Conservatives knock it out of the park
- Thread starter 2001400ex
- Start date
2001400ex
New Fish
LOL now that's funny. Recession was from July 1981 to November 1982. Why do you blame that recession on Carter while you blame a recession that started 13 months BEFORE Obama was inaugurated on Obama?
Facts??? LOL you got none.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
2001400ex
New Fish
Yeah . facts. Or something. This is from Forbes which is a conservative news outlet.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhar...performs-reagan-on-jobs-growth-and-investing/
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
How about purplefay?
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
Most presidents deal with recessions. The difference? They dont last 6-7 years. Obama is clueless. Now do your homework and give puppy something, anything EX
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
Obamas "job growth" is based on part time workers and those who've stopped looking for work. These are the facts EX. Last time ill say it. Bring something truthful and useful.
Last edited:
Possibly the dumbest post and source ever seen here
ThomasFremont
New Fish
I already told you to kill yourself.
End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.
dnc
New Fish
Wikipedia (Listeni/ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/ or Listeni/ˌwɪkiˈpiːdiə/ WIK-i-PEE-dee-ə) is a free-access, free content Internet encyclopedia, supported and hosted by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who can access the site can edit almost any of its articles, as long as they follow the rules.[6] Wikipedia is the seventh-most popular website[5] and constitutes the Internet's largest and most popular general reference work.[7][8][9]
Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia on January 15, 2001. Sanger[10] coined its name,[11] a portmanteau of wiki (from the Hawaiian word for "quick")[12] and encyclopedia. Although Wikipedia's content was initially only in English, it quickly became multilingual, through the launch of versions in different languages. All versions are similar, but differences exist in content and in editing practices. The English Wikipedia is now one of more than 200 Wikipedias and is the largest with over 4.6 million articles. As of February 2014, it had 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month.[13] Wikipedia has more than 22 million accounts, out of which there were over 73,000 active editors globally as of May 2014.[2]
Wikipedia's accuracy is similar to Encyclopedia Britannica, with Wikipedia being much larger. However, critics argue Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias,[14] and its group dynamics hinder its goals.[clarification needed] Most academics, historians, teachers and journalists reject Wikipedia as a reliable source of information for being a mixture of truths, half truths, and some falsehoods,[14] and that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin.[15] Wikipedia's Consensus and Undue Weight policies have been repeatedly criticised by prominent scholarly sources for undermining freedom of thought and leading to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[16][17][18][19]
Openness
Differences between versions of an article are highlighted as shown.
Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia follows the procrastination principle (i.e. waiting for an issue to cause enough problems before taking measure to solve it) regarding the security of its content.[20] It started almost entirely open—anyone could create articles, and any Wikipedia article could be edited by any reader, even those who did not have a Wikipedia account. Modifications to all articles would be published immediately. As a result, any article could contain inaccuracies such as errors, ideological biases, and nonsensical or irrelevant text.
Restrictions
Over time, the English Wikipedia and some other Wikipedias gradually restricted modifications. For example, in the English Wikipedia and some other language editions, only registered users may create a new article.[21] On the English Wikipedia and some others, some particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages are now "protected" to some degree.[22] A frequently vandalized article can be semi-protected, meaning that only certain editors are able to modify it.[23] A particularly contentious article may be locked so that only administrators are able to make changes.[24]
In certain cases, all editors are allowed to submit modifications, but review is required for some editors. For example, the German Wikipedia maintains "stable versions" of articles,[25] which have passed certain reviews. Following protracted trials and community discussion, the English Wikipedia introduced the "pending changes" system in December 2012.[26] Under this system, new users' edits to certain controversial or vandalism-prone articles are "subject to review from an established Wikipedia editor before publication".[27]
The editing interface of Wikipedia
Review of changes
Although changes are not systematically reviewed, the software that powers Wikipedia provides certain tools allowing anyone to review changes made by others. The "History" page of each article links to each revision.[notes 2][28] On most articles, anyone can undo others' changes by clicking a link on the article's history page. Anyone can view the latest changes to articles, and anyone may maintain a "watchlist" of articles that interest them so they can be notified of any changes. "New pages patrol" is a process whereby newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.[29]
In 2003, economics PhD student Andrea Ciffolilli argued that the low transaction costs of participating in a wiki create a catalyst for collaborative development, and that features such as allowing easy access to past versions of a page favor "creative construction" over "creative destruction".[30]
Vandalism
Main article: Vandalism on Wikipedia
Any edit that changes content in a way that deliberately compromises the integrity of Wikipedia is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include insertion of obscenities and crude humor. Vandalism can also include advertising language and other types of spam.[31] Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing information or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information to an article, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the underlying code of an article, or use images disruptively.[32]
White-haired elderly gentleman in suit and tie speaks at a podium.
American journalist John Seigenthaler (1927–2014), subject of the Seigenthaler incident
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
EX, I know from the top of my head all of Obuma's deficiencies. Im asking for you to provide FACTS, STATISTICS to support your lefty views and you research and bring this? You can look forever and not find proof that defends Obums horrific track record on the economy.
Switch parties, its catching on. People want 40-hour /week jobs and better wages. Both have gone drastically downhill since 2008. Thats bad. Yank your head from your gine and look around. Part time jobs and a meager wage is the premise of Obums "recovery". That is fact. Glad im not a minimum wager like you EX. You, and many americans have a long road to travel.
Switch parties, its catching on. People want 40-hour /week jobs and better wages. Both have gone drastically downhill since 2008. Thats bad. Yank your head from your gine and look around. Part time jobs and a meager wage is the premise of Obums "recovery". That is fact. Glad im not a minimum wager like you EX. You, and many americans have a long road to travel.
Last edited:
puppylove_sugarsteel
New Fish
I here you J but I like Fay. That is your new nickname. Certainly I can do better but we'll go with that for now.
2001400ex
New Fish
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
Except it's not based on workers who have stopped looking for work, that's what your masters say and you blindly believe. This is actual workers, not the unemployment number.
Bush first term - .06%
Bush second term - .21%
Obama first term - .28%
Obama second term - 1.8%
HuskyInAZ
New Fish
@2001400ex Are you @huskylawyer hiding behind a new handle on a new board? Wouldn't be the first, and won't be the last, but your hero in the white house has destroyed our country in 6 short years. Race relations are at a 50 year low. World leadership is at a 100 year low. Part time employment is at a 50 year high. National debt is $18 TRILLION and counting. That's a lot to be proud of, though.
unfrozencaveman
New Fish
Interesting thread. Presidents and the economy "under their watch"
I could talk about this for hours, but what gets my goat is Clinton along with Summers, Rubin, etc gutting the Glass-Steagall Act. Not to mention NAFTA which Perot warned against (remember he was painted as crazy)
Goes a little beyond red and blue folks
I could talk about this for hours, but what gets my goat is Clinton along with Summers, Rubin, etc gutting the Glass-Steagall Act. Not to mention NAFTA which Perot warned against (remember he was painted as crazy)
Goes a little beyond red and blue folks