One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Trump Story NOBODY Will Report
Page <<first <prev 19 of 38 next> last>>
Oct 17, 2018 17:24:18   #
Mikeyavelli
 
JediKnight wrote:
Then perhaps there is so hope for you afterall.....good luck with that!


$$$$$$!

Reply
Oct 17, 2018 17:47:35   #
JediKnight
 
debeda wrote:


Boss.........saw me a mouse go by........

Reply
Oct 17, 2018 18:18:51   #
Owl32 Loc: ARK
 
i thought it was you squeaky...
JediKnight wrote:
Boss.........saw me a mouse go by........

Reply
 
 
Oct 17, 2018 18:47:44   #
Mikeyavelli
 
JediKnight wrote:
Boss.........saw me a mouse go by........


That's bad luck in the midterms for Kommiecrats. Worse than a black cat crossing your path in a cemetery on Halloween in a lightning storm.
Proof that the Kommiecrats lose again.

Reply
Oct 17, 2018 18:54:11   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
Mikeyavelli wrote:
That's bad luck in the midterms for Kommiecrats. Worse than a black cat crossing your path in a cemetery on Halloween in a lightning storm.
Proof that the Kommiecrats lose again.


Gutfeld: Why is it so hard for the left to lose?
https://youtu.be/z1k0kmpv_D4

Reply
Oct 17, 2018 19:14:15   #
debeda
 
eagleye13 wrote:
Gutfeld: Why is it so hard for the left to lose?
https://youtu.be/z1k0kmpv_D4


I will listen to the videos later. But I think it's cuz they truly think they have the "moral high ground" LOL

Reply
Oct 18, 2018 10:51:39   #
JediKnight
 
Mikeyavelli wrote:
That's bad luck in the midterms for Kommiecrats. Worse than a black cat crossing your path in a cemetery on Halloween in a lightning storm.
Proof that the Kommiecrats lose again.


"Bad or Good Luck" is for the superstitious.......I'm not, but if it were 'bad luck' it would have to be because it was the "first" black cat crossing the path in a cemetery on Halloween in a lightning storm did so on a Wednesday with a black eye while nibbling on a chunk of Roquefort cheese......I believe it was Louis CK who said, "It may be the early bird that catches the worm -but its the 'second' mouse that gets the cheese!"

Reply
 
 
Oct 18, 2018 11:02:37   #
Mikeyavelli
 
JediKnight wrote:
"Bad or Good Luck" is for the superstitious.......I'm not, but if it were 'bad luck' it would have to be because it was the "first" black cat crossing the path in a cemetery on Halloween in a lightning storm did so on a Wednesday with a black eye while nibbling on a chunk of Roquefort cheese......I believe it was Louis CK who said, "It may be the early bird that catches the worm -but its the 'second' mouse that gets the cheese!"


Nope, Tom said that at Jerry's funeral, with his mouth full of cheese.

Reply
Oct 18, 2018 11:10:56   #
Carol Kelly
 
permafrost wrote:
Nuclear,

Do not let yourself be roped in by these s**ms.. they come with an orange tinge... That should be a clue..

Lots of other reports if you do not like this one..

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/08/27/no-black-business-ownership-didnt-increa

No, Black Business Ownership Didn't Increase 400% in One Year
PolitiFact has the details -- but in any event, the purported statistic was suspect on its face.
Eugene Volokh|Aug. 27, 2018 11:11 am

Last week, I saw a report that seemed enheartening but left me suspicious -- to quote one account, "According to the Minority 2018 Small Business Trends survey, the number of black-owned small businesses in the U.S. increased by a staggering 400% in a year-over-year time period from 2017 to 2018." This statistic was picked up by a variety of sites, including conservative/libertarian sites, publications aimed at black readers, and general business sites. Last Monday, I e-mailed the publisher (Guidant Financial) to ask for details, but didn't hear back, and I was traveling with family so I put off further inquiries until today.

But PolitiFact (Kyra Haas) beat me to it; here's a quick excerpt:

In November 2017, small business financing company Guidant Financial and online credit marketplace LendingClub Corporation sent out an email survey to their clientele nationwide; they received responses from about 2,600 "current and aspiring entrepreneurs." The companies both posted general articles about the results of that survey on their websites in January without making any distinctions about race or ethnicity except that 47 percent of "aspiring entrepreneurs" surveyed were minorities.

The 400 percent increase in black-owned businesses claim, however, was not made until a subsequent graphic was published on Guidant's website on Aug. 8.

It was not clear from the released results how the companies came up with the 400 percent jump. The percentage of African-American respondents who owned businesses was not published, nor was that figure from last year.

The survey sample was not random, the response was voluntary, and the margin of error was not made public....

PolitiFact contacted Guidant about the claim in the graphic on Aug. 21. Two days later, a new version of the graphic was posted, this time without any mention of a 400 percent increase.

"We have found that the 400% statistic is being misrepresented in its context and therefore we have decided to pull that statistic from our info graph," public relations consultant for Guidant Stacia Kirby said in an email....

There's thus no real reason to think that the 400% increase claim is correct -- and ample reason, regardless of your politics, to doubt it, simply because 5-fold increases in this kind of number in one year are just so wildly improbable. Even if you think President Trump's economic plan is stupendous, or, if you prefer, President Obama's economic plan is stupendous and is just bearing fruit, a change like this doesn't happen in one year.

Recall that the claim wasn't even about a 5-fold increase in new business formation, or, if you prefer, a 4-fold increase in new business formation misleadingly reported as a 400% increase -- the claim was about such an increase in the total number of black-owned businesses. Even rates of change don't generally increase so sharply; but the total amount of pretty much anything almost never increases that way in a large economy (setting obvious exceptions such as the amount of newly developed technological goods, or the number of people in some subcategory of a group that itself sharply increased as a result of a sudden burst of immigration).

More specifically, the Census Bureau reported that "The number of black or African American-owned firms grew 34.5 percent between 2007 and 2012 — from 1.9 million to 2.6 million in 2012." That's a healthy growth, a 6% yearly increase. Is it really likely that the number grew 400% instead in one year? Or assuming that the number held more or less constant from 2012 to 2016, that it grew by 10 million in one year after that? (The total black population in the U.S. is about 43 million, and only a small percentage of any ethnic group owns businesses.)

So whenever you hear a claim such as that one, your Spidey sense should start tingling. It's not just that it's good to be true, it's too big to be true.

Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and co-founder of the Volokh Conspiracy blog, now hosted at Reason.
Nuclear, br br Do not let yourself be roped in b... (show quote)


I RECALL that Obama was a total secret and he almost ruined this country and nobody, certainly not the press, ever questioned anything he did. And just have a look at the two he appointed to the Supreme Court. You posted a lot of wacko stuff out of California.

Reply
Oct 18, 2018 11:11:52   #
JediKnight
 
Mikeyavelli wrote:
Nope, Tom said that at Jerry's funeral, with his mouth full of cheese.


You just won the Internet comeback of the day....BOOM!!

Reply
Oct 18, 2018 11:17:48   #
debeda
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
I RECALL that Obama was a total secret and he almost ruined this country and nobody, certainly not the press, ever questioned anything he did. And just have a look at the two he appointed to the Supreme Court. You posted a lot of wacko stuff out of California.



Reply
 
 
Oct 18, 2018 11:23:44   #
JediKnight
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
I RECALL that Obama was a total secret and he almost ruined this country and nobody, certainly not the press, ever questioned anything he did. And just have a look at the two he appointed to the Supreme Court. You posted a lot of wacko stuff out of California.


You do realize that "everything" Obama did was scrutinized by Congress and the 'will of the people' I hope. Much of his time as president, Obama was hindered by a very 'hostile Congress' whose leaders publicly stated "we will do everything we can to make him a one term president....including denying, disapproving and obstructing any polices he comes up with..."{Speaker John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell}....that hostility is the reason that much of Obama's policies came in the form of Executive Orders. Regardless, he still deserved to have his SC nominee vetted and brought up for a v**e.....so much for "liberty and justice for all" right?

Reply
Oct 18, 2018 11:44:11   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
I RECALL that Obama was a total secret and he almost ruined this country and nobody, certainly not the press, ever questioned anything he did. And just have a look at the two he appointed to the Supreme Court. You posted a lot of wacko stuff out of California.




you desperate right wingers keep talking about all the things you can not find about President Obama..

I have never had that problem.. everything that is public information can be found via a internet search..

college transcripts are not public information..



Reply
Oct 18, 2018 12:27:04   #
debeda
 
JediKnight wrote:
You do realize that "everything" Obama did was scrutinized by Congress and the 'will of the people' I hope. Much of his time as president, Obama was hindered by a very 'hostile Congress' whose leaders publicly stated "we will do everything we can to make him a one term president....including denying, disapproving and obstructing any polices he comes up with..."{Speaker John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell}....that hostility is the reason that much of Obama's policies came in the form of Executive Orders. Regardless, he still deserved to have his SC nominee vetted and brought up for a v**e.....so much for "liberty and justice for all" right?
You do realize that "everything" Obama d... (show quote)


Obama was v**ed in with a super majority in Congress. People didn't like what he was doing so they changed that. Obama accomplished little or nothing that was of benefit to Americans, either with legislation or executive orders. All he did was attack and weaken the military and law enforcement, push identity politics and push race relations back 40 years. Nothing to solve any problems, just sowing h**e and discord.

Reply
Oct 18, 2018 12:51:16   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
permafrost wrote:
you desperate right wingers keep talking about all the things you can not find about President Obama..

I have never had that problem.. everything that is public information can be found via a internet search..

college transcripts are not public information..


"you desperate right wingers keep talking about all the things you can not find about President Obama..
" - permafrost

Thanks for asking.
Obama’s F**e SS#
The ‘F**e News’ Con: A Case Study

\http://lewrockwell.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6ad24f4cd1574f1f7b8a0a03a&id=6b871b26bc&e=ac767b1a94
The media have found a creative new way to explain away Hillary’s Clinton’s crushing defeat and their own humiliation. They have dubbed the agent of their mutual undoing “f**e news” and talk about the phenomenon as though it made real sense.
In an all too typical New York Times opinion piece this week Michael Lynch defines “f**e news” as “pure fiction masquerading as t***h” and presents it exclusively as a “right wing” phenomenon. Like many of his colleagues, Lynch suggests the Russian government was involved in planting f**e news items and believes that such items, regardless of source, may have cost Hillary Clinton the e******n.
To test Lynch’s thesis, we might profitably select a presumed “f**e news” item and follow its course through what the Clintons once called the “communication stream of conspiracy commerce.” In August 2010, the Times identified a news item simple enough and seemingly f**e enough, “Obama uses a phony Social Security number,” to makes a useful case study.
Tracking this story, one finds its source not in Russia, but in Ohio. The person responsible for surfacing the number is a licensed private investigator named Susan Daniel. In 2009, troubled by the drift of the country under Barack Obama, she and fellow investigator Neil Sankey began to plow through proprietary databases and investigate Obama on their own time. What they discovered is that from 1986 on Barack Obama has been using a Social Security number that seemed to originate in Connecticut.
In the August 2010 article — “In Defining Obama, Misperceptions Stick” — the Times led with the SSN accusation not to explore it but to dismiss it. They simply presumed this question, like more involved questions about Obama’s faith or family origins, to be “misperceptions” unworthy of exploration.
*****The major media leave the dirty work of debunking to fact-checking sites, most notoriously Snopes.com. In an analysis that has been updated through 2016, Snopes leads with this accusation, “Barack Obama appropriated the Social Security number of a dead man born in 1890 and used it as his own.” In large red letters, Snopes rejects the accusation as “FALSE.” *****

Reply
Page <<first <prev 19 of 38 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.