Life Under Obama Sucks!

[whell]

And the numbers prove it. This article pretty much says it all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-prove-it.html

[nailer]

Life sucks and then you die.

[CarlV]

Nice, typical Whell fact free editorial opinion article.


Carl

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

And the numbers prove it. This article pretty much says it all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-prove-it.html

Wouldn't it be easier to quote Fox than a UK publication?

From Wiki: "In July 2014, the Daily Telegraph was further criticised for carrying links on its website to pro-Kremlin articles supplied by a Russian state-funded publication that downplayed any Russian involvement in the downing of the passenger jet Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.[17] These had featured on its website as part of a commercial deal, but were later removed.[18] The paper is paid £900,000 a year to include the supplement Russia Beyond the Headlines, a publication sponsored by the Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the Russian government’s official newspaper. It is paid a further £750,000 a year for a similar arrangement with the Chinese state in relation to the pro-Beijing China Watch supplement.[19]"

And, "The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times.[20] The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, along with the paper's generally right wing stance and influence over Conservative activists, have resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph".

A conservative in support of communism? Wonder who paid them to publish this article?

[whell]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

Wouldn't it be easier to quote Fox than a UK publication?

A conservative in support of communism? Wonder who paid them to publish this article?

Doesn't really matter. The default process / course of action is to follow a post like this by attacking the source of the article or the person who posted it, all the while ignoring the article's content. In the short span of time from the original post until this follow up post, forum participants have taken steps to impugn both the OP'er and the article. Well done, and with efficiency to boot.

[donquixote99]

Are there any facts in the article that support the contention that Obama created the suction? Or is it just a matter of 'things suck now' + 'Obama is President now.'

[Tom Joad]

Ka-Ching!

Another 50 cents for Whelly.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Are there any facts in the article that support the contention that Obama created the suction? Or is it just a matter of 'things suck now' + 'Obama is President now.'

One novel approach for obtaining the answer you seek might be to read the article.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Ka-Ching!

Another 50 cents for Whelly.

More support for the process identified in post 5. Bravo.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Doesn't really matter. The default process / course of action is to follow a post like this by attacking the source of the article or the person who posted it, all the while ignoring the article's content. In the short span of time from the original post until this follow up post, forum participants have taken steps to impugn both the OP'er and the article. Well done, and with efficiency to boot.

BS. Verify the source before you post or add a disclaimer. If not expect you and the credibility of the source to be challenged.