Reply #95: Your replies are well organized, well thought out,

[bhikkhu]

and grammatically correct, (all of which I appreciate) though clearly I don't agree with the conclusions.

At some point one must move on to other arguments and discussions, but it is worth noting that where I write that Obama's policies toward the auto industry were very effective, as they were good for the country and for the working people, you seems to simply dismiss that as Classic Republican. Why should a Democratic president be criticized for good policies which help industries and create jobs? What Obama has done in that arena is hardly trickle-down, and is clearly more effective.

Whether you look at "free trade", or austerity, or social programs, you decline to look at the actual results of the policies Obama has implemented, but rather point to the poor results of other less than effective policies and ideologies from the past. It seems to be a type of hyperbole you can "feel in your gut" versus nuance that you have to sit and think about, and perhaps study with the aid of context and background. I appreciate that you seem to be intelligent, but I don't quite understand an intelligence that turns away from facts, and instead jumps to rapid conclusions and justifies them with narrow perspectives and information cherry-picked for effect, but not necessarily related. Or so it seems to me - I could be wrong?