with FOX in town. Sorry, but it's true.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
FRAUD NEWS IS MAIN STREAM! Net/Public-access News isn't. That's the difference—you sound like a retard by repeating such an asinine statement.
If Fraud News dominates so much, how can you/they, claim they're also the victim?
Who is going out of business? Cite plz.
Do you know what Main Stream Means?
Honestly, I don't think you're able to comprehend what it is you're saying.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Retard? That's not PC. Oh, and I can't comprehend what I"m saying. You really are a piece of work.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
I didn't say I was PC, that's something you bitch about liberals.
And you do sound retarded: like someone who is slow or who has real issues with their brain function.
No, you can't, not if you don't understand what words/categories like Main Stream, Liberal or Progressive, means.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Again, flattery will get you no where, like I sound "retarded". How pathetic to say. Anyway, and I don't read books according to you. From experience, here's one that's worth reading if you want to know what progressive, statist, liberal and main stream really mean. Learn by reading 'Liberty & Tyranny' by Mark Levin. That's IF you are serious about overcoming your lack of understanding & your incessant need to ask little ole me about politics.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
M.L is a talking head, a blow-hard pundent up there with Hannity and Limbaugh.
Sorry, not considered scholarly at all; maybe if about the Law, his profession before learning he could make more money on the radio (where he's judge and jury despite evidence to conflict with his narrow/ignorant views), but otherwise, he's just talking out of his ass.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Again, read the book, Liberty and Tyranny. It will rock your little liberal fantasy world.
Oops, M.L. didn't write books for children, sorry my bad.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
Why would I read the book?
He's not taken seriously except by people like you.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Why wouldn't you read a book to enlighten you and remove you from that pit of indoctrination that the liberal machine has fed you all your life. You are so indoctrinated you make lame excuse why you shouldn't read it. You are dying from thirst and refuse to drink fresh water.
If you are 20 and conservative you lack a heart.
If you are 40 and liberal you lack a brain.
Now, go get some...BRAINS that is.
READ THIS NYTIMES BEST SELLER, 'LIBERTY AND TYRANNY'.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
LOL Twilight was/is a best seller, doesn't make it a good book.
Sorry, M.L is a blowhard and you got sold like a chump.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 How do you know so much about the book. Is it not good based on your assumption?
Levin is a far better man they you will ever become. Sorry, perhaps you will become a woman. That's not something Levin would advocate. So, are you a girl or a boy? LOL
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Oh, and Mr. Liberal. You made a funny. You said, "Exactly as I thought". By that you have proven my point that you are a LIAR. You are incapable of "thought". It's the standard irrational liberal knee jerk reaction on display, but what else can anyone expect from such an indoctrinated useful idiot you've proven to be. Keep sippin' dat Kool-Aid and eating dat chocolate puddin'. You pathetic, but funny! Write back, I can't wait! LOL
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
I'm a liar, because I can see the data and make the correct assessment, while people like you, regurgitate the same diatribe, oblivious to anything else—unable to adapt?
I can't think, because I don't buy-into your fantasy, that some behind-the-scene master plan set by liberals and progressives, is out destroy the world of Ayn Rand make-believe?
I thought I asked earlier if you were a conspiracy person...
Now the answer's clear, isn't it?
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Okay, maybe you lie only frequently. Any liberal can "craft" their politics into some moral high ground. The problem is, it fails to work on me and millions who refuse to be bullied by the liberal echo chamber. It's everywhere, pro-liberal PC (Political Correctness) that is, which squelches honest debate. You accuse me of racism, of conspiracies and other crap. The funny part is, you tried to accuse me of something I'm not, just b/c you can't win a debate. Sorry! LOL
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
I think you meant infrequently? And that's not true either.
PC? You think that breaks down your ability to talk—do you have a very limited vocab or something? You feel you have to be rude or ignorant to get your points across...now that's sad.
No, I didn't accuse you of racism, I questioned WHY you said what you said and gave you a chance to explain...which it now seems you can't or won't.
You admit the liberal/progressive conspiracy idea though, not my fault.
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Obviously you don't understand what PC accomplishes. It's about intolerance and the double standard by liberal media. And when something that deserves to be "newsworthy" but is at odds with liberalism, it becomes a non-story. That's the way it is, I didn't concoct these unwritten rules.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
Obviously you don't understand what PC means, lets start there before you further confuse yourself by trying to jump ahead with what it accomplishes.
PC
A) Doesn't promote INtolerance; its the opposite.
Ex: Calling a white guy a Redneck (not in an attempt to pay compliment or joke in a friendly way), isn't PC; its promotes INTOLERANCE = rude/offensive and therefore doesn't help communication.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Wrong, PC IS INTOLERANCE.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
Can you write out the Web's definition of PC, I think it may help you.
If not, well, atleast I tried.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Nice try, all you do just proves you are a big DOPE.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
Do you know what Websters Dictionary is?
Have you been making up yourown words your whole life?
Are you scared to cite the meaning of the word because then you will have to face how ignorant you are?
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Do you? Did you know ole Merriam memorized entire books?
If he were alive today he would read, 'LIBERTY AND TYRANNY'. It's highly recommended.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
Cite your "news worthy non-stories".
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 There you go again. Look it up yourself, I'm not going to hold your hand any longer. If you are intelligent and impartial (I doubt that) then you will conclude the same.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
@VideoSeattle
That's not how this works.
You can't make a claim, then refuse to back it up.
The proof is on you; not on me, cause I think there isn't any; if you'd like to PROVE your case, do so, otherwise, you're just spewing out b.s.
willdrake1 1 month ago
@willdrake1 Again, I"m not playing your game. This is how you "work"...you made insulting accusations that simply don't wash. Very absurd and hypocritical of you, frankly.
VideoSeattle 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@willdrake1 Are you saying progressives don't increase the SIZE & SCOPE of gov't? C'mon, it costs a fortune to fund generational welfare. In the Trillions of $'s. The progressive goal is revolution by baby steps. Overwhelming the system takes time. The CRA was a progressive implement. The housing bubble was a manufactured crisis, when it burst it created a crisis where tyrants could impose policies like OWEbamacare costing $2-3 Trillion and call it "deficit neutral". Thats "PROGRESS"
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Are you saying progressives don't increase the SIZE & SCOPE of gov't? C'mon, it costs a fortune to fund generational welfare. In the Trillions of $'s. The progressive goal is revolution by baby steps. Overwhelming the system takes time. The CRA was a progressive implement. The housing bubble was a manufactured crisis, when it burst it created a crisis where tyrants could impose policies like OWEbamacare costing $2-3 Trillion and call it "deficit neutral". Thats "PROGRESS"
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@willdrake1 PROGRESSIVES can't help but increase the SIZE & SCOPE of gov't. C'mon. it costs a FORTUNE to fund generational WELFARE. In the TRILLIONS of $'s. The progressive goal is REVOLUTION in baby steps. Overwhelming the system takes time.
The CRA was a progressive implement. The housing bubble was a MANUFACTURED CRISIS, when it burst it created a crisis where TYRANTS could impose policies like OWEbamacare costing $2-3 Trillion and call it "deficit neutral". That's "PROGRESS".
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
LOLOLOLOL
I just noticed that you retyped the same b.s three times to get it just right.
Did you get enough words in caps this time? Does it really express you now?
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Nice assumption. But all but the last attempt was followed by an error message, must have be a series of progressive hiccups aimed at censorship! LOL I only wanted to send the 1st edit. Of course, I did revise each one after the error messages and I didn't attempt to post them immediately. Must have tried 6 times, but only 3 went thru! LOL Am I getting under your skin, mr. Liberal??? LOL
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
Why would you be getting under my skin?
And why am I a Liberal? Cause I'm calling you out? Oh, I see; if they don't agree with you, they must be your enemy (I haven't said if I agree with you or not, simply that you're blurring things, making one sound like the other when they're not.)
willdrake1 2 months ago
@willdrake1 Dude, uh Mr. Liberal, you obviously have issues. You can't handle someone like me who does not share your zest for progressive ideals. Too bad. Progressive ideals are really a pile of crap, and IF you were smart enough you would stop eating it up like chocolate puddin'. LOL
VideoSeattle 2 months ago
@VideoSeattle
I've never said I agree or disagree with any ideals, I've only said you're wrong based upon evidence shown; infact, I've said on certain issues I would agree with you.
Its funny how much you assume, how because I argue against you that obviously makes me agree with the subject, instead of simply correcting you—you know what that makes you right?
Are you familiar with Debate?
Debaters are not necessarily for or against their topic.
Learn the craft. I'll come back.
willdrake1 2 months ago