Lyle Andersen Proves That He's Clueless about How the Economy Works

Lyle Andersen: They done more to help the economy than you and I have.

Actually, President Obama and the Democrat's progressive "economic policies" acted as a "major headwind" to our economy. Their policies have definitely not been the tailwind behind our current economic performance, wherever people think it lays.

The fact that our economy still shows movement is testament to many things. One of them is that Obama's policies can't destroy the free market as fast as he wants to destroy it.

History has shown that the best thing that the government could do, to help the economy, is to get out of the way and to do virtually nothing.

Progressive economic policies is to the economy what laxatives are to diarrhea.

Obama's policies didn't get the economy to where it is at now. Without his policies, the economy would be further ahead in growth than where it is now. Lowered unemployment numbers resulting from people dropping out of the workforce is nothing to be proud of.

He is the most incompetent president in modern times.

Lyle Andersen: [name redacted] what did you personally do to help the economy,give three points please,note getting up and going to work is honorable but is a Basic step. (STRAWMAN FALLACY)

Lyle, what I personally did for the economy isn't relevant. The argument is on whether Democrat policies were effective for the economy or not. Matter of fact, your initial reply had nothing to do with the initial post on this thread.

The reason I jumped on the Obama angle is because you made it about President Obama allegedly doing something for the economy.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats in general didn't do anything substantial to help the economy along. If anything, their policies created an environment that caused the rich, super rich, and business owners... the people that create the most jobs in the free market... to hold onto their earning instead of invest it.

His "solutions" were aimed at giving money back to the "poor" or "middle-class." The problem is that the economic engine happens to be the very people that the Democrats and progressives demonize, the rich and super rich. These are the people that contribute the bulk of consumer spending. They also pay the majority of personal income tax to the government.

Jobs don't exist so that people could put food on the table. They exist because some rich guy/gal, or someone hoping to get rich, saw that job as a necessity to his/her efforts to get richer. When you create an economic environment that discourages them from hiring more people, or from keeping most of their employees, you hamper good job growth. In fact, you contribute to job market contraction.

Apparently, you fell asleep in class when they were trying to teach you economics back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Lyle Andersen: (2 ) blankety blaming somebody without naming Pacific issues, is not stating a fact. and I suspect there is a bias on your part because you're hate black people because there black. (3)so I will stay with the facts I was taught in the 60s and 70s. 

Lyle, how about advancing some facts instead of just talking about them? All you've done was talk about "staying with facts," however, you have not advanced any facts. Not a single part of your post, or the one before, contained relevant facts. You've talked the talk, now how about walking the walk?

I provided you with facts in the previous post. Apparently, whatever it was that you were taught in the 1960s and 1970s, it didn't include researching the topic that you choose to argue.

Earlier, I talked about how the best thing that the government could do with regards to the economy is "nothing." That's a fact. Read about the depression that took place in the 1920s. It lasted approximately 1 year. The following decade, we had the Great Depression. That lasted for years.

What was the difference between the depression that took place in the 1920s, and the one that took place in the 1930s? The answer is what I stated in my earlier post, government did "nothing". The government did nothing significant, with regards to addressing the 1920s depression, in order to get us out of the depression.

That following decade? The government got involved to try to "solve the problem." Government action resulted in the worst economic crisis in US history.

That's just one of the facts that I talked about in my previous post. Certainly, someone should have told you about that part of our history... back when you were "learning" to "stick with the facts" in the 1960s or 1970s.

Also, for someone that likes to lecture about facts, but doesn't use them, your opinion about what I said doesn't constitute refutation. It also doesn't constitute fact.

Accusing me of being racist, because I disagree with many of the president's policies, demonstrates your bias in favor of progressives and against conservatives. In fact, it demonstrates you as being a "sheep." Who, in their right mind, would actually believe that we disagree with the president because he's "black"?

The fact of the matter is that I'd support people like Herman Cain, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Allen West, etc. against any white, brown, red, green, blue, black, etc., liberal any time.

Your assumption that I "hate" the president because he's "black," arrogantly assumes that his policies, policies that you agree with, are "fact." If you are someone that was taught to "stick with the facts," you failed those that taught you.

Here's a fact for you: I disagree with the president, and the Democrats, on many of their policies. I would have the same disagreement if we had a white president advancing the same policies. This disagreement doesn't constitute hate.

Either they didn't teach you to "stick with the facts" back in the 1960s and 1970s... or you fell asleep when they tried to teach you guys that. Whether you like it or not, I brought up specific issues specific to the argument on this thread. Those are facts. Since you insist that they're something other than facts, I seriously doubt that you "stick with the facts."

I stated the facts. Your arrogance is insisting that these facts are something else.

Lyle Andersen Ignores His Golden Boy's Wars

Lyle Andersen: The Great Depression came to an end when our economy got railroaded by World War II. Great recession is doing better with out starting a world war. (STRAWMAN FALLACY) 

Again, you deliberately missed the point. In fact, without realizing it, your first statement here backed something I said in my previous post.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Great Depression resulted mainly from government intervention into the economy. World War II forced the kind of demand that was needed to really jolt us out of the depression.

Great Recession? The reality is that we entered a recession in the latter half of 2008, then we plunged into a depression in 2009. We remained in an economic depression until 2012.

"Great Recession" is a political play on words.

When used by the liberals, its intent is to tie this around President Bush's neck. The reality is that decades of government intrusion into the free market brought about this economic crisis.

For those that see that we had actually entered a depression, the term "great recession" is just a "feel good" moniker. Heaven forbid that your "golden" guy be tied to that depression.

As for starting wars... Have you not paid attention to the news?

Does "Libya" ring a bell? How about ISIS in Iraq and Syria? Do they ring a bell? Anybody paying attention to the news would know that we've been in a state of war throughout President Obama's presidency.

This is not about a "war" pulling us out of or into a depression or recession. This is about the negative, or positive, impact a specific policy has on the economy. THAT's what I'm arguing to counter your insinuation that President Obama did "something" positive for the economy.

Here's reality. The economy moved "forward" despite, and not because of, President Obama's policies.

Lyle Andersen: It just boggles my mind how hard-core Republicans think Americans have the right to demand a golden Robust economy going all the time. (STRAWMAN FALLACY) 

You mean, like how hard-core Democrats/progressives/liberals demanded a golden, robust economy going on all the time? They love to demand this when a Republican is in office.

Your actual statements on this thread counters your claim that you were taught to "stick to the facts." Nowhere in my replies on this thread did I "demand" a "golden robust economy" going on "all the time."

My statements were specific.

I said that the best thing that the government could do in relation to the economy is "nothing". That's a historical fact. [Redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] could tell you that I'm in favor of the free market controlling the economy, not the government.

What should boggle your mind is how you're a textbook example of a mindless drone... someone that simply repeats liberal talking head talking points in an argument instead of advancing his own arguments.

This post brought to you courtesy of Dragon Naturally Speaking Version 13. :D

Lyle Andersen: Sorry ,if you think I'm going read all that ranting you are nuts. Good night Learn the 4 W's of journalism. And keep it Short and quick.

You're not the first one to say that to me over the decade I've been debating against liberals online. You're definitely not going to be the last one to say that. In fact, my brother [redacted], and cousin [redacted], told me the same thing. I did what I wanted to do, which is the opposite to what they wanted me to do back then, and to what you told me here.

The reality is that like the majority of liberals that I've argued with... You can't stand seeing a logical, reasoned, fact-based argument destroying your argument, assumptions, and opinions. Especially one that makes you realize that you're wrong, or one that starts to make you question your own argument. The longer the response, the more you see that you're wrong, and the more you start questioning your own argument.

I guarantee you that if I were to use a similar post length, in an argument supporting your argument, you'd be congratulating me. You'd be telling me how I present a well thought out, reasoned, post.

Heck, compared to the other posts that I've generated, that last post was not "long." My brothers could tell you about my reply lengths here. But, even what they've seen is nothing compared to what I've posted elsewhere in arguments against liberals.

Normally, when people are taught to stick with the facts, they're taught to do the research behind the facts. They're taught to do a lot of reading in addition to that research. Apparently, you forgot that part of "sticking to the facts."

Your posts above fall short of the, "who, when, what, where, and why", also known as the 5 Ws of journalism. Not 4. All you've done was ask "what." So much for your claims that you "learned to stick with the facts."

I'm going to tell you what I told the others that made demands similar to yours. I don't accommodate those that I debate with. I'm going to generate however long a post I need to destroy your argument.

Lyle Andersen: [redacted],your brother [redacted] is basically ask me to be more open minded. 

Wrong, Lyle, I'm not telling you to be more open minded.  I'm telling you to actually do your research. I'm also telling you to advance an augment based on reason, facts, and logic.  I also told you to start using the facts, instead of just talking about "sticking to the facts."

Lyle Andersen: While at the same time Blame liberals for all that is wrong in the world. 

First, where, in in my posts, do I specifically blame liberals for everything going wrong in the world? Where?

Second, I didn't blame liberals for everything that was wrong in the world.  I accurately pointed out the negative impacts of progressive/democrat economic policies.  Those are facts, not opinion.

Lyle Andersen: Sorry that is way to simple an idea to fix what is wrong in the world.

First, wrong. The only "simple" I'm seeing here is your interpretation of what I said. You're advancing a strawman, you're addressing something I didn't address.

Second, it helps to understand what you are reading. I know for fact that a fifth-grader could understand what I'm saying here. I know this because I had a fifth-grader understand me when I generated things like this before.

If you cannot understand a post that a fifth-grader could understand, that speaks volumes about your failure at reading comprehension.

This reading comprehension failure argues against your claims of having learned to "stick to the facts." Hence, my demanding for you to advance the facts instead of talking about them.

Lyle Anderson Wouldn't Recognize the Fact Even if it Hit Him on the Face

Lyle Andersen: The only facts I see are ,way to many people truly believe if they truly believe in an pinons hard enough and deep enough that makes them true, or as [redacted] says a fact. [Redacted] believe in himself,a lot which can be a good thing some of the time. I come to this conclusion by his use of the 'I' word almost 40 times. 

I'm not advancing opinion, I'm advancing the facts. This isn't a case where I am "insisting" that I'm "right" because that's what "I want." For example, I pointed out facts about government intervention in the free market. This is historical fact. I'm not making this up, and I'm not just voicing it because it harms the Democrats/progressives.

I'm mentioning it because it happened in history. I'm repeating FACTs. It's a fact that we had a depression in the 1920s. It's a fact that that depression that did not last the entire decade back then. In fact, it was approximately a year in duration. The government did little to nothing to try to bring that economy back. The free market corrected the economy, and it came right back.

The following decade, we had the Great Depression. This largely resulted from government intervention into the economy when the free market was trying to "correct" the economy.

Again, you have to be extremely delusional if you're going to insist that this is nothing but "opinion." It's not.

Study after study has been done on the government's impact on the economy. It's simply human nature. If you threaten the rich, superrich, business owners, etc., with more taxes, they're going to have less incentive to spend money. Or, they'll sit on their money more and invest in economy less.

That's a fact, not opinion.

Lyle Andersen: The only fact I openly embrace is ,JFK openly embrace brings being called a liberal. JFK turn Cuba missile crisis , without firing a shot. A liberal idea. Therefore I don't mind being called a liberal.

That resulted from JFK botching up of a major foreign policy decision.  His predecessor had authorized a joint Cuban immigrant and us military operation that would've toppled Fidel Castro.

All that was needed was the Navy's air power. At the last minute, JFK called it off.

Had the Navy pilots been able to do their part, they would've destroyed Cuban Air power and destroyed Cuban armor on the ground. The Cuban immigrants were destroying the Cuban military on the ground during the battle.

Unfortunately, JFK called off the air power.

It was JFK's decision, to not to carry out the United States' part of the operation, that emboldened Nikita Khrushchev to deploy nuclear weapons to Cuba. He rightfully saw that the United States was a paper tiger under JFK. He saw JFK as a weak leader.

In order to get the Russians to withdraw their missiles, the United States had to give up a forward nuclear missile position. At the end of this scenario, the United States was "weaker" relative to the USSR.

Lyle Andersen: You didn't destroy any thing. 

I thoroughly destroyed your arguments above. For example, you showcased JFK in the way he handled the "Cuba Missile Crisis." You demonstrated your lack of knowledge of history. By ignoring the fact that had it not been for John F. Kennedy's backing down, we would not have had that crisis in the first place.

You also completely forgot that at the end of that crisis, we were in a slightly more disadvantaged position than what we were in before.

This is one example of how I went through and destroyed your arguments point by point. You refused to acknowledge that. However, your refusing to acknowledge that does not dismiss the fact that you've totally been discredited on this thread... And that you've been destroyed in this argument.

Lyle Andersen: [redacted] flaws with your argument. 

No, my argument is solid. It has been solid throughout this thread.

You claimed that my argument has "flaws," quotation marks used strongly, however you didn't advance an argument addressing my rebuttals. You did nothing to prove me "wrong." All you're doing is talking about your opinion about what I did.

How about advancing the facts to "prove" me "wrong"? So far, you failed. You exposed NO flaws in my argument.

Lyle Andersen: You Most likely have a business degree an not journalism. 

The kind of degree that I have has no bearing on the topic of this thread outside of any discussion of the economy. When it comes to the parts of this thread that have nothing to do with the economy, it doesn't matter if I have a business degree or not. What matters is that I have the relevant facts.

For someone that claims that he likes to "stick with the facts," you continue to fail to do your research to see whether or not I'm "wrong." Again, quotation marks used strongly.

Lyle Andersen: And I do complement you on your typing skills. 

What part of the following statement did you not understand?

"Brought to you by Dragon NaturallySpeaking 13." -- [Redacted]

"NaturallySpeaking" suggests that there was "speaking" involved in generating these posts. You, having claimed that you learned to, "stick with the facts," would've seen that as my generating these posts using "speech to text."

Using dictation software on online debates is my standard operating procedure. Next time, pull your head out of your poop chute and remove your horse blinders before you fart out of your mouth.

Lyle Andersen: It is call the four W's you simple minded BS Degree. 

Wrong, Stupid, it's called the FIVE W's of journalism.

Also, for someone that claims to "stick to the facts," I don't have a BS Degree. In fact, you apparently know who [redacted] is. Why don't you just ask [redacted] what degrees I have? Why don't you just ask any of my brothers on this thread what kind of degree I have?

Hint: It's a graduate-level degree, and it's not a "BS."

The only BS that I'm seeing here is I what I see you posting.

Lyle Andersen Defends his 4 "Ws" of Journalism

Lyle Andersen: What, where , when and who are consider the facts of the store. Why, is not alway available. Is sought after in the story. 

Wrong as usual. In the majority of the news segments that I've watched, and in the majority of the news articles that I've read, I've seen/read the 5W's.

I'll give you an example, an NPR article on Brian Williams stepping away from the anchor desk.

Who: Brian Williams
What: stepped away from the anchor desk
When: around the time the announcement was made
Where: NBC nightly news
Why: the comment he made about being shot at while in a military helicopter in Iraq

Even if you don't have the "why" to the story, and if you have to get it after the initial "breaking" story, that initial story is updated to include the "why." That "why" is not indefinitely left out. Hence, the 5W's.

In this article that I looked at, they were not specific as to the "when" other then he "has" stepped away from the anchor podium. Based on your logic, we would have to reduce this to the "3W's" of "journalism." We could "assume" that the action is taken "now," but your next comment will work against you if you try to argue against this point.

Lyle Andersen: True Journal ethics says it is best not to say why by conjecture.example the car slid off the road because the roads are extremely icy or was the driver texting. Don't know do you. (STRAWMAN)

First, this is a strawman argument. You made the statement about the "4W's"of  journalism. I corrected you and informed you that there were "5W's" of journalism. We're not arguing about "conjecture", or its possibility, just to include the fifth "W".

Second, if this was to appear in the story, all that information would be there in terms of the 5W's. Those are the 5W's that the readers would be thinking about as they read the article. Why? People want to know the full story, and if you don't provide it to them, they'll get it from a competitor.

If a reader of the above example newspaper scenario normally drove in the same area that accident occurred, he/she would also want to know why the driver slid off. The "why" of your scenario would be included in the story.

Third, any of the 5W's could be subject to "conjecture" when in the hands of people like you. That's not the point behind the fact that you were wrong about the W's of journalism.

Lyle Andersen: When stating a fact it is best to state your sources. 

So, if I were to tell you that the Earth orbits the sun, you won't believe me until I show you my source of information for that? First, the facts that I provided you are researchable. All you had to do was to get off your lazy "face" and do that research. Second, you've provided no resources to back your arguments relative to the argument.

Lyle Andersen: No I do not have a journalism degree. 

You don't know what you're talking about on this thread either.

Lyle Andersen: my sources are Harl Andersen associate press for 32 years. Vic Andersen Rochester New York. Mark and Erin editors Lincoln star paper. 

You could find my sources, on the 5W's, by simply doing a Google search. So far, the majority of the results talk about the 5W's of journalism. This is based on the following being typed in the search field: "Ws of journalism."

You could also see the 5W's in play as a story develops.

Lyle Anderson: Generally agree distraction good journalism. Is business degrees and others wanting easy answers.

Whether you like or not, it's the 5W's of journalism. If you read a news article, or watch it on the television, you'll see the 5W's in play. If one of those are missing, an update is immediately generated as soon as that missing W is discovered. This is in addition to any other updates. That update completes the initial story in advance of any updates that happen later down the road.