NationStates Jolt Archive

Dude you said it yourself. "Some are kept in the ether waiting for people to bump into now and then." I mean come on I'm freaking 17! Besides which I think I'm doing pretty good based on the current trend in today's education system.


***********************

Then I guess you have a lot of reading to do. To catch up with my knowledge base.

Enjoy it - there many new things to learn every minute of your life.
Good luck - Live long and prosper!

Are you sure? Afterall, your only indication of my knowledge base is what you have witness within this thread and perhaps this forum. Therefore and by you have no true measure of my scope of knowledge. Thus is both arrogant and pretensive to make the statement you did. Besides knowledge is merely a subjective quality instituted by humanity's inherently competive nature. :)

lol - I'm sorry but there's no such word as 'pretensive', 'pretentious' perhaps, the delicious irony of that error contravening the intention of your post was just too good to resist. I really ought not intervene at all but surely the object is that others might make judgements about your intellect and wisdom based on your responses in general, not one post designed to prove how clever you are.

Anyhow, I'm sure I've made comments on that basis from time to time so I guess I'm not really fit to judge.

So she can't spell. I can't either. And if you'd actually read the whole thing instead of proofreading her post you'd realize that what she was saying is that since Independent Turkeys didn't actually know her he wasn't qualified to judge or label her based on only the post(s) in this thread or forum. And before you say anything I know that is a run-on sentence.

*mock* I'm 13 and I've read A people's history of the United States and Freethinkers... I saw some college kid reading them at the bus stop and so I read 'em! Now I know just as much about the world as anyone else 'Cuz I've read books and I know how it really happened. And my mom and dad are republican. So I've experienced both sides of the story, and I'm gonna bash bush, just like everyone else in the world 'Cuz it's cool, never mind the scientifically proven teenage-rebellion hormones that are screwing my brain from the north to the south pole, I know what I'm talking about!

Dude you said it yourself. "Some are kept in the ether waiting for people to bump into now and then." I mean come on I'm freaking 17! Besides which I think I'm doing pretty good based on the current trend in today's education system.


***********************

Then I guess you have a lot of reading to do. To catch up with my knowledge base.

Enjoy it - there many new things to learn every minute of your life.
Good luck - Live long and prosper!

Are you sure? Afterall, your only indication of my knowledge base is what you have witness within this thread and perhaps this forum. Therefore and by you have no true measure of my scope of knowledge. Thus is both arrogant and pretensive to make the statement you did. Besides knowledge is merely a subjective quality instituted by humanity's inherently competive nature. :)

lol - I'm sorry but there's no such word as 'pretensive', 'pretentious' perhaps, the delicious irony of that error contravening the intention of your post was just too good to resist. I really ought not intervene at all but surely the object is that others might make judgements about your intellect and wisdom based on your responses in general, not one post designed to prove how clever you are.

Anyhow, I'm sure I've made comments on that basis from time to time so I guess I'm not really fit to judge.

So she can't spell. I can't either. And if you'd actually read the whole thing instead of proofreading her post you'd realize that what she was saying is that since Independent Turkeys didn't actually know her he wasn't qualified to judge or label her based on only the post(s) in this thread or forum. And before you say anything I know that is a run-on sentence.

I'm not one of these losers who runs around the forum correcting everyone on their grammatical errors and I actually did read the relevant section that you mentioned. Just that when a person writes a post with the sole intention of making themselves sound clever and makes a glaring mistake it's too ironic to pass on. Anyway I was only poking fun, and doubtless I'm being slightly hypocritical in doing so.

*mock* I'm 13 and I've read A people's history of the United States and Freethinkers... I saw some college kid reading them at the bus stop and so I read 'em! Now I know just as much about the world as anyone else 'Cuz I've read books and I know how it really happened. And my mom and dad are republican. So I've experienced both sides of the story, and I'm gonna bash bush, just like everyone else in the world 'Cuz it's cool, never mind the scientifically proven teenage-rebellion hormones that are screwing my brain from the north to the south pole, I know what I'm talking about!

*mock* I'm some idiot who feels threatened by the intellectual proweress of a 13 year-old who has managed to come to the truth of the matter. I haven't bothered to read or research anything because I have an I.Q. of 30 which is scientifically getting lower everyday since the brain is like a muscle and weakens when it is not used. But whatever I can't be mature and debate I have to poke fun so I seem cool! :roll:

What the hell are you talking about, "Looking forward to voting."? Didn't you people learn anything from that last farse of an election? Who had the most votes? It wasn't Bush! As long as the Electoral College is in place, it doesn't really matter who we vote for. People get on me for not voting in the last election. I simply (and accurately) tell them that my vote wouldn't have mattered unless I lived in Florida(where they rigged the election). Extra votes in a state that a candidate has already won are useless. Think about it. Jesus, I thought everyone in this country had to take a Constitution test before graduating. Glad everyone paid attention.

Plook, how does a candidate win the electoral votes of each state? Your vote is important. Maybe not as important as you'd like, but important enough to deliver your state to the candidate of your choosing. And as the last election showed, even states with a low amount of electoral votes matter in the overall scheme.

The GDP measures car wrecks as an economic boon because of repair costs, insurance costs, and other expenses. Do you know any company that lists a loss as part of their net as well? This number has never been a true indicator of economic growth.

By itself it isn't an indicator of economic growth. But when examined alongside other aspects of the economy, it does seem to imply steady growth.

Well of course he's going to. But he's not a smart man to go to places like Weirton, West Virginia to hail job numbers when the largest employer in the region declared bankruptcy because Bush reneged on his promises to the steel industry. Keeping in mind also that Bush's economic team now lists a job at McDonald's as a manufacturing job.

Obviously. But keep in mind that the steel tariffs were creating considerable tensions between the US and other markets, and regardless of the tariffs the US steel industry has been declining for years. In a global economy, that sort of protectionism isn't a cure all, and can back fire quickly.


The housing market? Ever think that might have something to do with the interest rates? Now ask yourself why the interest rates are so low. Connect the answer with Bush's economic plan and you might be shocked.

Which is exactly what I'm getting at. Low Interest rates coupled with economic policies like tax cuts allowed more people to buy and sell homes. That in turn helped fuel the economy.

Bush is going to be the first president in 70 years to finish a four year term with a net job loss. Last month he so proudly touted his numbers but when you took away the nonfarm jobs, almost all of the jobs created were government related. Didn't Bush promise to cut the number of federal employees in 2000 when he was campaigning?

True. But keep in mind that he inherited an economy that was entering a recession, experienced numerous corporate scandals, and was plagued by the threat of terrorism. IMO that sort of net job loss seems acceptable considering the circumstances.

This month you should also take a look at the jobs created. Over 90% were in service industries. So our economy is replacing manufacturing jobs that pay decent wages for service jobs that pay barely above the minimum wage. Dig deeper to see the truth about job numbers.

I’m not sure about that. Those same complaints were made from 1983 to 1995 when similar outsourcing took place: That people would be forced to enter unskilled, low paying jobs. In reality, the majority carried on a wage that was at or above American median wage. While in the short term many might be disadvantaged, I fail to see how we wouldn’t see a similar rebound.



You seriously believe this? Bush has slashed benefits and moneys for welfare programs across the country. The numbers are declining because a large number of people have been kicked off the welfare rolls and are now no longer a statistic of any kind. This isn't good news. It goes the same with unemployment. Oh wow, the number of people on the unemployment rolls is staying steady. But take a look at the truer number: the number of people eligible for employment and how many are working and see how bad the numbers truly are.

That’s true, but only to an extent. I think a more accurate statement would that welfare reform (or “cut backs” if you want to look at it from a more hard-left perspective) has lead to people finding better ways to support themselves, or maintain employment. (BTW it seems that the link I provided was broken. Here’s a new one: Welfare rolls shrinking (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/national/22WELF.html?) This excerpt from the article seems to suggest that’s the case:


In past recessions, newly hired welfare recipients and other low-skilled workers were among the first to lose their jobs. But that was apparently not the case with the most recent recession.
"Former welfare recipients were entrenched in the work force," said Marva Arnold, a senior official at the Human Services Department in Illinois, where the number of families on welfare has plunged 45 percent since January 2001, to 38,276. "They have gained real work experience, including the skills needed to maintain employment."
The 1996 welfare law contributed to a big increase in the proportion of single mothers in paid jobs outside the home. Robert L. Doar, commissioner of the New York State welfare agency, said, "Their attachment to the work force has proved stronger than many people expected."


The nation's budget doesn't list wartime costs. How misleading is that? Last year Bush called for 87 billion dollars. How much more this year that isn't included in the economic numbers?

By the way, do you rob Peter to pay Paul? Bush's economics sure do since state budgets are in their worst shape since the Depression of the 30's. Just to give you one example: Bush's One Stop Initiative for job training. In 2005, the cost of these initiatives are laid 100% on the states. But it sure is easy to tout the program, especially now that the states have to fund it. No Child Left Behind is a classic example of Bush economics.



Sorry, I’m a little confused here. That report didn’t even mention the budget. I actually agree with your criticism (obviously, Bush has been far from a fiscal conservative), but I don’t think that anything to do with the JEC’s assessment of the economy, which overall all appears to be pretty positive and optimistic.




Last year was the largest budget deficit in the history of our country. This year we're on track to break that easily. Our economy is tanking.

It is true that pork barrel spending and deficits are out of control. But by that standard, the 1980’s must have had one of the worst economies in history.

BUMP

aside from his idiocy and ability to mistake a weather baloon for a biological weapon factory

i cant belive hes accualy running
he wont win this electon, i mean come on

sometimes im embarased for him

I completely agree.

Give President Bush his 4 more years .

Not just no...but F**K NO!!!!

If I had MY way, that asshole wouldn't get four more MINUTES!!!

If you had your way I'm sure you would be king of America, and we would all be your little lackeys.

Hell no! I wouldn't want the job.

apparently 70% of america thinks that 9/11 and sadam are linked. this worries me.

I think the oil giuys that got bush into power with their money and control him and his lackeys also manipulate the media. As this could not be further from the truth. Sadam and Ossie hate eachother, ones an islamic extremist, one worships himself (technically secualr, but you could argue he follows satanism)... its just wrong.

Why do i think the oil guys are in control? Because he is ripping away all environmental safeguards and invaded Iraq for no reason or bjective which he suceeded at except getting oil.

No WMD, no rebuilding of Iraq and lots of oil. Im sure its been said before, but do the maths. Or maybe the war was to hide thet poor performance of the american economy from the public by diverting media attention away from it...

Im English, why should it bother me? because if bush continues to feed the greehouse gases and attack everyoine the earth gets warmer, hot things like the sea expand. My house by the sea goes underwater. Luckily america keeps about half of its land, so theres plenty of spare room...

That said CLinton wasnt much better. The actual action taken by america on Glonbal warming consist of two groups, one funds the other. The second group gives money to the first group, and does a few surveys, however as they are nto allowed rto be certain (its not in their role toi be certain) they can only say that there is a possibilty of global warming, ie "we are sure there is but we migh eb wrong because our bosses tell us not be certain" I had to look this up for Geography once i was a very frightened boy after that. And now four years later, things are the same.

But Bush will be dead by then and so will his rich masters so what does the future matter. haha.


Im going to vote for a government that tells bush when hes being silly, and doesnt kiss his arse. Oh and if that fails call me a cheese eating surrender monkey cos i'll go to france!

Excuse the rant but i didnt even start on the part where he pretends hes doing the religeous thing and so giving fuel for a jihad and doing everything that Christianity doesnt stand for...

apparently 70% of america thinks that 9/11 and sadam are linked. this worries me.

I think the oil giuys that got bush into power with their money and control him and his lackeys also manipulate the media. As this could not be further from the truth. Sadam and Ossie hate eachother, ones an islamic extremist, one worships himself (technically secualr, but you could argue he follows satanism)... its just wrong.

Why do i think the oil guys are in control? Because he is ripping away all environmental safeguards and invaded Iraq for no reason or bjective which he suceeded at except getting oil.

No WMD, no rebuilding of Iraq and lots of oil. Im sure its been said before, but do the maths. Or maybe the war was to hide thet poor performance of the american economy from the public by diverting media attention away from it...

Im English, why should it bother me? because if bush continues to feed the greehouse gases and attack everyoine the earth gets warmer, hot things like the sea expand. My house by the sea goes underwater. Luckily america keeps about half of its land, so theres plenty of spare room...

That said CLinton wasnt much better. The actual action taken by america on Glonbal warming consist of two groups, one funds the other. The second group gives money to the first group, and does a few surveys, however as they are nto allowed rto be certain (its not in their role toi be certain) they can only say that there is a possibilty of global warming, ie "we are sure there is but we migh eb wrong because our bosses tell us not be certain" I had to look this up for Geography once i was a very frightened boy after that. And now four years later, things are the same.

But Bush will be dead by then and so will his rich masters so what does the future matter. haha.


Im going to vote for a government that tells bush when hes being silly, and doesnt kiss his arse. Oh and if that fails call me a cheese eating surrender monkey cos i'll go to france!

Excuse the rant but i didnt even start on the part where he pretends hes doing the religeous thing and so giving fuel for a jihad and doing everything that Christianity doesnt stand for...

A "cheese-eating surrender monkey?" LOL, sounds like you have been listening to too much Neal Boortz!

nah, no idea who that is.

It was something one of my friends said to wind up a frenchman (another friend of mine) on my course at uni. All in good humour though, (definatley good humour as the guy has a bushism poster)

But he probably picked it up somewhere...

I dont believe we have ever put an innocent, I mean guilty man to death in Texas
:lol:

Some States have a rule (when dealing with Electorial Votes) that give ALL Electorial Votes for that State to the candidate that has the majority votes. So as of late, it can skew the ratio of popular votes to Electorial Votes when a large state has a close popular vote.

Change the State rules - not the Constitution.

By itself it isn't an indicator of economic growth. But when examined alongside other aspects of the economy, it does seem to imply steady growth.

When you've tanked the economy to rock bottom, where else do you expect it to go? You don't get credit for a period of growth when you've bumped everything down so far. Its like asking for a reward for getting an D- on a test when you've already failed everything previous.

Obviously. But keep in mind that the steel tariffs were creating considerable tensions between the US and other markets, and regardless of the tariffs the US steel industry has been declining for years. In a global economy, that sort of protectionism isn't a cure all, and can back fire quickly.

Perhaps it was the best thing. Perhaps tariffs weren't the best idea in the world. Well, if he knew that, then he shouldn't have made the promise to keep them in place. That's the problem here. You don't tell an industry that is suffering that you'll protect them, and then turn around and sell them out and inform the country that you've saved them. If it weren't for Senator Byrd getting loans for the steel industry, we wouldn't have one anymore. Bush isn't popular for breaking this campaign promise.

Which is exactly what I'm getting at. Low Interest rates coupled with economic policies like tax cuts allowed more people to buy and sell homes. That in turn helped fuel the economy.

Now now, you're making illegitimate connections. The average new home buyer also received a pittance in "tax relief." An extra thousand dollars didn't convince anyone that they could now buy a house, especially since these same people are noticing that their payroll taxes are now higher. The lower interest rates are directly resulting from the Fed's concern about the economy. Tax cuts didn't mean a single thing to the housing market.

But keep in mind that he inherited an economy that was entering a recession, experienced numerous corporate scandals, and was plagued by the threat of terrorism. IMO that sort of net job loss seems acceptable considering the circumstances.

The recession that Bushies claim was occuring did not actually begin until several months into the Bush Administration. A lot of economists contribute this beginning of a recession to the talk by the Bush Administration about severe tax cuts. The numerous corporate scandals? Bush's tenure hardly has a clean slate on this one either. What's worse is that during Bush's presidency, companies previously banned from bidding for federal contracts because of past misdoings or because of tax shelters by using overseas headquarters are now allowed to bid. Bush's direct influence. How much has the American people lost out on because of Halliburton's tax shelters? Why are companies that have been previously convicted of wrongdoing with regards to federal contracts now working in Iraq at the cost of billions of dollars? And for that matter, why does every one of these companies have a direct relationship with Bush or Cheney? Interesting?

Plagued by the threat of terrorism that Rumsfeld downgraded? When the outgoing secretary of defense listed terrorism as the number 1 threat to America, Rumsfeld downgraded it to a non-priority matter. Why did that happen? There were acts of terrorism during the Clinton years...Reagan years...Carter years....keep going back. None of these presidential administrations spent the rest of their presidency blaming a single act for their lousy economic policies that are hampering the rebirth of what was once a thriving economy. Republicans can't have it both ways. Either it was A: a non-threat of terrorism as they viewed it from January-September 2001...in which it would also extend to the Clinton years as well......or it was B: a threat in which Clinton's staff deserves credit for keeping America safe for the majority of his 8 years. The Millenium Plot anyone?

I’m not sure about that. Those same complaints were made from 1983 to 1995 when similar outsourcing took place: That people would be forced to enter unskilled, low paying jobs. In reality, the majority carried on a wage that was at or above American median wage. While in the short term many might be disadvantaged, I fail to see how we wouldn’t see a similar rebound.

You fail to see how?

Person A gets a job with Toyota making transmissions. This person starts off making 15.00 hourly with benefits. In ten years at the same job, this same person is now making 23.00 with more benefits. Good, solid manufacturing job.

Person B gets a job with Millenium Teleservices doing telemarketing. This person starts off making 6.50 hourly with no benefits. In ten years at the same job this same person is now making 11.00 hourly with minimal benefits. This is the service industry.

In the past, there were rebounds because the manufacturing base was still present to allow a rebound. When the manufacturing jobs are outsourced to China, India, Belguim, Pakistan....the infrastructure is destroyed. Those people 15 years ago who started in the service industry were able to jump into the higher paying jobs with benefits. Now there is nothing to jump into. This person is receiving lower wages with no benefits, driving the actual wage even lower. These people rarely have health insurance which effects the American workforce. An unhealthy worker costs more money. Does this make sense? Check out these stats at any of your local state government's Bureau for Employment Programs. They keep numbers about this you know.

That's all I can add for now.....time to go put the boy to bed.

That last post is probably the most beautifully picked apart argument I've seen since I saw my rabbi kick some conservative Christian "minister's" argument about the "validity" of homosexuality. In short, it about made me cry. Other than the hardcore facts like fiscal issues having to with Bush's inepntness - I have certain ideological points that he rubs me the wrong way. He scares me, as I've said before. Earlier in the posts someone made a response to my previous post in which I said "[Bush] is hardly compassionate." In which the responder said, to paraphrase, "[Bush] has helped a lot of religious charities etc." Isn't that the point I was trying to make?! Bush put together that disgusting spatoon of a proposal called "faith based initiative," to take the heat off the federal government for not providing social services adequately, so they tried to give it to "religious" organizations. Sounds like a good idea? It's disgusting, because they are no longer obligated to operate under federal laws regarding discrimination, hiring etc. For instance, say I'm hypothetically, a perfectly law-abiding, tax-paying citizen but I also happen to be a gay man and I go to get some help from a service run by fucking-crazy-right-wing-gay-bashing-church. Obviously, should they find out about this, they might be less then inclined to help as well as if I, and in real life I am, Jewish - and I choose not to listen to their bullshit convert-or-die speech, then I also might be declined service etc.

Other than that, the talking out of both sides of his mouth is absolutely infuriating to me. How can you POSSIBLY justify or promise tax cuts when you've declared two "wars" which are going to needlessly drain the entire goddamn economy! MORON!! How can you justify a military spending level which is at the max it was during the bloody cold war when we are not in an arms race with the Soviets any more, and no, folks, Korea doesn't count. Are we all aware that our military spending alone surpasses that of the next 50 countries combined?? If we took even 25% of that and put it into a sort of national thing to bring down university costs which are rising exponentially, or help with the rediculous medical system we have in this country, or more prudently, to bail out social security which is essential to our elderly? Anywyas that's my rant - and I'm going to bed! Shalom, all. :twisted:

I mostly agree with you Parsha, but if I may present the principles behind these "laissez faire" decisions. First, economic liberals (capitalists) tend to believe that it's not the governments job to care for social welfare. It's the citizens' jobs and religious groups are renowned for their compassion to those in need. With this knowledge administrations justify themselves by "passing the buck" to religious and citizens institutions to do the social tending. Ridiculous IMO.

Second, in fact, a war does not drain our economy. It grows (or adds growth) our economy. Here's how it works. The government starts issuing bonds and bond dealers, if they so choose, buy these bonds. These bonds are pretty much money and the government has to pay interest on these to the bond buyers. Thus the economy grows and more money is floating around out there. The government may choose to take out a loan instead of issuing bonds in which case the government would have to pay interest on those loans back to the banks. More money floating around again. On the other end of the stick, the government spends that money, on kevlar body armour, tanks, guns, bullets, etc. The businesses that make those things then get money, and the economy grows. So war adds to our economy in fact, not taking away from the economy.

However, you brought up a good point. That money could be spent much better ways, healthcare, medicaid, research and development, social welfare, education, you pick. It would have the same effect on the economy in the sense that it would benefit the market (money) and the businesses (real investments).

:wink:

Obviously. But keep in mind that the steel tariffs were creating considerable tensions between the US and other markets, and regardless of the tariffs the US steel industry has been declining for years. In a global economy, that sort of protectionism isn't a cure all, and can back fire quickly.

Perhaps it was the best thing. Perhaps tariffs weren't the best idea in the world. Well, if he knew that, then he shouldn't have made the promise to keep them in place. That's the problem here. You don't tell an industry that is suffering that you'll protect them, and then turn around and sell them out and inform the country that you've saved them. If it weren't for Senator Byrd getting loans for the steel industry, we wouldn't have one anymore. Bush isn't popular for breaking this campaign promise.

The tarriffs on imported steel were in fact placed after the president came to power in a promise to the steel industry that he would protect them from cheap foreign steel (mainly from the EU). However, the WTrO under much pressure from EU steel manufacturers ruled that those tariffs were illegal and the administration under internation law _had_ to lift the tariffs. Or face massive retaliation in the form of lawsuits from EU steel manufacterers. It's neither Bush's fault nor the markets fault. There are international institutions out there today that are much more powerful than any domestic government known.

I love how bush gets blamed for everything that goes wrong, but he gets no credit for what goes right. I think it pretty funny

I love how bush gets blamed for everything that goes wrong, but he gets no credit for what goes right. I think it pretty funny

The media hooks onto to almost only what is negative. The media forces itself onto public opinion.

The tarriffs on imported steel were in fact placed after the president came to power in a promise to the steel industry that he would protect them from cheap foreign steel (mainly from the EU). However, the WTrO under much pressure from EU steel manufacturers ruled that those tariffs were illegal and the administration under internation law _had_ to lift the tariffs. Or face massive retaliation in the form of lawsuits from EU steel manufacterers. It's neither Bush's fault nor the markets fault. There are international institutions out there today that are much more powerful than any domestic government known.

Yes, I misworded my statement initially. I was trying to say that Bush promised to keep the tariffs on steel imports in place despite international pressure to remove them. I know that Bush put them in place to begin with.

I fault Bush because he openly stated both during his presidential campaign and following the WTO's decision on the legality of such tariffs that he would not bow to international pressure to remove these tariffs. Now, since he put the tariffs in place to begin with he provided the steel industry with an incredibly false sense of security. He provided an end date for these tariffs and then reiterated that the end date would not change. Many of the steel companies reworked their business plans on the assurance of the administration of this defined date. When the tariffs were then removed much earlier, several companies found themselves in a position that left them worse than they were before the tariffs went into place. Again, many of these companies had begun to pour capital into improvements in their infrastructure at the behest of the Bush Administration. This was money they could have used to shore up their shaky ground. They followed the Administration's requests and were burnt by this. Wheeling-Pitt Steel specifically cites this as a reason for their inability to survive. Weirton Steel filed for bankruptcy shortly thereafter. The steel industry in this region lost 87% of their jobs.

Bush isn't responsible for the WTO's ruling on the legality of the tariffs. No one faults him for this. In fact, it was widely known that the WTO would rule in this manner because of pressure by the EU. However, Bush is faulted for telling the industry that he would rebuke the WTO's ruling and continue the tariffs. He made a promise to this industry and broke it, leaving these companies blowing in the wind.

The steel industry does have a legitimate gripe that steel from several companies was being dumped on the market. Their complaint was primarily of non-EU countries (Argentina, Japan, and Russia were listed as the foremost violators) that have government subsidized industry utilizing dumping practices. Why the EU got involved in this is questionable. Several American steel industry executives have stated their belief that the EU pressured the WTO on this ruling because they saw a market they could enter with limited American competition if the ruling came out against the American tariffs. The EU is hardly blameless in bringing economic benefit into the mix of an illegal practice.

I hope this clarifies my previous statement.

I don't nessicarily think Bush was the worst president...

But the way he handled many things could have been better, to say the least.

People can say, if another candidate would have been elected, that they would have done it better, but the fact of the matter is, you can't say that with 100% cirtaincy....

What Bush did right, other people would have screwed up on, what he did wrong, other people would have done well on...He is completly neutral in my oppinion..but I still don't like him...

HELL NO! BUSH SUCKS!

Just a question. Has anyone actually sat down and read the Patriot Act or are you parroting what you heard from the likes of Al Frankin, NPR, Michael Moore and Alan Combs? :oops:

i read it at whitehouse.gov

America shoudl just ake over the world, itd be easier that way.

America shoudl just ake over the world, itd be easier that way.

What a horrible idea. I like diversity of culture, I would hate to go to Tibet to find it just like Texas....

The tarriffs on imported steel were in fact placed after the president came to power in a promise to the steel industry that he would protect them from cheap foreign steel (mainly from the EU). However, the WTrO under much pressure from EU steel manufacturers ruled that those tariffs were illegal and the administration under internation law _had_ to lift the tariffs. Or face massive retaliation in the form of lawsuits from EU steel manufacterers. It's neither Bush's fault nor the markets fault. There are international institutions out there today that are much more powerful than any domestic government known.

Yes, I misworded my statement initially. I was trying to say that Bush promised to keep the tariffs on steel imports in place despite international pressure to remove them. I know that Bush put them in place to begin with.

I fault Bush because he openly stated both during his presidential campaign and following the WTO's decision on the legality of such tariffs that he would not bow to international pressure to remove these tariffs. Now, since he put the tariffs in place to begin with he provided the steel industry with an incredibly false sense of security. He provided an end date for these tariffs and then reiterated that the end date would not change. Many of the steel companies reworked their business plans on the assurance of the administration of this defined date. When the tariffs were then removed much earlier, several companies found themselves in a position that left them worse than they were before the tariffs went into place. Again, many of these companies had begun to pour capital into improvements in their infrastructure at the behest of the Bush Administration. This was money they could have used to shore up their shaky ground. They followed the Administration's requests and were burnt by this. Wheeling-Pitt Steel specifically cites this as a reason for their inability to survive. Weirton Steel filed for bankruptcy shortly thereafter. The steel industry in this region lost 87% of their jobs.

...

I hope this clarifies my previous statement.

********************

I am sorry - did I miss something. According to the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power--
... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among several States, and with the Indian tribes; ...

Nowhere do I see that the President of the United States is granted the above stated power hence President Bush can not "put tarrifs in place".

All politicians suck to a degree. There has never been a politician that everyone liked everything they did (though Kerry is trying to fooling us into thinking he is). You need to ask yourself "Is he/she doing his/her job?" and then vote them out if the answer is NO or they have served in that position for at least eight years.

I'm waaay to the right, but i still dont care for bush. just something about him doesnt click. his brain perhaps, hehehe. anyways, what really worries me is Kerry's plan for Iraq thus far. To stop sending troops and "pull our guys out". at least thats what i've heard this far. now, we're fixing afganistan, but if we leave Iraq like that, we're just creating another one, unless of course Iran decides to conquer the country, which would probably be even worse. Until Kerry starts comming up with some real ideas and a real plan, not just saying what people want to hear, a quick end to the war, I'll have to vote for Bush.

Additionally...everyone is claiming the war in Iraq is hurting gas prices- pipelines in the country were attacked, etc. Now, if Iraq has been under an oil embargo since Desert Storm, and they werent selling that much in the oil for food program, then why is the shortage out of Iraq hurting us now? the problems in venezuala are driving gas prices to 2,3,4, even 5 bucks a gallon? seems unlikely to me...anyone know what's "really" going on there (I do know many of you are convinced that's bush's fault too though).

I'm waaay to the right, but i still dont care for bush. just something about him doesnt click. his brain perhaps, hehehe. anyways, what really worries me is Kerry's plan for Iraq thus far. To stop sending troops and "pull our guys out". at least thats what i've heard this far. now, we're fixing afganistan, but if we leave Iraq like that, we're just creating another one, unless of course Iran decides to conquer the country, which would probably be even worse. Until Kerry starts comming up with some real ideas and a real plan, not just saying what people want to hear, a quick end to the war, I'll have to vote for Bush.

Additionally...everyone is claiming the war in Iraq is hurting gas prices- pipelines in the country were attacked, etc. Now, if Iraq has been under an oil embargo since Desert Storm, and they werent selling that much in the oil for food program, then why is the shortage out of Iraq hurting us now? the problems in venezuala are driving gas prices to 2,3,4, even 5 bucks a gallon? seems unlikely to me...anyone know what's "really" going on there (I do know many of you are convinced that's bush's fault too though).

Yes. I AM concinced it's Bush's fault gas prices are so high. He could do something about it, like opening the Strategic Reserve to give us price relief, and he won't.
He could have prevented the high prices in the first place, by not going into Iraq. The high prices are the result of two things...

1. Bush pissed off the Middle East by going into Iraq, and so this is how they are getting even with us. The only way they can. By charging us dearly for the energy we are addicted to.

2. Bush's economic policies suck, and have caused the devaluation of the dollar versus other world currencies...so our dollars are worth less in the world market, thus the Arabs want more of our dollars for their oil.

Also, Bush could push for alternative energy sources to make us independent of foreign (particularly Middle Eastern) oil, and then we can send those Arab bastards right back to the Stone Ages where they belong, and let 'em drown on their own goddam oil!

F**k 'em, I say we just nuke their asses and TAKE the goddam oil. And I don't feel any too sympathetic towards the "abused" Iraqi prisoners, either. F**k 'em, they are doing worse to our people...I seem to remember four civilian contractors dragged on chains behind trucks in Fallujah, and I also seem to remember another American having his godddam head sawn off! With gas prices what they are right now, I got a few tortures of my OWN I'd like to pull on those Arab bastards. And believe me, they are far worse than anything our military has yet dreamed up, let alone done!

At this point, I am so pissed with the Arabs for our hgh gas prices that I quite frankly want to kill every last one of the Arab sons-a-bitches! EVERY LAST ONE of them! Bastards! I HATE them. Get it?

Labrador...you REALLY need to talk to someone about that anger...you had me for a minute there man, but as soon as your brought up nukes you lost me. Besides, I'd rather be dependant on arab oil as opposed to Canadian oil. I personally destest canada, no offense to canadians (most of them hate the US as well so its equal).
also, i agree, we should open the reserves.

Labrador...you REALLY need to talk to someone about that anger...you had me for a minute there man, but as soon as your brought up nukes you lost me. Besides, I'd rather be dependant on arab oil as opposed to Canadian oil. I personally destest canada, no offense to canadians (most of them hate the US as well so its equal).
also, i agree, we should open the reserves.
Well, I tell you what...ANYONE who threatens MY economic security draws my extreme ire! And my hatred. This is why I hate Bush, and why I hate the Arabs. Both are attacking MY economic security!

Quite frankly, anger is a natural response to feeling threatened or invaded. People misunderstand anger, and think it's always unhealthy, but it isn't. Anger keeps you WARY...on your guard...so that you don't get taken advantage of AGAIN!
Anger also spurs you to action to DO SOMETHING about whatever it is that you feel is an injustice....that is the root cause of your anger.

And, just by the way, one of the milder tortures I have in mind for these Arab bastards is to hang 'em in a town square somewhere, and give baseball bats to every American driver, who has to pay exhorbitant gasoline prices now...and let us all play piñata with them...or, if you prefer, Whack-A-Mole!

No, I'd never actually do it...but I'd sure like to! And I'd like to see it done to them! Sorry, but this is my anger. Anger at having MY economic security threatened in this manner.

I'm waaay to the right, but i still dont care for bush. just something about him doesnt click. his brain perhaps, hehehe. anyways, what really worries me is Kerry's plan for Iraq thus far. To stop sending troops and "pull our guys out". at least thats what i've heard this far. now, we're fixing afganistan, but if we leave Iraq like that, we're just creating another one, unless of course Iran decides to conquer the country, which would probably be even worse. Until Kerry starts comming up with some real ideas and a real plan, not just saying what people want to hear, a quick end to the war, I'll have to vote for Bush.

Additionally...everyone is claiming the war in Iraq is hurting gas prices- pipelines in the country were attacked, etc. Now, if Iraq has been under an oil embargo since Desert Storm, and they werent selling that much in the oil for food program, then why is the shortage out of Iraq hurting us now? the problems in venezuala are driving gas prices to 2,3,4, even 5 bucks a gallon? seems unlikely to me...anyone know what's "really" going on there (I do know many of you are convinced that's bush's fault too though).

Yes. I AM concinced it's Bush's fault gas prices are so high. He could do something about it, like opening the Strategic Reserve to give us price relief, and he won't.
He could have prevented the high prices in the first place, by not going into Iraq. The high prices are the result of two things...

1. Bush pissed off the Middle East by going into Iraq, and so this is how they are getting even with us. The only way they can. By charging us dearly for the energy we are addicted to.

2. Bush's economic policies suck, and have caused the devaluation of the dollar versus other world currencies...so our dollars are worth less in the world market, thus the Arabs want more of our dollars for their oil.

Also, Bush could push for alternative energy sources to make us independent of foreign (particularly Middle Eastern) oil, and then we can send those Arab bastards right back to the Stone Ages where they belong, and let 'em drown on their own goddam oil!

F**k 'em, I say we just nuke their asses and TAKE the goddam oil. And I don't feel any too sympathetic towards the "abused" Iraqi prisoners, either. F**k 'em, they are doing worse to our people...I seem to remember four civilian contractors dragged on chains behind trucks in Fallujah, and I also seem to remember another American having his godddam head sawn off! With gas prices what they are right now, I got a few tortures of my OWN I'd like to pull on those Arab bastards. And believe me, they are far worse than anything our military has yet dreamed up, let alone done!

At this point, I am so pissed with the Arabs for our hgh gas prices that I quite frankly want to kill every last one of the Arab sons-a-bitches! EVERY LAST ONE of them! Bastards! I HATE them. Get it?

You sound like you just realized that your country sucks and desperately need someone to blame for it...

and where are you from Tumaniaa?

I'm waaay to the right, but i still dont care for bush. just something about him doesnt click. his brain perhaps, hehehe. anyways, what really worries me is Kerry's plan for Iraq thus far. To stop sending troops and "pull our guys out". at least thats what i've heard this far. now, we're fixing afganistan, but if we leave Iraq like that, we're just creating another one, unless of course Iran decides to conquer the country, which would probably be even worse. Until Kerry starts comming up with some real ideas and a real plan, not just saying what people want to hear, a quick end to the war, I'll have to vote for Bush.

Additionally...everyone is claiming the war in Iraq is hurting gas prices- pipelines in the country were attacked, etc. Now, if Iraq has been under an oil embargo since Desert Storm, and they werent selling that much in the oil for food program, then why is the shortage out of Iraq hurting us now? the problems in venezuala are driving gas prices to 2,3,4, even 5 bucks a gallon? seems unlikely to me...anyone know what's "really" going on there (I do know many of you are convinced that's bush's fault too though).

Yes. I AM concinced it's Bush's fault gas prices are so high. He could do something about it, like opening the Strategic Reserve to give us price relief, and he won't.
He could have prevented the high prices in the first place, by not going into Iraq. The high prices are the result of two things...

1. Bush pissed off the Middle East by going into Iraq, and so this is how they are getting even with us. The only way they can. By charging us dearly for the energy we are addicted to.

2. Bush's economic policies suck, and have caused the devaluation of the dollar versus other world currencies...so our dollars are worth less in the world market, thus the Arabs want more of our dollars for their oil.

Also, Bush could push for alternative energy sources to make us independent of foreign (particularly Middle Eastern) oil, and then we can send those Arab bastards right back to the Stone Ages where they belong, and let 'em drown on their own goddam oil!

F**k 'em, I say we just nuke their asses and TAKE the goddam oil. And I don't feel any too sympathetic towards the "abused" Iraqi prisoners, either. F**k 'em, they are doing worse to our people...I seem to remember four civilian contractors dragged on chains behind trucks in Fallujah, and I also seem to remember another American having his godddam head sawn off! With gas prices what they are right now, I got a few tortures of my OWN I'd like to pull on those Arab bastards. And believe me, they are far worse than anything our military has yet dreamed up, let alone done!

At this point, I am so pissed with the Arabs for our hgh gas prices that I quite frankly want to kill every last one of the Arab sons-a-bitches! EVERY LAST ONE of them! Bastards! I HATE them. Get it?

You sound like you just realized that your country sucks and desperately need someone to blame for it...

No. I did not "just realize" my country sucks. I realized it on the evening of November 6, 2000.

The high prices are the result of two things...

1. Bush pissed off the Middle East by going into Iraq, and so this is how they are getting even with us. The only way they can. By charging us dearly for the energy we are addicted to.

2. Bush's economic policies suck, and have caused the devaluation of the dollar versus other world currencies...so our dollars are worth less in the world market, thus the Arabs want more of our dollars for their oil.



I guess since you only allowed for TWO things....

2a. Thanks to the enviromentalists, a new refinery has not been built in the US for thirty years. Capacity is the same now, or even less than, it was thirty years ago. There's a lot more f'in cars on the road now as there were thirty years ago!

2b. China's economy is booming right now, and they are using all the oil that they can get their hands on. There's only so much oil available at the point of sale. High Demand = High Prices.

2c. Only about 40% of the US gas price is dictated by the price of crude.
The balance of the cost is domestic (processing, refining, shipping, PROFIT)

I don't think Bush caused any of these conditions, so how is he reponsible again?

The current game plan of the terrorists appears to be that they plan to disrupt the flow of gasoline in America by attacking oil ports in the middle east, or refineries here. The administration knows that. If they were to release from the reserve now, and there was a major hit to a refinery next week, what would happen to prices? And then all the democrats would be saying "Why did he release oil from the reserves, what a dumbass!!!".

Opec will eventually increase production, but it won't have a drastic effect on prices, because about the time they do, the newest set of clean air standards will kick in (Jun 1), and a few refineries are going to shut down rather than retrofit. Grab your ankles, 'cause it's going to get worse!

I'm waaay to the right, but i still dont care for bush. just something about him doesnt click. his brain perhaps, hehehe. anyways, what really worries me is Kerry's plan for Iraq thus far. To stop sending troops and "pull our guys out". at least thats what i've heard this far. now, we're fixing afganistan, but if we leave Iraq like that, we're just creating another one, unless of course Iran decides to conquer the country, which would probably be even worse. Until Kerry starts comming up with some real ideas and a real plan, not just saying what people want to hear, a quick end to the war, I'll have to vote for Bush.

Additionally...everyone is claiming the war in Iraq is hurting gas prices- pipelines in the country were attacked, etc. Now, if Iraq has been under an oil embargo since Desert Storm, and they werent selling that much in the oil for food program, then why is the shortage out of Iraq hurting us now? the problems in venezuala are driving gas prices to 2,3,4, even 5 bucks a gallon? seems unlikely to me...anyone know what's "really" going on there (I do know many of you are convinced that's bush's fault too though).

Yes. I AM concinced it's Bush's fault gas prices are so high. He could do something about it, like opening the Strategic Reserve to give us price relief, and he won't.
He could have prevented the high prices in the first place, by not going into Iraq. The high prices are the result of two things...

1. Bush pissed off the Middle East by going into Iraq, and so this is how they are getting even with us. The only way they can. By charging us dearly for the energy we are addicted to.

2. Bush's economic policies suck, and have caused the devaluation of the dollar versus other world currencies...so our dollars are worth less in the world market, thus the Arabs want more of our dollars for their oil.

Also, Bush could push for alternative energy sources to make us independent of foreign (particularly Middle Eastern) oil, and then we can send those Arab bastards right back to the Stone Ages where they belong, and let 'em drown on their own goddam oil!

F**k 'em, I say we just nuke their asses and TAKE the goddam oil. And I don't feel any too sympathetic towards the "abused" Iraqi prisoners, either. F**k 'em, they are doing worse to our people...I seem to remember four civilian contractors dragged on chains behind trucks in Fallujah, and I also seem to remember another American having his godddam head sawn off! With gas prices what they are right now, I got a few tortures of my OWN I'd like to pull on those Arab bastards. And believe me, they are far worse than anything our military has yet dreamed up, let alone done!

At this point, I am so pissed with the Arabs for our hgh gas prices that I quite frankly want to kill every last one of the Arab sons-a-bitches! EVERY LAST ONE of them! Bastards! I HATE them. Get it?

You sound like you just realized that your country sucks and desperately need someone to blame for it...

No. I did not "just realize" my country sucks. I realized it on the evening of November 6, 2000.

hey Labrodor 8)

How about you change the poll. Instead of asking if Bush is a good president, ask if Kerry would better. After all, every man has his major faults. And I would much rather have Bush as presiden than Kerry or some other Liberal.

Good for you son. Well said.

Thanks. But for the record, I'm a girl.

And unfortunately, C-bass, I don't have AIM. I would download it, but it completely lags out my computer whenever I do.

I couldn't send a telegram so I'll post here. Trillian (http://www.trillian.cc/downloads/) is a free IM program which allows AIM, ICQ, IRC, MSN & Yahoo connections all at once without having to install those programs.

SHL

As for fetuses, they are completely unable to feel, at least before the third trimester, and are unable of concious thought.

How sure are you of that?

SHL

you're 13 years old.

You weren't even born yet when Desert Storm hit.

Learn some history, take a few CWP classes, then vote :)

Don't judge me based on my age. I know just as much about politics as you do.

Capsule Corporation being judgmental again huh.. :twisted:

What can you expect from someone who defends Bushy?

you're assuming because someone defended bush that hes an ignorant idiot? Let me tell you something, as soon as kerry gets elected, this country will be overulled by terrorism. Kerry will give aid to iraq and afghanistan because they are poor starving countries. people like osama will go in, take that money, make anthrax, train terrorists and attack us. our army will decline, and people will take advantage of that. Taxes will rise great, with all this healthcare and education shit hes promising. I used to live in canada, where they had loads of those socialistic bullshit programs. My mom and dad paid 56% of their paychecks to the drug addict crack whore down the street with 8 children living off the government tit. They made pretty good money, but we were poor. what the hell is with that. With kerrys tax the wealthy system, my family will be screwed. my mom and dad together make rougly 100 grand. thats just over the "wealthy" line. So therefore, he will tax us, but since we are "wealthy", we wont be eligble to recieve tax cuts, even though my family only sees maybe 60 grand of that money a year.

And, he want to take my guns away. Thats a big fat no no. Me loves me ak-47, fn-fal, cetme g3, berreta, tokerov, enfield, mas, 2 sks's, and 2 .22's.

Vote bush 2004 is you want the USA to live.

i am with the topic. i think bush sucks because he reckons that he is the ruler of this world and he can do anythink he wants if even if he has to go against the UN.

Abortion isn't murder. Yes, it is killing, but it's not murder.

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

1. A fetus isn't really human.
2. Abortion is not unlawful...because it's legal...there's some complicated logic for you.

In reply;
to #1 - That is a fallacious argument. Of course it is human. Granted an unborn human. What else would it be? By calling an infant an infant does that deny it's humanity? The word fetus refers to a stage of development, not a genus or species.

to #2 - There was more on that page than you chose to show. Here is the rest;

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.

A little further down the page you'll find these;

The killing of their children had, in the account of God, the guilt of murder, as the offering them to idols had the guilt of idolatry. --Locke.

Note: Murder in the second degree, in most jurisdictions, is a malicious homicide committed without a specific intention to take life. --Wharton.

So then we have both premeditation and taking of life. Capital punishment is likewise murder. Both are state sanctioned murder but still murder.

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder)

Picking and choosing convenient parts of the facts is not a good strategy.

SHL

i am with the topic. i think bush sucks because he reckons that he is the ruler of this world and he can do anythink he wants if even if he has to go against the UN.why are you named after a hideous war criminal?

Personally, although I myself am not gay, I am for gay marriage, because I have a serious problem with denying rights to everyone. Also, with the abortion issue, I feel it should be the choice of women.


Ok, this is a touchy subject, but as we all should know, history tends to repeat itself, and without drawing on the fact that God destroyed Soddam and Gomarah for their evil ways, including homosexuality, becuase i will be accused of being moral and or religious(i mean thats such a terrible thing), so i will simply draw on the fact that the fall of both the Roman and Greek empires came about, largely due to the obsevily lavish lifestyle, including a prominince of homosexuality. I simply dont want my country to crumble as both the Greek and Roman empires of the past have.

About abortion, I belive it is the womens choice, they can choose to have sex, and dont come with the whole rape thing either, adoption is a choice. I believe if it is life threatining to the women, they should be allowed an abortion, but not if they were just having fun. Also, just a question, to everyone who claims to be "pro choice", are you for vouchers? for the ability to own a gun? if not, please dont call yourself pro choice. Its simply misleading.

One, one cannot prove that God exists, and thusly cannot prove that this so-called God even destroyed these cities. Civilasation risings and fallings are inevitable. These things go in cycles, rising, and then falling, and perhaps even eventually rising again, and thusly falling once more. There is nothing wrong with being religious; however, religion has no place in law, and thusly, for drawing your conclusions from religion, they become invalid (or should be) in any law-environment.

I think that a woman should be allowed an abortion whenever she wants, because, as I pointed out, it is her body, and unlike in doing recreational drugs, or abusing prescription drugs, she isn't necessarily harming herself, nor does she find pleasure in doing so. Most women don't like having to have an abortion in the first place.

All law and morality is derived from religion of some type. Both presuppose choice. Everybody has choice. Whether or not it is a moral or legal choice is the obfuscated argument.

I have a choice whenever an impulse or idea strikes me. What that choice will be depends on many factors but where morality fails law, or the consequence of law, serves to help direct my steps. If it doesn't I run the risk the consequence of either or both (depending on your point of view).

You are free to have chosen the position you adapt as your world view. You are, in some countries, even able to express your views. That it fine. BUT - it does not give it any absolute moral high plane. Absolutism is the province of religion. Subjectivism is not.

As for proving existence. How do I know you aren't just a program?

I guess I'll have to take it on faith.

. . . and I'm an agnostic.

SHL

2. An economic decline?! The economy was soaring with Clinton! See www.geocities.com/cmbassett03@sbcglobal.net/charts.html
Depending on the statistics you go buy, and how in-depth your stats are (Ie, Yearly or quarterly), the economy either started to decline under the last two quarters of Clinton or soon after he left office.

This is true. It is also true that the 'Dot Com' hysteria that fueled Clinton's time was a false positive. When everybody realized the "new paradigm" was a load of horse hockey the bubble burst on March 14, 2000 - less than two months after Bush took office. The ensuing economic morass was not something that Gore or anybody else could have done a thing about in the eighteen months that led up to another huge catastrophe, 9-11.

3. The downfall of the tyrannical leaders was the only benefit of the wars. The negative aspects were simply not worth it. See www.13myths.org and http://costofwar.com and www.iraqbodycount.net
Also, taking out Al-Qaeda's stronghold in Afghanistan was pretty nice. Are they still there in the South? Yes, but not nearly at the presence or level of organization that they were. I would hold, on the topic of Iraq, that the benifits will eventually outweigh the costs in terms of both lives and money.

There was indeed a great benefit to the response in Afghanistan. In addition to the destruction of the Taliban and the betterment of the Afghanis the US sent out a strong, unmistakable message to those who would fly airliners filled with innocents into towers filled with innocents. Some people can't be reasoned with but they respect power. Unfortunately, that was the case with the Taliban and arguably Saddam Hussein.

4. I still don't understand why Libya can't have WMDs but we can. Could someone please explain that to me if you have the answer??
Ever hear of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?

Plus, despite what some people will rag on and on about, the USA does not have an even miniscule chance to undergo a revolution by people who would use nuclear weapons for terroristic purposes.

The US did indeed use nukes that resulted in the end of WWII. It is interesting to note though that they have never used them since. Others have developed the capability but not all would act with the same restraint. Libya has not been known for it's restraint. Ask the residents of Lockerbee, Scotland or the families of those who were aboard Pan Am 103 about Khadafi's restraint.

5. Countries so desperate to have the U.S.'s support were convinced that war was the answer. They're withdrawing now because they FINALLY realized the war was one of the worst mistakes of the history of America (and the world).
You mean Spain? Who withdrew because their leader at the time blamed the ETA instead of keeping his mouth shut, or blaming Islamofascists, which in turn handed the victory to the Socialists? Going into the weekend of the polls, and up to and until the Madrid attacks, the People's Party was going to win.

The response of the Spanish government will not stop such attacks. It will be quite the opposite. It has shown the terrorists that this is a useful approach. Expect to see it's repeat again and again - especially in America this late summer and fall.

SHL

i am with the topic. i think bush sucks because he reckons that he is the ruler of this world and he can do anythink he wants if even if he has to go against the UN.why are you named after a hideous war criminal?
What did Kissienger do to piss you off?

Err...Greek civilization hasn't really fallen. It transferred itself to Roman civilization, which became the basis for all of Western civilization today. It's not like it fell like Persian or Assyrian civilization did.

It transferred itself? More like the Romans resurrected it - from the dead.

SHL

i am with the topic. i think bush sucks because he reckons that he is the ruler of this world and he can do anythink he wants if even if he has to go against the UN.why are you named after a hideous war criminal?
What did Kissienger do to piss you off?didnt he sponsor the My Lie massacre in nam?

i am with the topic. i think bush sucks because he reckons that he is the ruler of this world and he can do anythink he wants if even if he has to go against the UN.why are you named after a hideous war criminal?
What did Kissienger do to piss you off?didnt he sponsor the My Lie massacre in nam?

I'm going to do you the courtesy of assuming you misspelled My LAI intentionally.

i am with the topic. i think bush sucks because he reckons that he is the ruler of this world and he can do anythink he wants if even if he has to go against the UN.why are you named after a hideous war criminal?
What did Kissienger do to piss you off?didnt he sponsor the My Lie massacre in nam?

I'm going to do you the courtesy of assuming you misspelled My LAI intentionally.sup lab? 8)

No. I did not "just realize" my country sucks. I realized it on the evening of November 6, 2000.

Can't afford a bus ticket to Canada or Mexico. I hear they are looking for people just like you to have immigrate to their country.

Please stick to the facts, not liberal rhetoric.

No. I did not "just realize" my country sucks. I realized it on the evening of November 6, 2000.

Can't afford a bus ticket to Canada or Mexico. I hear they are looking for people just like you to have immigrate to their country.

Please stick to the facts, not liberal rhetoric.why doesnt Bush leave insted hes the traitor

No. I did not "just realize" my country sucks. I realized it on the evening of November 6, 2000.

Can't afford a bus ticket to Canada or Mexico. I hear they are looking for people just like you to have immigrate to their country.

Please stick to the facts, not liberal rhetoric.

Actually the Bush administration are pretty keen to have people coming the other way, especially from Mexico - lots and lots of lovely cheap labour.

Actually what he said was a fact (I assume it to be true), on November the 6th 2000, he came to form the opinion that his country "sucked". I don't see how that in any way passes for "liberal rhetoric" although I do love the way that conservatives in the U.S see themselves as: "defenders of the American way, intent on rebuking the weak liberals who wish to destroy the country they love", I find such an unwillingness to engage in objective discussion quite amusing, not to say that "liberals" themselves do not possess this trait, merely than it seems more predominant in conservatism.

Illegal immigrants need to be rounded up and sent back to their nation. I have written my representatives conveying that opinion.

Labrador posted his/her/it opinion not a fact. I presumed Labrador is from the United States of America. So, by what standard does his/her/it country suck? My post's intent was to show that Labrador is full of hot air because he/she/it does not have enough conviction to move to another country. America bashing is a favorite pasttime for a lot of liberals, hence my statement " liberal rhetoric". Conservatives have their own rhetoric - saying "my country sucks" is not one of them.

My part is an objective discussion. I am willing to back up my posts with facts not rhetoric. It is not my fault that people have not read and understood the Constitution of the United States of America.

No. I did not "just realize" my country sucks. I realized it on the evening of November 6, 2000.

Can't afford a bus ticket to Canada or Mexico. I hear they are looking for people just like you to have immigrate to their country.

Please stick to the facts, not liberal rhetoric.why doesnt Bush leave insted hes the traitor

++++++++++

Please explain to me how President Bush is a traitor. Oh and please use facts in your explanation, not opinions. Thanks. :lol:

AAAHHHHH!!!!!! You're all completely and totally wrong. Bush has protected this country and every one of you ungrateful swines. Kerry is a bizz-atch. Even the Catholic Church is beginning to realize this. You guys talk a lot of samck, but what will you say when kerry loses in a landslide? I know the polls say different, but screw them. And screw you guys, I'm goin home

Hear! Hear!

Please explain to me how President Bush is a traitor. Oh and please use facts in your explanation, not opinions. Thanks. :lol:
ask for facts from liberals and you will get silence!!!

No. I did not "just realize" my country sucks. I realized it on the evening of November 6, 2000.

Can't afford a bus ticket to Canada or Mexico. I hear they are looking for people just like you to have immigrate to their country.

Please stick to the facts, not liberal rhetoric.why doesnt Bush leave insted hes the traitor

++++++++++

Please explain to me how President Bush is a traitor. Oh and please use facts in your explanation, not opinions. Thanks. :lol:ok

AAAHHHHH!!!!!! You're all completely and totally wrong. Bush has protected this country and every one of you ungrateful swines. Kerry is a bizz-atch. Even the Catholic Church is beginning to realize this. You guys talk a lot of samck, but what will you say when kerry loses in a landslide? I know the polls say different, but screw them. And screw you guys, I'm goin homethe catholic church is pervs

Please explain to me how President Bush is a traitor. Oh and please use facts in your explanation, not opinions. Thanks. :lol:
ask for facts from liberals and you will get silence!!!opinions are emergent facts-every fact went thru this stage of development. Some of us prefer to think ahead.

Illegal immigrants need to be rounded up and sent back to their nation. I have written my representatives conveying that opinion.

Labrador posted his/her/it opinion not a fact. I presumed Labrador is from the United States of America. So, by what standard does his/her/it country suck? My post's intent was to show that Labrador is full of hot air because he/she/it does not have enough conviction to move to another country. America bashing is a favorite pasttime for a lot of liberals, hence my statement " liberal rhetoric". Conservatives have their own rhetoric - saying "my country sucks" is not one of them.

My part is an objective discussion. I am willing to back up my posts with facts not rhetoric. It is not my fault that people have not read and understood the Constitution of the United States of America.
Because someone states that their country sucks because the people somewhat elected a President that they don't like means that that person should move? What kind of democracy are you advocating turkey?

Illegal immigrants need to be rounded up and sent back to their nation. I have written my representatives conveying that opinion.

Labrador posted his/her/it opinion not a fact. I presumed Labrador is from the United States of America. So, by what standard does his/her/it country suck? My post's intent was to show that Labrador is full of hot air because he/she/it does not have enough conviction to move to another country. America bashing is a favorite pasttime for a lot of liberals, hence my statement " liberal rhetoric". Conservatives have their own rhetoric - saying "my country sucks" is not one of them.

My part is an objective discussion. I am willing to back up my posts with facts not rhetoric. It is not my fault that people have not read and understood the Constitution of the United States of America.
Because someone states that their country sucks because the people somewhat elected a President that they don't like means that that person should move? What kind of democracy are you advocating turkey?Yeah--it seems to me that if one believes that one's country sucks, the best thing to do is to fight to change said country so it doesn't suck anymore. Moving out should be the last resort.

And so that's why, even though there are some things about the ways things are done in the US that sucks major ass, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just going to fight to change those things that suck and keep the stuff that doesn't.

And since Bush sucks, well, he's got to be changed. :lol:

Illegal immigrants need to be rounded up and sent back to their nation. I have written my representatives conveying that opinion.

Labrador posted his/her/it opinion not a fact. I presumed Labrador is from the United States of America. So, by what standard does his/her/it country suck? My post's intent was to show that Labrador is full of hot air because he/she/it does not have enough conviction to move to another country. America bashing is a favorite pasttime for a lot of liberals, hence my statement " liberal rhetoric". Conservatives have their own rhetoric - saying "my country sucks" is not one of them.

My part is an objective discussion. I am willing to back up my posts with facts not rhetoric. It is not my fault that people have not read and understood the Constitution of the United States of America.
Because someone states that their country sucks because the people somewhat elected a President that they don't like means that that person should move? What kind of democracy are you advocating turkey?Yeah--it seems to me that if one believes that one's country sucks, the best thing to do is to fight to change said country so it doesn't suck anymore. Moving out should be the last resort.

And so that's why, even though there are some things about the ways things are done in the US that sucks major ass, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just going to fight to change those things that suck and keep the stuff that doesn't.

And since Bush sucks, well, he's got to be changed. :lol:
Thats the spirit!! Isn't that how the US became a nation in the first place?

Illegal immigrants need to be rounded up and sent back to their nation. I have written my representatives conveying that opinion.

Labrador posted his/her/it opinion not a fact. I presumed Labrador is from the United States of America. So, by what standard does his/her/it country suck? My post's intent was to show that Labrador is full of hot air because he/she/it does not have enough conviction to move to another country. America bashing is a favorite pasttime for a lot of liberals, hence my statement " liberal rhetoric". Conservatives have their own rhetoric - saying "my country sucks" is not one of them.

My part is an objective discussion. I am willing to back up my posts with facts not rhetoric. It is not my fault that people have not read and understood the Constitution of the United States of America.

Facts, my ass!
Try partisan spin!

Lessee...
Fact #1 Iraq has WMD's
Bzzzt, sorry, but thanks for playing.
Fact #2 We went in there to "liberate the Iraqi people" (we only heard this AFTER there were no WMD's found.)
Bzzzt, sorry, but thanks for playing. We aren't liberating those people. They seem to want a government based on Islam, and we won't let them. Yeah, we liberate them and let them self-govern...only if WE approve of how their self-governance is set up! Some "liberation."
Fact #3 The economy is getting better.
Bzzzt, sorry, but thanks for playing!
Maybe it's getting better for the wealthy, but not for the average Joe Sixpack or Jane Secretary who is looking for a freaking job...like me!
You conservocreeps keep coming out with figures like...oh, the GDP is up...interest rates are down, blah blah blah...
Yeah, well, then how come so many people are still out of work?!? Ask the average job-hunter if THEY think the economy is improving!
Every time you conservo-pukes come out with your "facts," it reminds me of a certain famous Peanuts cartoon (God rest the soul of Charles Schulz)

The comic is one where Lucy is talking to Charlie Brown..."Well, lst season, the opposition scored 900 runs, we scored 3 runs...etc etc etc"
The next frame has Charlie Brown saying, "Lucy, tell your statistics to shut up!"

And that's what I feel like telling the conservo-pukes when they come out with all their reasons for why they think the economy is getting better. I wanna look right at them and say..."TELL YOUR STATISTICS TO SHUT UP!! GO ASK SOMEONE WHO'S LOOKING FOR A GODDAM JOB IF THE ECONOMY IS GETTING BETTER, YOU SELF-SATISFIED PUKE!!"

It is not my fault that people have not read and understood the Constitution of the United States of America.
Good job. You tell someone to leave the country for speaking their mind, and then invoke the Constitution to defend yourself. You have heard of the first amendment, right? If I had a dollar for every brain you don't have, I'd have oooone dollar...
But I agree: send those illegal immigrants packing.

Bush has protected this country and every one of you ungrateful swines. Kerry is a bizz-atch. Even the Catholic Church is beginning to realize this. You guys talk a lot of samck, but what will you say when kerry loses in a landslide?
Sure, Bush has protected the country...most of the time. Unfortunately, whether it was his fault or not, he presided over one of the biggest intelligence failures in American history. It's hard to measure how much he's protected, but it's quite easy to measure the amount that has been destroyed, and its a lot.
And since when is the Catholic Church the final authority on politics? Or bizz-atchness? Or ANYTHING?

G.W.B.starts with the "G" of Goebels..
Just like Osamma, one of fathers friends! :roll: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

And that's what I feel like telling the conservo-pukes when they come out with all their reasons for why they think the economy is getting better. I wanna look right at them and say..."TELL YOUR STATISTICS TO SHUT UP!! GO ASK SOMEONE WHO'S LOOKING FOR A GODDAM JOB IF THE ECONOMY IS GETTING BETTER, YOU SELF-SATISFIED PUKE!!"

+++++++++

Sorry to read that you are unemployable. :cry:

It is not my fault that people have not read and understood the Constitution of the United States of America.
Good job. You tell someone to leave the country for speaking their mind, and then invoke the Constitution to defend yourself. You have heard of the first amendment, right? If I had a dollar for every brain you don't have, I'd have oooone dollar...
But I agree: send those illegal immigrants packing.


++++++++++++++++

Well your reply started with a spin and then back to rhetoric., then a personnal slam. :lol: Try having a dialog.

I did not write that someone should leave for speaking their mind. I wrote that if a person thinks their country sucks, then feel free to move to another country that is more to their liking. You latched onto a PART of the first admendment as if it is the whole document. I only ask that people act responsibly and kindly reply to a question using facts. If you just wish to opine and not back it up - then just say so and I can ignore your posts because you do not want to have a discussion.

Congress makes the laws not the president. Do you understand the Constitution of the United States?

My part is an objective discussion. I am willing to back up my posts with facts not rhetoric. It is not my fault that people have not read and understood the Constitution of the United States of America.

This is all very amusing, but frankly I can't be bothered to read the whole thread because it's very late and this has all been done before.

What facts are these, IT? You've offered facts, but in support of what, exactly? I'm not saying they're not there, just that I don't have the patience to sift through all these pages and pages of mindless flaming for the golden nugget of truth you claim to posess.

Sure, Bush has protected the country...most of the time. Unfortunately, whether it was his fault or not, he presided over one of the biggest intelligence failures in American history. It's hard to measure how much he's protected, but it's quite easy to measure the amount that has been destroyed, and its a lot.


++++++++++++++++

Mmmm interesting. Let me get this straight - under President Clinton the intelligence barn doors were left open and it is President Bush's fault that the cows are missing. Very interesting.

I wonder if my bank will accept that as an excuse for not making my mortgage payment. " Well you see sir, last month was the month my wife was in control of the money and she spent it all so when this month came along, it is my turn and there isn't any money to pay you guys." Ya, that might just work. Mmmmm NOT!

Sure, Bush has protected the country...most of the time. Unfortunately, whether it was his fault or not, he presided over one of the biggest intelligence failures in American history. It's hard to measure how much he's protected, but it's quite easy to measure the amount that has been destroyed, and its a lot.


++++++++++++++++

Mmmm interesting. Let me get this straight - under President Clinton the intelligence barn doors were left open and it is President Bush's fault that the cows are missing. Very interesting.

I wonder if my bank will accept that as an excuse for not making my mortgage payment. " Well you see sir, last month was the month my wife was in control of the money and she spent it all so when this month came along, it is my turn and there isn't any money to pay you guys." Ya, that might just work. Mmmmm NOT!
I didn't say Clinton is not to blame for anything. But, whether it's right or not, Bush is going to get the blame. For the mortgage payment example, YOU are held responsible for YOUR mortgage payment this month. Your wife had the responsibility last month. Although your wife didn't have the foresight to not blow all her dough, it's you who has to deal with your month. Whether you have to take another job, sell something, or whatever, you can't just slack off and blame the other person for what happened last month.
With the "America sucks" thing, there are 3 options, only one of which is right. 1) Leave America for somewhere better 2) Whine and complain incessantly or 3) Make America NOT "suck". I think we all know the correct answer.
Oh and sorry about the personal thing. Spongebob was on, and I heard that insult and had to use it really quick before I forgot it...

And that's what I feel like telling the conservo-pukes when they come out with all their reasons for why they think the economy is getting better. I wanna look right at them and say..."TELL YOUR STATISTICS TO SHUT UP!! GO ASK SOMEONE WHO'S LOOKING FOR A GODDAM JOB IF THE ECONOMY IS GETTING BETTER, YOU SELF-SATISFIED PUKE!!"

+++++++++

Sorry to read that you are unemployable. :cry:

Far from, you moron! I have a professional career spanning 15 years! And the last job I had, I'd had for three years. So, no, I'm not "unemployable." This job market and economy jst plain sucks. I recently went out for one job...and I later found that 300 resumes had been submitted for ONE job!! Yeah, I like my chances...

So don't you DARE refer to me as "unemployable" again...you are bordering on fighting words, pal!

It is not my fault that people have not read and understood the Constitution of the United States of America.
Good job. You tell someone to leave the country for speaking their mind, and then invoke the Constitution to defend yourself. You have heard of the first amendment, right? If I had a dollar for every brain you don't have, I'd have oooone dollar...
But I agree: send those illegal immigrants packing.


++++++++++++++++

Well your reply started with a spin and then back to rhetoric., then a personnal slam. :lol: Try having a dialog.

I did not write that someone should leave for speaking their mind. I wrote that if a person thinks their country sucks, then feel free to move to another country that is more to their liking.

No, how about staying and trying to CHANGE the country they live in to be more to thier liking? there was a time, not so long ago, when I was proud to be an American. I'd like to have that pride back. But as long as W is in office, I cannot be proud to be an American.

I am, as an American judged by people the world over, by the conduct of our leader. And his conduct in foreign affairs has been embarrassing at best, and downright harmful at worst. to say nothing of his domestic policies, which suck. He needs to go.

Yeah, Kerry sucks too...but I'm voting for him, because I honestly hate W that badly! I really wish Edwards had won the nomination...now THERE was a man I could have been proud to call my President.

And that's what I feel like telling the conservo-pukes when they come out with all their reasons for why they think the economy is getting better. I wanna look right at them and say..."TELL YOUR STATISTICS TO SHUT UP!! GO ASK SOMEONE WHO'S LOOKING FOR A GODDAM JOB IF THE ECONOMY IS GETTING BETTER, YOU SELF-SATISFIED PUKE!!"

+++++++++

Sorry to read that you are unemployable. :cry:

Far from, you moron! I have a professional career spanning 15 years! And the last job I had, I'd had for three years. So, no, I'm not "unemployable." This job market and economy jst plain sucks. I recently went out for one job...and I later found that 300 resumes had been submitted for ONE job!! Yeah, I like my chances...

So don't you DARE refer to me as "unemployable" again...you are bordering on fighting words, pal!

++++++++++++++

Well, my brother could not find a job in his field of expertise a few years back (Clinton presidency). Unemployment ran out, mortgage payment, food bill, electric bill etc. did not. What did he do - he got a job working at Target and Best Buy, doing 60-70 hour work weeks. He did this till a job came up that was in his line of business. So, he was unemployed but not unemployable. He did what was necessary to keep his family feed and sheltered, even if he had to learn "Would you like fries with that."

I personally do not write to the President of the United States - I write to my Congressmen. Why you ask, because they are the ones that write the laws and control the Federal budget - not the President. The President is the commander and chief of our armed forces and can approve or veto a law before him. Our Representatives can override a presidential veto. Congress has the power because they have the backing of THE PEOPLE.

And that's what I feel like telling the conservo-pukes when they come out with all their reasons for why they think the economy is getting better. I wanna look right at them and say..."TELL YOUR STATISTICS TO SHUT UP!! GO ASK SOMEONE WHO'S LOOKING FOR A GODDAM JOB IF THE ECONOMY IS GETTING BETTER, YOU SELF-SATISFIED PUKE!!"

+++++++++

Sorry to read that you are unemployable. :cry:

Far from, you moron! I have a professional career spanning 15 years! And the last job I had, I'd had for three years. So, no, I'm not "unemployable." This job market and economy jst plain sucks. I recently went out for one job...and I later found that 300 resumes had been submitted for ONE job!! Yeah, I like my chances...

So don't you DARE refer to me as "unemployable" again...you are bordering on fighting words, pal!

++++++++++++++

Well, my brother could not find a job in his field of expertise a few years back (Clinton presidency). Unemployment ran out, mortgage payment, food bill, electric bill etc. did not. What did he do - he got a job working at Target and Best Buy, doing 60-70 hour work weeks. He did this till a job came up that was in his line of business. So, he was unemployed but not unemployable. He did what was necessary to keep his family feed and sheltered, even if he had to learn "Would you like fries with that."

I personally do not write to the President of the United States - I write to my Congressmen. Why you ask, because they are the ones that write the laws and control the Federal budget - not the President. The President is the commander and chief of our armed forces and can approve or veto a law before him. Our Representatives can override a presidential veto. Congress has the power because they have the backing of THE PEOPLE.

And anyone who pretends that the President does not influence Congress is either naive or blind!
And the President appoints judicial nominees, so it's HIS people who decide HOW the laws that Congress passes will be interpreted and applied.

President appoints, Senate filibusters. :wink:

Well said.

The President can only fill vacancies and right now there are a few judges that go against what the Presidential wishes. Congress can impeach judges.

Funny thing though - a judge who upholds the Constitution gets fired and the judges that go against the Constitution are still around making laws. :cry:

Well said.

The President can only fill vacancies and right now there are a few judges that go against what the Presidential wishes. Congress can impeach judges.

Funny thing though - a judge who upholds the Constitution gets fired and the judges that go against the Constitution are still around making laws. :cry:when its a republican president they do affect the economy very negatively especially since most republican congresspeople are braindead sheep who always follow their leader even when its off a cliff

For example?

For example?

++++++

There are no examples, there are only rhetoric and opinions.

Do I like everything President Bush has done? NO. I do not like everything my Senators and Represenative have done either. I would be highly suprised if anyone liked everything a politician did. I like President Bush because of the way he has handled the War on Terror so far; his push for tax cuts; the moral ground he stands on; anti gun control stance; his staying the course when dealing with evil.

What are the Bush haters reasons:

He lied about WMDs - well then so did President Clinton, Vice President Gore, almost all of Congress, Leaders of Great Briton, France, Germany, Canada and the United Nations to name a FEW. Saddam Hussein broke the peace treaty and the President took him to task, and the US military freed 25 milion people from a evil dictator.

He caused the recession - a recession was already in full swing when President Bush took office, and then 7.5 months later a major terrorist attack. The US economy is getting better due to a somewhat normal business cycle and the two tax cuts.

Well said.

The President can only fill vacancies and right now there are a few judges that go against what the Presidential wishes. Congress can impeach judges.

Funny thing though - a judge who upholds the Constitution gets fired and the judges that go against the Constitution are still around making laws. :cry:You can't be talking about Roy Moore, can you? :roll:

Oh man. I didn't read. I saw "Bush sucks" as the title, agreed, voted "Hell Yes," and then realized I voted in his favor.

Oh well.

Oh man. I didn't read. I saw "Bush sucks" as the title, agreed, voted "Hell Yes," and then realized I voted in his favor.

Oh well.

Haha, that sucks

For example?

++++++

There are no examples, there are only rhetoric and opinions.

Do I like everything President Bush has done? NO. I do not like everything my Senators and Represenative have done either. I would be highly suprised if anyone liked everything a politician did. I like President Bush because of the way he has handled the War on Terror so far; his push for tax cuts; the moral ground he stands on; anti gun control stance; his staying the course when dealing with evil.

What are the Bush haters reasons:

He lied about WMDs - well then so did President Clinton, Vice President Gore, almost all of Congress, Leaders of Great Briton, France, Germany, Canada and the United Nations to name a FEW. Saddam Hussein broke the peace treaty and the President took him to task, and the US military freed 25 milion people from a evil dictator.

He caused the recession - a recession was already in full swing when President Bush took office, and then 7.5 months later a major terrorist attack. The US economy is getting better due to a somewhat normal business cycle and the two tax cuts.

What are my reasons, well here are just a few:

The derogatory manner in which he treats international laws and institutions, insulting his allies, screwing the environment, underfunding state programs to the point that they have fallen flat, tax cuts and special favours for the rich at the expense of the poor and his exploiting of the issue of terrorism and 9/11 to fuel his re-election campaign, the fact that he has re-jigged state electoral boundaries to move likely democratic voters out of swing states and the fact that he probably wouldn't even be president if he hadn't cheated his way into office in the first place.

Oh man. I didn't read. I saw "Bush sucks" as the title, agreed, voted "Hell Yes," and then realized I voted in his favor.

Oh well.

"Look before you leap"

Maybe proverbs should be the first thing taught in schools.

I,am a very strong suportor of George Bush,and was shocked when I saw you name of your post. I think that he will win the re-election,and is one of the best Presidents ever,along with Kennedy,Jefferson,and George H.W. Bush.

HA HA HA HA HA!!!....

NOT! :lol:

For example?

++++++

There are no examples, there are only rhetoric and opinions.

Do I like everything President Bush has done? NO. I do not like everything my Senators and Represenative have done either. I would be highly suprised if anyone liked everything a politician did. I like President Bush because of the way he has handled the War on Terror so far; his push for tax cuts; the moral ground he stands on; anti gun control stance; his staying the course when dealing with evil.

What are the Bush haters reasons:

He lied about WMDs - well then so did President Clinton, Vice President Gore, almost all of Congress, Leaders of Great Briton, France, Germany, Canada and the United Nations to name a FEW. Saddam Hussein broke the peace treaty and the President took him to task, and the US military freed 25 milion people from a evil dictator.

He caused the recession - a recession was already in full swing when President Bush took office, and then 7.5 months later a major terrorist attack. The US economy is getting better due to a somewhat normal business cycle and the two tax cuts.

What are my reasons, well here are just a few:

The derogatory manner in which he treats international laws and institutions, insulting his allies, screwing the environment, underfunding state programs to the point that they have fallen flat, tax cuts and special favours for the rich at the expense of the poor and his exploiting of the issue of terrorism and 9/11 to fuel his re-election campaign, the fact that he has re-jigged state electoral boundaries to move likely democratic voters out of swing states and the fact that he probably wouldn't even be president if he hadn't cheated his way into office in the first place.

+++++++++

Hello...hello...is this thing on. Point proven. I see opinions and rhetoric.

Please list one fact on each above.

States should be financing thier own programs. Presidents do not make up electoral boundaries - State Legislators do.

Interesting - a candidate for President made the Supreme Court of the United States vote in his favor. If he had that much power, why did it stop there? He could have been the Supreme Ruler of the United States.

As I repeat myself once again - Congress is the only body of the Federal government that can Constitutionally make LAWS; COLLECT TAXES; BUDGET MONIES.

Mmmm, all is quiet on the leftist front.

Just a small note to the people who said homosexuality caused the fall of empires and civilizations, or at least helped;

The Netherlands and Canada are both doing fine enough, as far is I know ;)

Just a small note to the people who said homosexuality caused the fall of empires and civilizations, or at least helped;

The Netherlands and Canada are both doing fine enough, as far is I know ;)
But homosexuality will destroy the United States! And it's all a plot of... the Japanese!

Think about these television shows they're peddling to our pubescent youth, especially the Dragon Ball series. The Dragon Ball series is obviously masked gay pornography, an attempt to influence our male youth and cause them to turn to homosexuality. As more of our youth become homosexual, our birthrate will decline, and we will face population reduction as Japan's population grows. Eventually, they'll invade and wipe us off of the map.

You want proof? Watch DBZ sometime! Big muscley males, always screaming their lungs out, flying through the air getting their clothes torn off. When pictured with "girlfriends" or "wives" they never do more than hug them. The only majorly heterosexually motivated character is pictured as a corrupt, lecherous old man. This is propaganda at its worst!

Wow, I try to respect others' opinions as much as possible, but you make me sick.

Hopefully you're not serious.

Mmmm, all is quiet on the leftist front.

No, we've just moved on from pointless baiting to real issues. Care to join us?

Someone's never seen DBZ in Japanese.

LOL!

Sorry, but I can't stand DBZ. It's a half an hour of two (or possibly more) guys zipping around in the air, screaming and dying their hair. Until the last couple of minutes in which the fight without anyone winning. On some episodes, one of them actually manages to win by using some super powerful move they could've done at the VERY BEGINNING.

It's very Power Rangers-esque :p


But a Japanese plot? Naw, you're thinking of Pokemon

Mmmm, all is quiet on the leftist front.

No, we've just moved on from pointless baiting to real issues. Care to join us?

:lol: Radicals still suck.

I like a President that tries to keep the government out of my pocket. If Leftist care so much for the people that do not want to take care of themselves, then they need to put THEIR money where THEIR mouth is. Setup a trust, to care for those "needy" people. I will choose to or not to give my hard earned dollars to the cause, instead of some "it feels good" Liberal. Give people a hand up, not a hand out and trap generations into poverty.

:lol: Radicals still suck.

I like a President that tries to keep the government out of my pocket. If Leftist care so much for the people that do not want to take care of themselves, then they need to put THEIR money where THEIR mouth is. Setup a trust, to care for those "needy" people. I will choose to or not to give my hard earned dollars to the cause, instead of some "it feels good" Liberal. Give people a hand up, not a hand out and trap generations into poverty.

No, you suck! You are a selfish, greedy jerk, just like all right-wingers that want to completely buy out of society, and drive past the people who are starving in your new Mercedes! Why should you give a shit?? You don't feel their hunger...their desperation!!
You dumb-ass! You greedy, selfish, insensitive jerkwad!! You'd rather see generations trapped in poverty, and NOT even get a hand up...EVER!! Let alone, God forbid, a hand-out!

If we relied on the goodness of heart of Americans to help our poor, they'd get no help at all...there is no longer any goodness, kindness, charity, or love in the average American. Only a love for money, and greed, and selfishness!

First, you use government services, whether or not you realize it, and you oughta pay for those services!

Someone fixes the potholes in your road, plows the snow off your road in the wintertime, picks up your garbage...your kids go to schools, etc, etc, etc.

Second, you fail to realize the safety net protects you as much as it does those who use it! Most crime is committed out of desperation! If you give people enough to at least survive, they are less likely to commit a crime, because they at least won't be desperate. You, obviously, have never hit rock-bottom, never felt real, raw hunger and desperation...you've never been pushed to the point where your very survival hangs in the balance!

I have, and let me tell you something, Mister...nothing about survival is pretty! When you are that desperate...no laws, morals, ethics, or principles will stop you from doing whatever it takes to survive...up to and including clubbing your stupid, greedy, selfish, fat head in for the twenty bucks in your wallet, you moron!

Third...if Bush hadn't so badly phucked up the economy, there wouldn't BE so many people NEEDING "a hand up, not a hand-out." Take my case, for example. I am desperately looking for work. Been out of work for two months now, and I do not get unemployment. My boss wouldn't fire me!! He refused to!! He enjoyed pauperizing me, and making my life a living hell!! I am CONVINCED that he went home every night, laughing at the fact that he was screwing over his employees! So I quit my job.

Why, you ask? Because I was damned if I thought it was fair for the company to force me into taking a three-dollar-an-hour pay cut...after leading me to believe I would make the same or even more money when the salary structure was changed when we got bought out!

If they'd been honest and up-front with all of us...I could have made a wise decision about my future, spent eight months looking for another job, while retaining the job I'd had...and, failing to find another, I would've had a nice, safe layoff and unemployment! But, no...instead they chose to LIE to us about what the salary structure would be under the new company (we were bought out.) Had I known, beforehand, how badly the new company was going to screw over the employees, I never would have applied for, or accepted, a position doing the same damn job with the new company.

But, based on false and misleading information, I did accept a job with the new company. And my reward for that was to suddenly be paid 3 bucks an hour less to do the same damn job...and all while gas prices were soaring sky-high...and why should my shitty boss give a phuck if I eat or not? HE didn't feel it when I went hungry!! Why the phuck should HE care?? HIS goddam pocketbook was safe!!

No, it is always and ONLY the little people who take it on the chin in this rotten, stinking, lousy, shitty capitalist system!! Never the big guys! No, they just screw over the little people...the Noble Workers!!

So now I am reduced to delivering phucking newspapers for the goddam Houston Chronicle, because that is the only work I'm apparently good enough for in this shit economy!!

Forget the fact I do data entry at 11,000 keystrokes per hour, and with a 99.94% accuracy rate, and have incredible computer skills! None of that matters. All I'm good for is to be a lowly phucking newspaper carrier!! And all because Bush PHUCKED the economy!!

Bush is a grade-A, choice, prime, blue-ribbon, state-of-the-art, high-tech, Olympic-class asshole that deserves nothing but my absolute contempt and hatred!

And you right-wing assholes have the nerve to claim the economy is getting better! HORSESHIT!! Where's MY phucking job, then?? When someone who is looking for work says the ecomony is getting better, maybe THEN I'll believe the economy is getting better.

This country sucks, capitalism sucks, and Bush sucks hairy, dead, green donkey dick!!

I wish he'd eat more phucking pretzels!! :evil: :evil:

:lol: Radicals still suck.

I like a President that tries to keep the government out of my pocket. If Leftist care so much for the people that do not want to take care of themselves, then they need to put THEIR money where THEIR mouth is. Setup a trust, to care for those "needy" people. I will choose to or not to give my hard earned dollars to the cause, instead of some "it feels good" Liberal. Give people a hand up, not a hand out and trap generations into poverty.

No, you suck! You are a selfish, greedy jerk, just like all right-wingers that want to completely buy out of society, and drive past the people who are starving in your new Mercedes! Why should you give a shit?? You don't feel their hunger...their desperation!!
You dumb-ass!
First, you use government services, whether or not you realize it, and you oughta pay for those services!
Someone fixes the potholes in your road, plows the snow off your road in the wintertime, picks up your garbage...your kids go to schools, etc etc etc

Second, you fail to realize the safety net protects you as much as it does those who use it! Most crime is committed out of desperation! If you give people enough to at least survive, they are less likely to commit a crime, because they at least won't be desperate. You, obviously, have never hit rock-bottom, never felt real, raw hunger and desperation...you've never been oushed to the point where your very survival hangs in the balance! I have, and let me tell you something, mister...nothing about survival is pretty! When you are that desperate...no laws, morals, ethics, or principles will stop you from doing whatever it takes to survive...up to and including clubbing your stupid fat head in for the twenty bucks in your wallet, you moron!

Third...if Bush hadn't so badly phucked up the economy, there wouldn't BE so many people NEEDING "a hand up, not a hand-out." Take my case, for example. I am desperately looking for work. Been out of work for two months now, and I do not get unemployment. My boss wouldn't fire me!! He refused to!! He enjoyed pauperizing me, and making my life a living hell!! So I quit my job. Why, you ask? Because I was damned if I thought it was fair for the company to force me into taking a three-dollar-an-hour pay cut...after leading me to believe I would make the same or even more money when the salary structure was changed!

If they'd been honest and up-front with all of us...I could have made a wise decision babout my fiuture, spent eight months looking for another job, while retaining the job I'd had...and, fialing to find another, I would've had a nice, safe layoff and unemployment! But, no...instead they chose to LIE to us about what the salary structure would be under the new company (we were bought out.) Had I known, beforehnd, how badly the new company was going to screw over the employees, I never would have applied for, or accepted, a position doing the same damn job with the new company.
But, based on false and misleading information, I did accept a job with the new company. And my reward for that was to suddenly be paid 3 bucks an hour less to do the same damn job...and all while gas prices were soaring sky-high...and why should my shitty boss give a phuck if I eat or not? HE didn't feel it when I went hungry!! Why the phuck should HE care?? HIS goddam poscketbook was safe!!
No, it is always and ONLY the little people who take it on the chin in this rotten, stinking, lousy, shitty capitalist system!! Never the big guys! No, they just screw over the little people...the Noble Workers!!
So now I am reduced to delivering phucking newspapers for the goddam Houston Chronicle, because that is the only work I'm apparently good enough for in this shit economy!!
Forget the fact I do data entry at 11,000 keystrokes per hour, and with a 99.94% accuracy rate, and have incredible computer skills! none of that matters. All I'm good for is to be a lowly phucking newspaper carrier!! And all because Bush PHUCKED the economy!!
He's a grade-A, choice, prime, blue-ribbon, state-of-the-art, high-tech, Olympic-class asshole that deserves nothing but my absolute contempt and hatred!
And you right-wing assholes have the nerve to claim the economy is getting better! HORSESHIT!! Where's MY phucking job, then?? When someone who is looking for work says the ecomony is getting better, maybe THEN I'll believe the economy is getting better.
This country sucks, capitalism sucks, and Bush sucks hairy, dead, green donkey dick!!
I wish he'd eat more phucking pretzels!! :evil: :evil:

Wait a sec...Bush sucks because you made a personal choice regarding your employment with a company....neither life nor business is supposed to be fair or generous, the company that bought you out is under no obligation to tell you anything regarding pay scales...you got the short end of the stick...so what.. cry me a river, you think you're the only one that has come unto hard times? I went thru that phase twice...both times I picked myself up by my bootstraps and moved on..

Did it ever occur to you that if you couldnt find employment in your chosen field of endeavor in the Houston area to simply move to where the jobs where?...sometimes you have to do that...I did..lock stock and barrel, WITH a family to boot..times were rough..and we had no luxuries..but that is life..we worked hard...things got better..that is how it works..if all you can do is deliver papers right now..perhaps you need to think of a second job..not like I never did that either...

So it's not so much Bush but your own personal story that is the focus here....again..cry me a friggin river..so you got screwed..get over it.

All is quiet on the leftist front? Perhaps the Left does not feel the need to engage in such infantile arguments. No matter. I have arrived. ;)

I will remind you that, if keeping government out of your life is the theme, Bush has created the LARGEST federal organization in history, and has for all intents and purposes ignored the U.S. Constitution in several particular cases in order to violate the privacy of you and every other American citizen in the name of "security".

When did conservatives manage to hijack patriotism? It used to be that patriotism was love of the country. Now, rightists have redefined it to mean, "you must blindly follow the leader (when he's a Republican) in every move he makes. Dissent makes you un-American!"

I am tired of laying out rational posts. If you guys want to see rational posts, run a search for "Shalrirorchia" under the General threads. NOW I will lay into the Right with venom unlike any you have seen out of me before.

You, conservatives, horrify me. Not only have you prostituted yourselves out to the religious right that wants to create a Christian version of the Taliban over here, you've also sold your souls to Corporate America which is busy selling off the American dream to turn a quick profit. Needless to say, not all conservatives have bought into it. But I don't hear many voices raised in opposition to President Bush from your corner. You are guilty by association, by your silence. So long as I have fingers to type and a free mind to think introspectively, I will fight you with every word at my command. I will fight because I am trying to do what's morally and ethically correct. I am fighting to give the greatest amount of freedoms to the most people I possibly can. I am fighting to INSIST that the wealthy and powerful have obligations to society just like every other man and woman...and I am fighting to PUNISH them when they renege on those obligations by voting them out of office or throwing them in jail.

You conservatives follow the leader without fail. If he were to leap off a cliff, I have no doubt that at least some of you would follow him over the edge willingly and without thought. That's why Republican primaries are tame, preordained affairs and Democratic primaries are wracked with insurgency and chaos, aka Howard Dean. We ALLOW difference of opinion. That is why the liberal movement will always have deeper, broader roots than conservatism...by our nature we include those who you will not. Give us your tired, your weak, your hungry and oppressed masses! WE will do what needs to be done to help them, and a curse upon any conservative's head who tries to stop us. This is not to say that we will invoke the government for every trivial event. But government was instituted by the people to mutual advantage. It is government's responsibility to do that which the individual cannot do, to stay out when it is not needed, and to exercise the wisdom to see between those two situations. You conservative Social Darwinists horrify me. But you will not stop me. This is a storm you've unleashed, but I am the rock upon which the storm shall break. I will never, EVER stop fighting for what I believe to be right, no matter how heavily you and your friends stack the deck against me. THAT is patriotism, sirs. The willingness to fight for the country's ideals when all other lights are snuffed out.

:lol: Radicals still suck.

I like a President that tries to keep the government out of my pocket. If Leftist care so much for the people that do not want to take care of themselves, then they need to put THEIR money where THEIR mouth is. Setup a trust, to care for those "needy" people. I will choose to or not to give my hard earned dollars to the cause, instead of some "it feels good" Liberal. Give people a hand up, not a hand out and trap generations into poverty.

No, you suck! You are a selfish, greedy jerk, just like all right-wingers that want to completely buy out of society, and drive past the people who are starving in your new Mercedes! Why should you give a shit?? You don't feel their hunger...their desperation!!
You dumb-ass!
First, you use government services, whether or not you realize it, and you oughta pay for those services!
Someone fixes the potholes in your road, plows the snow off your road in the wintertime, picks up your garbage...your kids go to schools, etc etc etc

Second, you fail to realize the safety net protects you as much as it does those who use it! Most crime is committed out of desperation! If you give people enough to at least survive, they are less likely to commit a crime, because they at least won't be desperate. You, obviously, have never hit rock-bottom, never felt real, raw hunger and desperation...you've never been oushed to the point where your very survival hangs in the balance! I have, and let me tell you something, mister...nothing about survival is pretty! When you are that desperate...no laws, morals, ethics, or principles will stop you from doing whatever it takes to survive...up to and including clubbing your stupid fat head in for the twenty bucks in your wallet, you moron!

Third...if Bush hadn't so badly phucked up the economy, there wouldn't BE so many people NEEDING "a hand up, not a hand-out." Take my case, for example. I am desperately looking for work. Been out of work for two months now, and I do not get unemployment. My boss wouldn't fire me!! He refused to!! He enjoyed pauperizing me, and making my life a living hell!! So I quit my job. Why, you ask? Because I was damned if I thought it was fair for the company to force me into taking a three-dollar-an-hour pay cut...after leading me to believe I would make the same or even more money when the salary structure was changed!

If they'd been honest and up-front with all of us...I could have made a wise decision babout my fiuture, spent eight months looking for another job, while retaining the job I'd had...and, fialing to find another, I would've had a nice, safe layoff and unemployment! But, no...instead they chose to LIE to us about what the salary structure would be under the new company (we were bought out.) Had I known, beforehnd, how badly the new company was going to screw over the employees, I never would have applied for, or accepted, a position doing the same damn job with the new company.
But, based on false and misleading information, I did accept a job with the new company. And my reward for that was to suddenly be paid 3 bucks an hour less to do the same damn job...and all while gas prices were soaring sky-high...and why should my shitty boss give a phuck if I eat or not? HE didn't feel it when I went hungry!! Why the phuck should HE care?? HIS goddam poscketbook was safe!!
No, it is always and ONLY the little people who take it on the chin in this rotten, stinking, lousy, shitty capitalist system!! Never the big guys! No, they just screw over the little people...the Noble Workers!!
So now I am reduced to delivering phucking newspapers for the goddam Houston Chronicle, because that is the only work I'm apparently good enough for in this shit economy!!
Forget the fact I do data entry at 11,000 keystrokes per hour, and with a 99.94% accuracy rate, and have incredible computer skills! none of that matters. All I'm good for is to be a lowly phucking newspaper carrier!! And all because Bush PHUCKED the economy!!
He's a grade-A, choice, prime, blue-ribbon, state-of-the-art, high-tech, Olympic-class asshole that deserves nothing but my absolute contempt and hatred!
And you right-wing assholes have the nerve to claim the economy is getting better! HORSESHIT!! Where's MY phucking job, then?? When someone who is looking for work says the ecomony is getting better, maybe THEN I'll believe the economy is getting better.
This country sucks, capitalism sucks, and Bush sucks hairy, dead, green donkey dick!!
I wish he'd eat more phucking pretzels!! :evil: :evil:

Wait a sec...Bush sucks because you made a personal choice regarding your employment with a company....neither life nor business is supposed to be fair or generous, the company that bought you out is under no obligation to tell you anything regarding pay scales...you got the short end of the stick...so what.. cry me a river, you think you're the only one that has come unto hard times? I went thru that phase twice...both times I picked myself up by my bootstraps and moved on..

Did it ever occur to you that if you couldnt find employment in your chosen field of endeavor in the Houston area to simply move to where the jobs where?...sometimes you have to do that...I did..lock stock and barrel, WITH a family to boot..times were rough..and we had no luxuries..but that is life..we worked hard...things got better..that is how it works..if all you can do is deliver papers right now..perhaps you need to think of a second job..not like I never did that either...

So it's not so much Bush but your own personal story that is the focus here....again..cry me a friggin river..so you got screwed..get over it.

I'd give you a two-word response, but it might get me DEATed. You can guess the two words I'd have used. Instead, I will say here, that obviously you did not read the whole story, or understand it. So I'll give it to you chronologically, as it occurred...and you tell me if you think a business ought to be allowed to get away with practices like this! And if Bush hadn't phucked up the economy, this lousy, shitty organization I used to work for wouldn't have been ABLE to get away with it. You conservo-creeps are running a race to the bottom, to pay as little as possible to people, and you give a shit if THEY starve!!

Chronologically, this is what occurred in my situation...

November 2002 - We were informed that we had lost our efforts at a re-bid on our contract, that another company had been awarded the contract, and that we had about a year left to work. At this time, I was making ten bucks an hour.

April 1, 2003 - My then-current company out on a wage freeze. This means everyone who had their anniversary date before then GOT their annual raise. Because MY anniversary date was in August, I got phucked out of my raise.

April 7, 2003 - The new company held a meeting, and invited all employees of my then-current company to attend. It was at this meeting we were recruited to come over to the new company when the switch happened in December. We were informed that, for our job, they paid on a piece-rate, a system they called "Incentive Compensation." We were told, at that meeting, that if you were a real superstar, you could earn up to sixteen dollars an hour with Incentive Compensation...and that the AVERAGE pay would be between eleven and thirteen bucks an hour. We were also told that we would all be started at a "training wage" of $9.50 an hour for the first two months, until they could implement the "Incentive Compensation" plan.

May, 2003 - I tested for and interviewed for, a position with the new company, and it seemed a lock that I had a job, but no official decisions were being made at this time.

September, 2003 - The formal decisions were made and announced, and I was one of those who had been hired for the new company, and I would start there after Christmas.

Therefore, there was no need for me to even bother looking for another job. Why would I, when I had one waiting for me...one which I was led to believe would pay me the same or even more, than what I was currently making?

December, 2003 - Began with the new company.

Late February, 2004 - The Incentive Compensation plan was rolled out, and the rates sucked. I will note here that, just prior to November 2002, I had taken a month off under FMLA...and when I came back, my boss was thrilled, he said how much he'd missed my excellent production (I say this so you will understand that I was by far better than average, and thus, had every reason to assume I would be making over thirteen dollars an hour with the new company.)

March, 2004 - the first review came back, and it was found that the average wage under Incentive Compensation was just under eight bucks an hour. At that time, my average was $8.77 an hour. so you can see I was ahead of the average, so my failure to make a decent wage was NOT due to any inability to do the job on my part.

Mid March, 2004 - Incentive Compensation suspended, all of us returned to the "training wage" of $9.50 an hour, they told us that they were going to review the rates and adjut them to make them fair.

April 2004 - The new rates were rolled out. They had LOWERED the rates across the board, for every type of document we produced!! they claimed that, due to "new efficiencies in the system," we would be able, with the reduced rates, to make more than we had under the old rates. some of the rates, including the rate for the type of work I did most frequently, were cut in HALF!!

April 2004 - I began to monitor my own rates. I discovered over the month of April that the average wage was now closer to seven dollars an hour (what happened to the eleven to thirteen we'd been led to believe would be the average?) And my own personal average was $7.97 a hour. So I was STILL ahead of the average for the company as a whole, so, again, my failure to earn a decent, liveable wage was NOT due to any inability on my part to do the job.

After several discussions with Human Resources, my immediate supervisor, her boss, HIS boss, and the company ombudsman, I still got no satisfaction on them delivering what they had led us to believe we would be earning. The rates would not be raised. In fact, we were told if more efficiencies were built into the system, the rates may even be lowered FURTHER. So, it became obvious that our reward for working harder and faster was not going to be more money...just more work! We were obviously in the calssic George Jetson situation (help, Jane...stop this crazy thing!!) We were going to have to run harder and faster just to stay in the same place, and we would never be allowed to get ahead...leading to

April 29, 2004 - I tendered my resignation letter, giving two weeks notice that the company didn't deserve, after the unfair way in which they treated us. My letter was accepted, the company waived the two weeks, and paid me for it. I had quit. My last day of employment there was April 28.

NOW...
Had they been HONEST with us all, way back in April, 2003...and told us what we'd REALLY be earning...I never would have applied for or accepted a position with the new company. I thus would have had eight months, while still working, to look for another job, and, if I failed to find one in eight months, I would have had a nice, safe layoff, and unemployment compensation. I could have thus drawn unemployment for a minimum of six months, more if I worked part-time, or temp jobs, and collected partial benefits, which I would have done.

HOWEVER...
By LYING to us about what we could expect our compensation to be...they took away my ability to make a reasoned, informed decision about my own career future. They took away my chance at getting unemployment, because you don't get it when you quit...but you do get it if you were laid off. And, since I never would have applied for, or accepted a position with the new company (nor would I have been under any obligation to) I would have collected unemployment.

INSTEAD...
I was used, abused, lied to, cheated, and taken advantage of...they got what they wanted out of me, and never gave me anything in return! I would have even been happy if I was at least making the same ten bucks an hour I had with the old company, considering I was doing virtually the same work. (Never mind that they promised, and led us to believe, eleven to thirteen bucks an hour...I'd have been happy still making TEN!!)

NOW, Mr. conservo-creep Bush butt-kisser...can you look at me with a straight face and tell me a company ought to be allowed to get away with practices like that? That it should be legal?? That employees ought to be screwed over in that way? That companies ought to be allowed to mislead job candidates about what they can expect in terms of compensation when recruiting them...and then, after getting them in...pay them far less than they led the candidate to believe he/she would be earning?

Is that fair, right, or just? I sure as hell do not think so!! Should it be legal? I do not think so, but apparently it is. And that is because the fraking Repuke conservo-creep assholes who LOVE business and HATE employees...are in power. AND, it is because the economy is now so phucked there are people willing to work for that absurdly low rate of pay. Which would NOT be the case, if employment opportunities existed as they did in the Clinton years.

So now what do you have to say, you insensitive creep?

Labrador - I wasn't going to respond to your post since I figure I had written my piece and that you were just blowing off some steam. Your response to Aluran though, has prompted me to respond to both of your posts now.

I am more than willing to pay my share for the upkeep on our Federal and State governments along with the infrastructure of this great nation. I also expect our governments to act responsibly and not go beyond thier scope of governing by funding social programs.

Everyone should be responsible for themselves and those that they initiated a responsiblity for ie. children. If you quit your job before finding another, that is your misstep. If you and possibly other coworkers feel that the company you were working for misrepresented themselves when hiring you and other coworkers, then you have LEGAL grounds to sue said company. Always have get/have documentation and/or witnesses.

President Bush does not run the company that "screwed" you. He is not responsible for a the recession that started in 2000, nor 9/11/2001. He was instrumental in shortening said recession by pushing through the Congress a tax rate cut. Eight million jobs just do not show up overnight - it takes time. 1.5 million new jobs since January.

I hope you have learned a lesson from your misfortune, and when you do get a better paying job you will do what I have been doing most of my employed life - but away money for a rainy day and keep my debt low. Almost 10 years ago I took a 50% paycut when I was layed-off. I have yet to get back to my prior pay level. I adapted. Everything is relative - you really can not be that bad off if you can afford an internet connection, electricity for your computer and time to post on this forum.

I didn't even use any swear words - pseudo or otherwise.

Labrador - I wasn't going to respond to your post since I figure I had written my piece and that you were just blowing off some steam. Your response to Aluran though, has prompted me to respond to both of your posts now.

I am more than willing to pay my share for the upkeep on our Federal and State governments along with the infrastructure of this great nation. I also expect our governments to act responsibly and not go beyond thier scope of governing by funding social programs.

Everyone should be responsible for themselves and those that they initiated a responsiblity for ie. children. If you quit your job before finding another, that is your misstep. If you and possibly other coworkers feel that the company you were working for misrepresented themselves when hiring you and other coworkers, then you have LEGAL grounds to sue said company. Always have get/have documentation and/or witnesses.

President Bush does not run the company that "screwed" you. He is not responsible for a the recession that started in 2000, nor 9/11/2001. He was instrumental in shortening said recession by pushing through the Congress a tax rate cut. Eight million jobs just do not show up overnight - it takes time. 1.5 million new jobs since January.

I hope you have learned a lesson from your misfortune, and when you do get a better paying job you will do what I have been doing most of my employed life - but away money for a rainy day and keep my debt low. Almost 10 years ago I took a 50% paycut when I was layed-off. I have yet to get back to my prior pay level. I adapted. Everything is relative - you really can not be that bad off if you can afford an internet connection, electricity for your computer and time to post on this forum.

I didn't even use any swear words - pseudo or otherwise.

Oh, the company was VERY careful NOT to put anything in writing...and what potential employee asks a prospective employer to "put it in writing?" You generally take them at their word. At least, at my level (peon) you do! Now, if you're an executive, you probably get a contract, and money ain't an issue, anyway, since all executives are overpaid schmucks who don't REALLY work, anyway.
and the only reason I CAN afford an Internet connection, and electricity for my computer is because I DID save up for a rainy day...it's what I have been living off of these past couple of months. I do not, and have not, gone out and partied every weekend...or any weekend. I am a single woman, probably will be for life, too...and I am very much a homegirl, because I cannot AFFORD to go out and have a good time very damned often, hence the ability to have the time to post on these forums. Additionally, being unemployed gives me more time here to post, because, in my profession, when looking for work, one does not run all over town, willy-nilly, looking for help wanted signs. That is so, like, 1980's...but I'm old enough to remember when that WAS how you went about finding a job. Nowadays, you sit at home, on the Internet, and email or fax your resume out everywhere you can, and sit at home waiting for phone calls, and you follow-up on resumes that you have faxed or emailed, when contact information is provided (often it is not, you don't even know half the time what company you are actually applying for a job at!) The only time you DO go out is for actual interviews. Or temp jobs. Hence, more time to post on these boards.

So, no, my having time to post on these boards is not an indication that I am okay off, financially...nor is my having an Internet connection (especially seeing as I use dial-up since I refuse to pay 50 bucks a month for broadband.) The fact that I DO have electricity and a connection are testment to the fact that I DID save up for a rainy day...and they would be the last things I would get rid of, since they are my main job-search tools!

As to government funding social programs, sorry, but I am for it. what would you suggest as an alternative? Charity doesn't work anymore - "generous American" is an oxymoron. Ask any major charitable organization, and they will tell you that, over the last decade, contributions have steadily DECREASED...and right now, with a rotten economy, there are that many more people in need...and less people willing (or able) to contribute. Religious organizations? NO WAY!! I am WAY against that, unless laws were also passed to prevent religious charitable organizations from discriminating against those they consider "undesireables" like gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people...or people of a different faith...and laws were ALSO passed to prevent religious organizations engaging in administering social programs from proseltyzing to recipients. AND to prevent them from discriminating in their hiring practices.

Face it, at least the government is NOT biased in it's administration of social welfare programs...unlike most religious and other national charitable organizations. Once, I was refused help, simply because I was transgender. As if I don't have a right to live!! Another gave me very small amounts, almost as if mocking me...(let them eat cake) and heaped a shitpile of hell, fire, and brimstone on me, before they gave it to me...they told me I was wicked, evil, and hellbound just because I am transgender. The government, at least, does not engage in that sort of discpicable behavior.

Bush screwed America, because his tax cuts only help the wealthy, who do not need it. And they use the money to create jobs...In phucking INDIA...because they are cheap-asses who refuse to pay decent wages! BULLSHIT!! If I were in power, tax cuts and tax breaks would be directly tied to how many quality jobs a business actually created...not what they promised to create. We should not trust to the goodness of heart of American businessmen, because American businessmen do not have hearts, or, if they do, their hearts are black as tar! FIRST you create decent jobs...FOR AMERICANS...IN AMERICA...THEN you get your tax break! Not before! We should no longer trust businesses that make empty promises to create jobs, and help the economy with their tax cut...and instead, just pocket the money and give this country's workers a big middle finger!

Bush created an environment of lazzez-faire capitalism that inevitably screws workers over for the benefit of the wealthy. We are seeing a return to The Gilded Age. Everything workers have fought for, for a century, is being systematically dismantled, up to and including overtime pay!

And me and my co-workers have no legal grounds to sue the company, because we have no real proof. As I said, they put nothing in writing. All I have is the signatures of nine co-workers who all attended the same meeting I did, in April, 2003...and remember being told the same thing I remember being told. All that does not add up to a hill of beans in a court of law!

As to me "learning a lesson" WTF are you talking about?!!? You sound, and imply, by that very statement, as if it is somehow MY fault that I was lied to, and believed the lie. You shift the onus from where it ought to be...on the company that LIED...and onto me, and I find this highly offensive! As they say, fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me. And it ain't phuckin' gonna be shame on me!! That's why I quit. Or if you're Dubya, you say, "Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice...fool me twice...can't be fooled again!" The man hasn't the courage or honor to even be able to SAY "shame on me!!"

And where's the supposed 1.5 million jobs created since January? Is that a gross or net number? sure, maybe 1.5 million jobs HAVE been created since January...it's possible. BUT, if TWO MILION jobs were LOST in the same time period, then what you have is a net job loss...not a gain! You have a net job loss of 1/2 million. So quit trying to spin the numbrs to make your asswipe Bush look good. Give us the straight dope, okay?

WHAT IS THE NET JOB GROWTH/LOSS SINCE JANUARY, 2004??

And I am sick and phucking tired of businesses using the 9/11 excuse for cutting jobs, and not hiring new peole. It's bullshit! 9/11 was three goddam years ago now! So quit blaming further job loss on something that happened three years ago...and face up to the fact that the Bush tax cuts have utterly FAILED to deliver what they were promised to deliver...good, quality jobs...IN AMERICA, AND FOR AMERICANS!!

And, I would not have quit my job, except for the fact that they kept lowering and lowering, and lowering the wage, constantly...and made it clear they intended to KEEP lowering the wage...at a time when gasoline prices were going thru the roof! It was getting to a point where working no longer was profitable. It was actually beginning to COST me more than it benefitted me. I didn't figure on it being this rotten out there on the job market.

It probably will REMAIN rotten on the job market, too...until we get a DEMOCRAT back in the White House, and in control of BOTH Houses of Congress! Republicans only care about rich people, and foreigners, and foreign affairs. They give a shit about domestic issues...unless, of course, it is an issue like gay marriage!! Oh, they are all over an issue like that...and ready to desecrate the foundation of our liberties in this country...the Constitution...by writing legal discrimination into the very document that forms the fabric of the freedoms we Americans have come to enjoy. WTF is up with that??

I mean, who does it REALLY hurt, if two gay men get married to one another, and are afforded the same legal rights and status as any heterosexual couple? How does it cheapen anyone's heterosexual marriage? It doesn't. The only people who can cheapen a marriage are the people who are in said marriage.
And no one EVER said that ANY church was REQUIRED to perform gay marriage ceremonies, or that they were REQUIRED to bless or sactify, or even acknowledge the legal relationship that two married gay men would have!

Churches can and do refuse to marry people (heterosexuals) all the time! The Catholics refuse to perform mixed-faith unions, unless it is guaranteed the children of that union will be raised Catholic...and even then, you need a special dispensation from your local archbishop! and they do this routinely, and never once have they been successfully legally challenged on this point. And so it would be, too, with gay marriages. In fact, chances are good that any church that would refuse to marry a gay couple is probably hostile to gays, anyway...and thus would not even be ASKED to perform a ceremony...I can assure you the contempt some faiths feel towards GLBT people is returned in spades by those of us who are GLBT. I hold nothing but contempt for the Southern Baptist Church for example. I do not recognize them as a bona-fide religious organization. In fact, I class them as a hate-group!

Anyways, that is enough rant outta me for now, and I have gotten way off the original topic.

BUT, you have very cleverly attempted to shift the blame, and the onus...for what was done to me...onto me...and absolved the company of any and all guilt in your thoughts and words. You very clearly show that you are the typical Republican...an insensitive, uncaring, unfeeling, selfish jerk, who cares not for others at all, but only his own self!

Labrador, you have a chip on your shoulder the size of a 500 year old redwood.

I was not blaming you for your misfortunes with a lowlife company that screws it's employees. I was just commenting that the next time, you should be more cautious till a company proves itself to you.

New jobs are jobs that go past any job loss ie. 10 workers - 2 lose thier jobs but 4 gain employment = 2 new jobs. That would be 1.5 million net gain of jobs since January.

We have a differant opinion on who is the blame. "Rich people" generate jobs not "poor people". "Very rich people" pay most of the income taxes taken in by the Federal government. I am not rich.

Are you receiving unemployment? Good luck in your job hunt.

Labrador, you have a chip on your shoulder the size of a 500 year old redwood.
Guilty as charged. You would, too, if you'd gone thru half the shit in your life as I have in mine. Case in point...just today, I was placed on a temp job, whch I was told would be for about three weeks. Two hours into the assignment, I was released from it, and they were very vague with the employment agency as to the reason...and I know full well what the reason was, but of course, the client company is not going to cop to this...I was released because of my transgender status. They aren't going to cop to it, of course, because just this last Thursday, our city Council amended the City Charter, the Human Rights Code, to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, and public accomodations based on gender identity. since 1975, it has been illegal to discriminate in Austin Texas, based on sexual orientation...it has only been illegal since last Thursday in Austin, Texas, to discriminate based on gender identity.

As you may well imagine, I have thus faced more than my share of unfair treatment, hence the "chip on my shoulder the size of a 500-year-old redwood." To that charge, I plead guilty. And, as I say...you would, too, if you faced the kind of challenges in your life that I have in mine.

It's like, people discriminate against me...and they obviously think that I do not bleed red when you cut me...that I do not need to work, or eat, or live...instead of killing me with a gun or knife and getting it over with quick, they are killing me by economic deprivation...hence my extreme dislike for Capitalism...and my assertion that money should NOT be a requirement for BASIC SURVIVAL. And then...after three years with a company that treated me well, we get what occurred to me at the new company...AND I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BITTER, HURT, AND ANGRY OVER THE WAY I WAS SO SORELY DONE OVER? It's like...every time I get something I want in this life, some bastard comes along and takes it away! EVERY PHUCKING TIME!!! And if the economy WEREN'T so rotten, the company I used to work for would not have been able to get away with, or even attempt, the kind of shenanigans they did, that led me to this point in my life I find myself at right now. And for this, I blame Bush and his economic policies, and his cruelty and heartlessness.


I was not blaming you for your misfortunes with a lowlife company that screws it's employees. I was just commenting that the next time, you should be more cautious till a company proves itself to you.

Cautious in what way? what would you have done any different than I did, given the same set of circumstances? As I say, potential employees at my peon level do NOT go around telling prospective employers to "put it in writing," you generally take them at their word. And in this case, we were lied to.
But I had every reason to believe I would be making the same or more with the new company...so why would I bother to put myself on the job market? BUT, if they'd been honest about the compensation way back in April, 2003...I woud have had eight months to engage in a job-hunt, while still working with the old company (and I even worked second shift, so interviewing would have been incredibly easy for me to do.) And, if I'd failed to find a job in that eight months, I could have then gotten a nice, safe layoff from the old company, and been eligible for unemployment compensation, since I would have been under no obligation, whatsoever to apply for, or accpet, a position with the new company. So their actions basically took away my right and ability to make a reasoned, informed decision about my own career path, and denied me the ability to even get unemployment (because you do not get unemployment when you quit a job.) I have to look into the laws of the state of Texas, concerning how much you have to earn before they can no longer contest your receiving benefits. I know that, in Pennsylvania, that once you earn six times your weekly benefit rate, they can no longer stop you from collecting unemployment...and it may well be that I can earn that amount in a short period, between my newspaper route and various temporary assignments. I'll also need to know what type of penalties, if any, would be placed on me for quitting the newspaper route, if a move back home to Mommy in Pennsylvania became economically necessary. So you see the sort of shit I am dealing with? And you WONDER why I got such a chip on my shoulder? Believe me, you would, too!


New jobs are jobs that go past any job loss ie. 10 workers - 2 lose thier jobs but 4 gain employment = 2 new jobs. That would be 1.5 million net gain of jobs since January.

We have a differant opinion on who is the blame. "Rich people" generate jobs not "poor people". "Very rich people" pay most of the income taxes taken in by the Federal government. I am not rich.

Are you receiving unemployment? Good luck in your job hunt.

That is why I asked what your number was...gross job creation, or NET job creation. I also might ask you to document your claim, because I do not believe, not even for a minute, that there has been, since January, a net job growth of 1.5 million. So I'd like to see you back that figure up from a reliable source. I don't accept it as fact unless you can source and document your assertions about job growth from a reliable source. When a JOB HUNTER says the economy is improving, maybe THEN I'll believe it. But that is not what I am hearing or seeing. There is no belief among job hunters that the economy is, in any way, improving...in fact, most of us feel it is getting EVEN WORSE!

Rich people may well generate jobs...but they are putting profits before people, and are creating either jobs in foreign countries, at sub-standard wages...or they are creating crap jobs here that pay far less than we are accustomed to, and in fact, pay amounts that one is not able to sustain any decent standard of living, or even survival, for that matter!

And, no, I am not currently receiving unemployment compensation. Because I quit. If I hadn't been misled, however...I would have been earning unemployment! Because I'd have gotten laid off instead! Thanks for the well-wishes on my job hunt, but I personally think the best aid in my job hunt might be to place "President" Bush and his economic policies where he has placed over 3 million Americans...on the unemployment line!

No, I'm not excited about John Kerry...but at this point, I am voting what I refer to as ABB - Anyone But Bush! My vote in November will not be a vote FOR John Kerry...rather it will be a vote AGAINST Dubya. Of course, being as I live in Texas, my vote won't count, anyway...Bush will carry Texas, and since we are not one of those states that can split their electorals...Bush will get them all, and my vote won't count for dick.
Unless, of course, I wind up in Pennsylvania...which is projected to be, along with Ohio...a battleground state this year...and in which case my vote for Kerry (which is really a vote AGAINST Bush) may actually be a very key vote.

Being as I am casting a vote AGAINST Bush, I have but one choice. To vote for the only guy who has a chance of actually defeating him...and that is John Kerry. I hope the Greens and Naderites, etc. realize that their votes for anyone other than John Kerry this time out are basically a vote for Bush.

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends.
Some people started posting to it not knowing what it was and now they'll keep on posting just because...
Honestly let us put this thread to rest in the Archive.

If you don't like the thread, Anandan, then don't read it...very simple. Leave those who want to post to it alone.
Quit trying to take away other people's right to free speech!

No, you suck! You are a selfish, greedy jerk, just like all right-wingers that want to completely buy out of society, and drive past the people who are starving in your new Mercedes! Why should you give a shit?? You don't feel their hunger...their desperation!!
You dumb-ass! You greedy, selfish, insensitive jerkwad!! You'd rather see generations trapped in poverty, and NOT even get a hand up...EVER!! Let alone, God forbid, a hand-out!

If we relied on the goodness of heart of Americans to help our poor, they'd get no help at all...there is no longer any goodness, kindness, charity, or love in the average American. Only a love for money, and greed, and selfishness!

First, you use government services, whether or not you realize it, and you oughta pay for those services!

Someone fixes the potholes in your road, plows the snow off your road in the wintertime, picks up your garbage...your kids go to schools, etc, etc, etc.

Second, you fail to realize the safety net protects you as much as it does those who use it! Most crime is committed out of desperation! If you give people enough to at least survive, they are less likely to commit a crime, because they at least won't be desperate. You, obviously, have never hit rock-bottom, never felt real, raw hunger and desperation...you've never been pushed to the point where your very survival hangs in the balance!

I have, and let me tell you something, Mister...nothing about survival is pretty! When you are that desperate...no laws, morals, ethics, or principles will stop you from doing whatever it takes to survive...up to and including clubbing your stupid, greedy, selfish, fat head in for the twenty bucks in your wallet, you moron!

Third...if Bush hadn't so badly phucked up the economy, there wouldn't BE so many people NEEDING "a hand up, not a hand-out." Take my case, for example. I am desperately looking for work. Been out of work for two months now, and I do not get unemployment. My boss wouldn't fire me!! He refused to!! He enjoyed pauperizing me, and making my life a living hell!! I am CONVINCED that he went home every night, laughing at the fact that he was screwing over his employees! So I quit my job.

Why, you ask? Because I was damned if I thought it was fair for the company to force me into taking a three-dollar-an-hour pay cut...after leading me to believe I would make the same or even more money when the salary structure was changed when we got bought out!

If they'd been honest and up-front with all of us...I could have made a wise decision about my future, spent eight months looking for another job, while retaining the job I'd had...and, failing to find another, I would've had a nice, safe layoff and unemployment! But, no...instead they chose to LIE to us about what the salary structure would be under the new company (we were bought out.) Had I known, beforehand, how badly the new company was going to screw over the employees, I never would have applied for, or accepted, a position doing the same damn job with the new company.

But, based on false and misleading information, I did accept a job with the new company. And my reward for that was to suddenly be paid 3 bucks an hour less to do the same damn job...and all while gas prices were soaring sky-high...and why should my shitty boss give a phuck if I eat or not? HE didn't feel it when I went hungry!! Why the phuck should HE care?? HIS goddam pocketbook was safe!!

No, it is always and ONLY the little people who take it on the chin in this rotten, stinking, lousy, shitty capitalist system!! Never the big guys! No, they just screw over the little people...the Noble Workers!!

So now I am reduced to delivering phucking newspapers for the goddam Houston Chronicle, because that is the only work I'm apparently good enough for in this shit economy!!

Forget the fact I do data entry at 11,000 keystrokes per hour, and with a 99.94% accuracy rate, and have incredible computer skills! None of that matters. All I'm good for is to be a lowly phucking newspaper carrier!! And all because Bush PHUCKED the economy!!

Bush is a grade-A, choice, prime, blue-ribbon, state-of-the-art, high-tech, Olympic-class asshole that deserves nothing but my absolute contempt and hatred!

And you right-wing assholes have the nerve to claim the economy is getting better! HORSESHIT!! Where's MY phucking job, then?? When someone who is looking for work says the ecomony is getting better, maybe THEN I'll believe the economy is getting better.

This country sucks, capitalism sucks, and Bush sucks hairy, dead, green donkey dick!!

I wish he'd eat more phucking pretzels!! :evil: :evil:

wow adopt me

Not trying to curtail your free speech. Trying to present the facts, not opinions based on emotions because of a loss of a job and your baseless attacks on the President of these United States.

This recession started under President Clinton, and has taken the prodding of President Bush to get it started out of that recession. 9/11 did not help our economy either so attack those RADICAL MUSLIMS instead.

Lifes a bitch...then ya die.

I'm really sick of people saying that the recession was inherited from Clinton. Even if the economy did start to fall because of Clinton, Bush did nothing to help it regain strength. Spending maniacally (which is not a CONSERVATIVE thing to do), outsourcing, declaring war, etc. are things that only feed a recession.

I got this from a friend in an email:

BUSH TO ALTER ECONOMIC STATS AGAIN

Last week, the Census Bureau released statistics showing that for the
first
time in years, poverty had increased for three straight years, while
the
number of Americans without health care increased to a record level.[1]
But
instead of changing its economic and health care policies, the Bush
administration today is announcing plans to change the way the
statistics
are compiled. The move is just the latest in a series of actions by the
White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan
economic
data collection methods.

In a Bush administration press release yesterday, the Census Bureau
said
next week it "will announce a new economic indicator" as "an additional
tool
to better understand" the economy. The change in statistics is being
directed by Bush political appointees and comes just 60 days from the
election. It will be the first modification of Census data in 40
years.[2]

This is not the first time the White House has tried to doctor or
manipulate
economic data that exposed President Bush's failed policies. In the
face of
serious job losses last year, the Associated Press reported "the Bush
administration has dropped the government's monthly report on mass
layoffs,
which also had been eliminated when President Bush's father was in
office."[3] Similarly, Business Week reported that the White House this
year
"unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit
Bush's
reelection bid." For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of
recessions
have been set by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a
private
nonpartisan research group. But the Bush administration decided to toss
aside the NBER, and simply declare that the recession started under
President Clinton.[4]


Sources:

1. "Census: Poverty up in 2003," The Olympian, 9/01/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2712515&l=52819.
2. Census Bureau press release, 8/31/04.
3. "Monthly report on mass layoffs dropped," Shawnee News-Star,
1/05/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2712515&l=52820.
4. "Inventing The 'Clinton Recession'," Business Week Online, 2/23/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2712515&l=52821.

Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion.
»


Stick that in your god damn pipe.

I'm really sick of people saying that the recession was inherited from Clinton. Even if the economy did start to fall because of Clinton, Bush did nothing to help it regain strength. Spending maniacally (which is not a CONSERVATIVE thing to do), outsourcing, declaring war, etc. are things that only feed a recession.


Stick that in your god damn pipe.

Ask your history teacher what ended the Great Depression.

BTW: what exactly does Bush, or any president for that matter, have to do with outsourcing?

Ask your history teacher what ended the Great Depression.

BTW: what exactly does Bush, or any president for that matter, have to do with outsourcing?
Bush does endorse Outsourcing. I mean does he have to endorse it?
It seems arrogant and uncaring.

Bush does endorse Outsourcing. I mean does he have to endorse it?
It seems arrogant and uncaring.

Arrogant? Uncaring? Outsourcing is a good thing. Not to mention that it has been going on for ages. Would you be happy if we lost all the jobs that companies from other countries have outsourced here? Would you be happier with higher priced goods and services?

Everybody benefits from outsourcing, even though pain is involved for those in transition. Even some of chinese and Indian manufacturing is being outsourced to other countries.

There is nothing new about this.

Remember when the US used to produce clothing domestically?

Anything that hurts the American people is unpatriotic.

Outsourcing fits that category.

It's the middle class that suffers from outsourcing, and when the middle class suffers, everyone suffers.

Arrogant? Uncaring? Outsourcing is a good thing. Not to mention that it has been going on for ages. Would you be happy if we lost all the jobs that companies from other countries have outsourced here? Would you be happier with higher priced goods and services?

Everybody benefits from outsourcing, even though pain is involved for those in transition. Even some of chinese and Indian manufacturing is being outsourced to other countries.

There is nothing new about this.

Remember when the US used to produce clothing domestically?

A little outsourcing is good. A lot of outsourcing when we have a a need for jobs in America bad .
I mean maybe when we fully over recession but during it, I don't think so.

Exactly. Sophrosune!

A little outsourcing is good. A lot of outsourcing when we have a a need for jobs in America bad .
I mean maybe when we fully over recession but during it, I don't think so.

few points.

1) how do you know if there is "too much" or "too little" outsourcing going on right now? I know the press is talking about it a lot, but in terms of raw numbers. Do you know of any economists that are saying the level of outsourcing today is good or bad? Please dont give me anything from Paul Krugman.

2) Outsourcing is not a spigot that can be turned on or off on demand. It is straight forward market forces at work. It is self defeating to fight the market in any sort of long term perspecive. It might also violate some WTO rules, depending on what is done.

3) What would you propose Bush or Kerry or anyone do about it? What legislation could they enact that would cause less harm than good? The tax disparity that Kerry is talking about is a nice step, but it does not come close to offsetting the operational costs of doing things here versus in other countries(OSHA laws, wages, health insurance costs, lawsuits, insurance, real estate ect ect)

Anything that hurts the American people is unpatriotic.

Outsourcing fits that category.

It's the middle class that suffers from outsourcing, and when the middle class suffers, everyone suffers.

No, outsourcing does not fit that category. Was the middle class hurt since we have been outsourcing manufacturing jobs since the 1950s? All technology has done is allow another category of jobs to be outsourced.

I could say the same thing about Kerrey
Heck

The GDP measures car wrecks as an economic boon because of repair costs, insurance costs, and other expenses. Do you know any company that lists a loss as part of their net as well? This number has never been a true indicator of economic growth.



Well of course he's going to. But he's not a smart man to go to places like Weirton, West Virginia to hail job numbers when the largest employer in the region declared bankruptcy because Bush reneged on his promises to the steel industry. Keeping in mind also that Bush's economic team now lists a job at McDonald's as a manufacturing job.



The housing market? Ever think that might have something to do with the interest rates? Now ask yourself why the interest rates are so low. Connect the answer with Bush's economic plan and you might be shocked.



Bush is going to be the first president in 70 years to finish a four year term with a net job loss. Last month he so proudly touted his numbers but when you took away the nonfarm jobs, almost all of the jobs created were government related. Didn't Bush promise to cut the number of federal employees in 2000 when he was campaigning?

This month you should also take a look at the jobs created. Over 90% were in service industries. So our economy is replacing manufacturing jobs that pay decent wages for service jobs that pay barely above the minimum wage. Dig deeper to see the truth about job numbers.



You seriously believe this? Bush has slashed benefits and moneys for welfare programs across the country. The numbers are declining because a large number of people have been kicked off the welfare rolls and are now no longer a statistic of any kind. This isn't good news. It goes the same with unemployment. Oh wow, the number of people on the unemployment rolls is staying steady. But take a look at the truer number: the number of people eligible for employment and how many are working and see how bad the numbers truly are.



The nation's budget doesn't list wartime costs. How misleading is that? Last year Bush called for 87 billion dollars. How much more this year that isn't included in the economic numbers?

By the way, do you rob Peter to pay Paul? Bush's economics sure do since state budgets are in their worst shape since the Depression of the 30's. Just to give you one example: Bush's One Stop Initiative for job training. In 2005, the cost of these initiatives are laid 100% on the states. But it sure is easy to tout the program, especially now that the states have to fund it. No Child Left Behind is a classic example of Bush economics.



Last year was the largest budget deficit in the history of our country. This year we're on track to break that easily. Our economy is tanking.

Wow, not only are you a "Doctor", but you are also an economist. Simply amazing. Yet you do not post any links which back up your claims about the economy. It just seems like you are filled with hate for Bush. It isn't really healthy to be so filled with hate. As a "Doctor" you should know this, and "treat" yourself.

Hey don't ask, don't tell.

Not just no...but F**K NO!!!!

If I had MY way, that asshole wouldn't get four more MINUTES!!!

Wow you really do have an anger issue, maybe Thunderland can cure you.

Spending maniacally (which is not a CONSERVATIVE thing to do)
Actually, Bush doesn't represent the ideals of economic conservatism (he's just a tool of corporate interests). One thing that many true conservatives (like John McCain) advocate is fiscal responsibility - something that Bush lacks

Now now, you're making illegitimate connections. The average new home buyer also received a pittance in "tax relief." An extra thousand dollars didn't convince anyone that they could now buy a house, especially since these same people are noticing that their payroll taxes are now higher. The lower interest rates are directly resulting from the Fed's concern about the economy. Tax cuts didn't mean a single thing to the housing market.


Tax cuts surely did a lot for the housing market in the field of home improvements. Many, many homeowners used the tax relief to improve their existing homes: ie upgrades, renovations, roofing work, swimming pools,, additions, and many other things. I used my money to purchase a jacuzzi for my patio out back. Some people even used them to add to the down payments on new and used homes. Where do you get your information from on all of your "facts".

Far from, you moron! I have a professional career spanning 15 years! And the last job I had, I'd had for three years. So, no, I'm not "unemployable." This job market and economy jst plain sucks. I recently went out for one job...and I later found that 300 resumes had been submitted for ONE job!! Yeah, I like my chances...

So don't you DARE refer to me as "unemployable" again...you are bordering on fighting words, pal!

A professional career with your anger issues? Maybe that's why you can't find a job. Can I take a guess at your "professional career". Either Burger King Assistant Manager or Car Wash Attendent. Sure they are all nice jobs. BTW I heard that McDonalds is hiring. They need a monkey to clean their fryers and bathrooms. Good luck :)

Anything that hurts the American people is unpatriotic.

Outsourcing fits that category.

It's the middle class that suffers from outsourcing, and when the middle class suffers, everyone suffers.

A world-wide economy is inevitable. Learn. Grow. Adapt.

Okay, I just had to comment on this one.

When what's immoral is determined by religion, it is violating the rights of individuals by forcing them to function under those beliefs.

Personally, although I myself am not gay, I am for gay marriage, because I have a serious problem with denying rights to everyone. Also, with the abortion issue, I feel it should be the choice of women, and not of conservative MALE presidents, who might I add, completely lack uterus' and thus do not have the ability to endure and have endured pregnancy.

So, don't tell me what's immoral. That should be the decision of the individual. Bushie seems to be a fan of denying rights to his people.

For the record, the United States is not a theocracy. It should not be run like one.

This is kind of off topic but I needed to reply to the above quoted message.

The United States is not a theocracy because the government is not run by a central church or religion. If you look back at who founded our great nation, and why you will see where religious morals come in. The basic principles on which our laws are formed are Judeau-Christian morals and beliefs.

I do not have a problem with gays. What you choose to do behind closed doors is nobody's business but yours. I do not think that gays should be allowed to marry. The sole basis for a man and woman uniting is to "go forth and multiply." We need to protect our traditional family units. In the past few decades we have seen the destruction of families by divorce. Please do not think that I blame homosexuals for this, it is society as a whole that is at fault.

I think that by saying since our President does not possess a uterus he can't form an opinion on abortion is absurd. Not only is it absurd but a bit sexist. Abortion no matter which way you look at it, it is murder. I think being a human being qualifies President Bush to form an opinion on this subject. As far as our leader trying to deny basic human rights.... I think this is one of the greatest rights that he supports. Protecting the life of an unborn child is honorable and morally just.

I agree bush is a disaster.

Abortion no matter which way you look at it, it is murder.

One hundred percent opinion. Don't state it as fact.

Actually, Bush doesn't represent the ideals of economic conservatism (he's just a tool of corporate interests). One thing that many true conservatives (like John McCain) advocate is fiscal responsibility - something that Bush lacks

Bush isn't conservative at all. He's a radical. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill...and we wonder why there's a massive recession

Bush isn't conservative at all. He's a radical. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill...and we wonder why there's a massive recession

Your grasp of basic economics is simply outstanding. I think you said you were 14, so I guess this is understandable.

C-Bass would you mind not posting your photo. I just had lunch and it made me :gundge: .

A world-wide economy is inevitable. Learn. Grow. Adapt.

Indeed, Adapt. Which means that we really can't let our Corporations run off willy-nilly looking for cheap labor. This, of course, would undercut the U.S.'s economy severely. A better option is slowly integrate outside labor as their fair pay, environmental and benefits packages slowly catch up to ours (though many countries have already passed us in these regards.) The world is fairly dependent on the US economy right now, so letting it collapse would be a disservice to the world.

Build up, do not tear down.

In my opinion, neither Kerry nor Bush is a good candidate. Neither one has:

A clear exit strategy for Iraq
Any idea how the federal budget should be managed. (luckily, Greenspan is a genius)
Any specific opinions about anything at all

All Kerry does is badmouth Bush.

All Bush does is mutilate the English language and repeat the same things over and over.

Wait, Kerry's repetitive too.

In conclusion, vote Nader, if he gets 6% of the popular vote, his party will recieve federal funding to run its campaign in 2008, and we will finally have a real third party.


I agree but Nader is running as an independant in most states therefor there will be no funding after the elections if he gets 6%

Indeed, Adapt. Which means that we really can't let our Corporations run off willy-nilly looking for cheap labor. This, of course, would undercut the U.S.'s economy severely. A better option is slowly integrate outside labor as their fair pay, environmental and benefits packages slowly catch up to ours (though many countries have already passed us in these regards.) The world is fairly dependent on the US economy right now, so letting it collapse would be a disservice to the world.

Build up, do not tear down.


"our corporations" ... what does that mean? Corporation do not have citizenship. They have no "rights". At most they have articles of incorporation in onestate or another. What do you think the effect of forcing US incorporated companies to pursue unprofitable activities will result in? Simply, they will move, just like Stanely Works did. This is not a solution. The solution is to create an environment that benefits everybody.

An example.

My parents came to the US in the late 1960s. There was a shortage of jobs in India, and a shortage of Doctors in the USA. So my dad studied medicine, and when he was able, he left. He didnt want to leave, but he couldnt get a decent job in India. He came here and did well.

Growing up, my relatives who were still in India used to bitch about America "stealing" the smart hard working people from India. They talked much the same way you are talking now. America didnt steal the brainpower from India, India pushed them out(India was Socialist then).

Is that the policy you would advocate for the US? Create an environment that is so unfriendly for corporations that they are forced to leave? Where will we be then?

Meanwhile, India changed its policies in the 1990s and people are now flooding back there and India is BOOMING.

You can think that the govt can legislate past market forces as much as you want, it just doesnt work.

"our corporations" ... what does that mean? Corporation do not have citizenship. They have no "rights". At most they have articles of incorporation in onestate or another. What do you think the effect of forcing US incorporated companies to pursue unprofitable activities will result in? Simply, they will move, just like Stanely Works did. This is not a solution. The solution is to create an environment that benefits everybody.

An example.

My parents came to the US in the late 1960s. There was a shortage of jobs in India, and a shortage of Doctors in the USA. So my dad studied medicine, and when he was able, he left. He didnt want to leave, but he couldnt get a decent job in India. He came here and did well.

Growing up, my relatives who were still in India used to bitch about America "stealing" the smart hard working people from India. They talked much the same way you are talking now. America didnt steal the brainpower from India, India pushed them out(India was Socialist then).

Is that the policy you would advocate for the US? Create an environment that is so unfriendly for corporations that they are forced to leave? Where will we be then?

Meanwhile, India changed its policies in the 1990s and people are now flooding back there and India is BOOMING.

You can think that the govt can legislate past market forces as much as you want, it just doesnt work.

If it were so easy for Corporations to move, they'd have already done so. The thing is, Americans are conspicuous consumers. I read a statistic that stated that an average US citizen uses up 3 times as many raw materials throughout their life than the average member of a different industrialized nation does.

We Americans are big fat teats for the Corporations to milk, so they need to stay here.

Oh, and by the way, under US Law a Corporation is technically a person.

'Bush Sucks'

No, Tony Blair sucks, bush just stands there

Well lets see what Bush has done in his term in office...
A few reasons....

1.Held the US together after September 11
2. Turned around a economic decline that he inherited from Clinton and was worsened by the 9/11 tradageies
3.Liberated 2 countries from the dictarships that they lived under.
4.Forced Libya to give up its nuclear weapon arsenal.
5.Formed a coalition of the willing, some countries supplying troops, while others were suppling other nessacities. This coalition will be more effective than the UN, where high ranking members, and France were all proven to have taken bribes from Saddam. The money was taken out of the Oil for Food thing, by the way.
6.Fought against the immoral coruption of the USA
7. Issued the highest tax rebate since Reagan(our greatest president)
8.2/3 of Al Quedi leadership has been either killed or captured
9.Well, unlike our last umm President, he has had no affairs with other while married.
10.Has made a pledge to fight a war on terriosm, which I hope you liberals relize, will actually help our country.


Sure he has some failings, but noone is perfect, and personally i would rather have US security being trusted to the US, instead of the UN, as Waffle Boy John Kerry would have it.

Just a 15 year olds feelings about his country's safety.

Ok I gotta step in here as these seem to be common talking points.
1.He held the US together?? How can you even suggest that the US would collapse from one terrorist event? There was NEVER a greater feeling of solidarity in this country, at least not since WWII. We also had complete support from the rest of the world, which Bush squandered. France and Germany who the Bushies can't stop bad-mouthiing were on the ground with us in Afghanistan.
2.That is a complete lie. Clinton's tax increases introduced in 1993 brought on a period of unprecedented prosperity where more working people enjoyed the benefits of surplus money for investment, big cars etc...
Republicans argued at the time that the economy would suffer and it didn't. Now retroactively they're saying the same thing but the fact is Clinton balanced the budget. The Bush administration is spending money and driving up the deficit at an alarming rate, that's where the crisis is. This is includiing a huge tax cut for the upper 20% during a time of war where the price tag is soon to be $150 billion. We borrowed the money from China for this tax cut.
3.The taliban and Al Queda are still operating in Afghanistan. Outside of Kabul the country has been thrown to warlords and these same organizations. We did a poor job for democracy there, and it's not going well in Iraq either. Allawi is just another CIA operative with a brutal hand. Bush's foreign policy stems from a world view that doesn't extend past doing shooters at Senor Frogs down in San Lucas.
4.This is almost funny, but not really. This administration didn't force Lybia but is making deals with a leader who is directly responsible for terrorist attacks. That stands in contrast to the public stance against terror. The families of the victims of the airliner that Khadafi personally claimed responsiblility for blowing up, are very distraught at the deals that this administration have made.
5.When "will" this be effective. The world is still waiting as day by day whole cities in Iraq fall to insurgents. Do we really want to talk about who's dealt with Saddam for money? Let's do it, let's talk about Rumsfeld being there in 1983 two weeks before the famous gassing incident and returning 4 months later, showering Saddam with gifts. Let's look at the friendly relationship all the way up to 1989, where the Reagan and Bush administration gave Saddam $1 billion in credits for weapons and chemicals.
6.Immoral corruption? This is a President who comes from two dynastic families, the Walkers and the Bush's, who have made billion dollar fortunes on war profiteering. This long history stems back through 100 years of U.S. imperialism.
7.Also giving us the highest deficit since Reagan. The Bush dynasty profits when we have a national deficit. The family has extensive ties with international banking. Instead of using tax money to pay down the deficit, the money goes to a bonds holder in somewhere like germany, where the interest is not used to pay down the deficit, but turns into profit for the players in this
offshore game.
8.We still haven't got Bin Laden and terrorist events are a daily occurence. This wasn't the case four years ago.
9.How do we know this to be true? It's come forth that his father did while in office, although nobody seems to care to rail on about it, and he was quoted in 1999 saying one of the things he liked to talk about with his dad was "pussy". He was a raging drunk and cocaine abuser(which he has never denied) and smoked pot at Camp David when his father was in office. He comes from a family of Connecticut Presbyterians(sorry spelliing) and suddenly is a southern evangelical? I don't buy it. I don't buy it when people who call themselves Christians are so gung-ho about the death penalty and sending other people's kids into war. He is the only President who has not attended, even one single funeral for a fallen soldier.
10.After 9/11 both the federal government and the airline industry balked at the cost of effective airport security. In the latest report issued just last week, agents were able to smuggle weapons and bomb materials onto 15 flights in the U.S.. The Bush adminstration also immediately rejected the necessary spending recommended for securing our ports. What about before 9/11 when the administration ignored the priority accessment from the Clinton administration about Al Queda. Ashcroft made it clear that his prioritiy was pornography and file sharing. Out of 5,000 arrests not one of them has led to a conviction on terrorism. Many of these people have been detained without access to an attorney and many have also been subject to mistreatment including torture.
Terrorism during the Clinton administration was a factor. We can look at the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. They would have brought it down then but luckily the bombers made some error. Intelligence failed at that time, including the company running security for the WTC which was headed by Neil Bush. In 1996 there were two attacks thwarted involving aircraft being flown into targets, one being CIA headquarters at Langley, the other was the Eiffel Tower in France. The Bush adminstration has denied this possibility as ever occuring in their thoughts. It was just unimaginable. The august 6, 2001 daily briefing titled "Al Queda Determined to Attack..." was described by Condoleeza Rice as a "historical document" that nobody thought had any relevance.

Diamond Mind I just might be in love with you.

I got the best button yesterday at the Democratic Party Headquarters:

No C.A.R.B. Diet

NO

Cheney
Ashcroft
Rumsfeld
Bush

And absolutely NO Rice.

The C, A, R, and B are red and bold but html won't work.

Buy your "John Kerry SUCKS!" t-shirts here ...
http://www.t-shirts-political.com/

Presidential Candidate Kerry is like a fish out of water - flip flop, flip flop. Let's hope he runs out of breathe by election day.