Glenn Beck you lying sack of S%$*

Omission of what? It is your info. I did not use the word "growth" nor did you. You used the word "increase" as did I. You want a definition of increase (it will also work for growth, gain, increment, etc.) - if you have one apple and I give you 2 more apples, then you will have 3 apples. That is an increase of 2 apples. 3 - 1 = 2

BTW, I did make a mistake. It was 2009 that the debt grew the most, although 2010 was real close behind.

Obama 2010 - 2011 = $1714B
Obama 2009 - 2010 = $1912B
Clinton 1993 - 2000 = $1485B
Bush 1 1989 - 1992 = $1493B
Reagan 1981 - 1988 = $1754B

 

No, $14T is not attributable to BO. Only $3.6T

 

You used the word growth twice here. What kind of growth are you talking about. We were talking about the growth of the national debt.

I swear you can't even remember your own posts much less follow a conversation.

 

You mean like this post you made?

You were wrong about George Bush. You were wrong about Bill Clinton. You were wrong about George Bush Senior. You were wrong about Ronald Reagan. You were wrong about right wing talking points override reality. You were wrong about spreading falsehoods. And that is all based on your own reference. Oh! And you have not yet figured out what I "omitted".

So if you want to razz me about using the word "growth" instead of "increase", have at it.

 

Don't challange Moen with facts, he will just stop posting or change the subject. Or post some Media Matters garbage Or call you names. Or insult you.

 

Oh! But he leaves himself so open to it, but it is doubly fun when it happens with his own data.

 

Mr Moen has lost all objectivity and credibility, sadd to see someone become one of Soro's poor pawns. Dessperation leads to desperite tactics, often regretable and so very transparrent. I mispeled on perpose to leave him a crumb to criticize.

 

Instead of drive by insults perhaps you can point out the "facts" you are referring to. I stop posting or paying attention to any idiot that has so mangled the conversation that it has become pointless. You're cheerleading someone on for doing exactly that. What kind of fool does that make you? Answer: A damn big one!

 

Translation - he got caught in one of his many lies and he just cannot admit that he can ever make a mistake. He cannot figure out that $1912B is larger than $1754B whether you call it growth or increase.

 

Saying it doesn't make it so. You've never even defined the growth of what you are referring to. You always take a left turn in the conversations you jump into the middler of and head off in who knows what direction and then pat yourself on the back for "catching" someone when you don't even know what the H-E double toothpicks you are talking about. And the worst part is that you strut around proud of yourself as if you actually had a clue. You are one of those people that are so thick you actually believe your own stories. Wow! How sad you are.

 

Saying it doesn't make it so. All I am doing is citing your reference from Post #37, but you say I am wrong. How interesting! Oh! And your references to contradict that information are what? I have not seen any yet. Did I miss something besides you logic?

I never defined "growth"? I guess that means that you never read post #41.

Me try to change directions? I keep trying to keep you an track where you said the BO increased the national debt less than other presidents (Post #37 again).

The rest of your post is off to your typical insults when you figure you have lost the point.

 

Well here another insult or just plain fact. You're a typical Right winger. Halfcocked, ill-informed, know it all, without a clue but no one knows more than you do in your mind anyway. Responding to wing nuts like you is a waste of time because you can't think, speak, or write logically. You are so insecure about your own beliefs that you have the last word. I give it you as I roll my eyes and move on which of course gives you justification in your own mind that you are right. You come across as the least knowledgeable person in this entire forum. You continually stick your nose into topics you have no business making any comments about. You just add mud to clear spring water. What good are you? Remember, it’s not an insult if it is true. It’s just a fact you personally don’t want to hear.

 

In your defense...

Worst performing public schools.
# 50 Arizona: -17.81
# 49 Mississippi: -14.31
# 48 New Mexico: -13.37
# 47 Nevada: -13.11
# 46 California: -12.57
# 45 Louisiana: -11.56 # 44 Alaska: -11.25
# 43 Alabama: -11.11 # 42 Hawaii: -9.67
# 41 Tennessee: -8.48
# 40 Georgia: -8.04

At least you have an excuse.

 

Talk about changing topics? Just what is you topic? Normal insults when there is nothing available to back up your argument!

 

Let me guess. You got your "phd" from Arizona? What on earth does this have to do with BO's enormous national debt or me, for that matter? If you think you are trying to insult me, Oklahoma is not even among the states you listed and, not trying to give any credence to your cited list, but my education was from Pennsylvania and New York which are amongst the top states from you list.

 

I'm just offering a plausible excuse for your posts. BTW Oklahoma was 39th. You always tell me that I'm biased against southern education. At least I have a reason to support my bias. The lowest performing public schools in the nation are clustered in the deep south.

 

Dr moen, phd....I fixed this for you, now keep reading it over & over as you gaze into the mirror.

 

No! You keep telling me how biased you are against the southern education systems and those with "strong southern drawls". Just because I quote your words........... BTW, I guess Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and California got moved to the "deep south". I keep telling you my education came from your higher ranking states. However, I personally feel that that is immaterial.

Incidentally, I would like you to explain to me why that study felt that it was valid to compare the number of people and/or amenities found in California to the number in such states as Alaska. I wonder why California (37,000,000 people) had more than Alaska (660,000 people). However, when you think about that, it makes California's education worse than their ranking - and Illinois also.

 

I forgot to ask in my last post, but where is you evidence that BO did not increase the national debt $1912B and then $1714B or how is that less than "less than George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush Senior, and Ronald Reagan"? You keep trying to berate me for say that it is not less, but so far the only proof you have offered is that BO has increased the national debt the absolute most.