NationStates Jolt Archive

Whuju talkin' bout Willis?

LOL!

In that case, your ignored through the rest of the night and through tomorrow too :D

Keep it Eutrusca. :)
ROFL! Once again, due to some strange psychological quirk in my make-up, I feel compelled to say "thank you," although only God knows for what! :D

Which, as they say in England, is poppycock.


I'm far more concerned about the baby seals being clubbed to death than the enemies of the US being yelled at and having their books pissed on.

I'm far more concerned about the baby seals being clubbed to death than the enemies of the US being yelled at and having their books pissed on.
Um ... can we just write the Arabic for "Koran" on a sheet of paper and piss all over that? :D

The fact remains that any Canadian can go to a hospital and be treated, and there will be no bill. 45 Million Americans do not even have that coverage, so if you take John Galt's slant on this then.... if Canada's government is murdering her citizens, then the US government is guilty of genocide?




Gues what, slick-The 45 million Americans can still go to the hospital and receive treatment-they arent turned away. Even illegal immigrants that give fake names and addresses to the hospitals here in the US get better emergency care than anyone in Canada will get.

No insurance does not automatically mean you dont get care. Get that through your head and stop making believe you are ignorant to that fact.

Um ... can we just write the Arabic for "Koran" on a sheet of paper and piss all over that? :D

I should add this line to my signature. Its funny as hell. :D

Um ... can we just write the Arabic for "Koran" on a sheet of paper and piss all over that? :D


I doubt anything was pissed on in the first place. And if it was, I couldnt care less. There were British commandos captured in Iraq while targeting scuds-part of their treatment while in captivity included being forced to eat their own shit. And that was on a good day.
People with special meals and climate control and religious articles while in captivity? They were people trying to kill our men, but failed and now they dont want us to kill them. Only in the US. If we are so bad, how do these alleged complaints and abuse stories even get out?
Fuck them and dont say you're sorry to anyone. It makes them feel like they can talk about it.

Um ... can we just write the Arabic for "Koran" on a sheet of paper and piss all over that? :D

Depends... we need to have R. Kelly singing "I'm going to piss on you" for a soundtrack!

(If you don't get it, it's a skit on the Dave Chappelle show on Comedy Central).

Judging by your steady replies, I see my post pissed you off, at least a little. And that was the whole point of the exercise. :)
Sorry to disappoint you but no you didn't come close to pissing me off. :)
Why would I give my power to you?

If anything, I was just trying to correct the misinformation that was posted, and what you do with it, is your concern, not mine.

What? I don't know as much about Canada as you know about the US?? :eek:
Oh, my!! What? You mean that you're not just a stereotype... of Americans, but blander?!?

...Now you know EXACTLY how I feel reading some posts on here some days. :D
Actually I do not know EXACTLY how you feel in regards to some of the posts that you have read. However, if there is any truth to the posts that you find upsetting, then perhaps finding a solution to those problems is better than shooting the messenger?

I should add this line to my signature. Its funny as hell. :D
I am sure that Muslims around the world would appreciate your gesture. Now what were you suggesting to foster peace in the Middle East? Somehow, I don't think pissing on the Koran is a good place to start?

I should add this line to my signature. Its funny as hell. :D
No applause, please. Just throw money. Lord knows I could use it! :D

I am sure that Muslims around the world would appreciate your gesture. Now what were you suggesting to foster peace in the Middle East? Somehow, I don't think pissing on the Koran is a good place to start?
Say what? It would just be a piece of paper with ... ah fuck it. :p

Say what? It would just be a piece of paper with ... ah fuck it. :p
And yet, you cannot see the irony in any of this?

Your passion is for your "brothers in arms", yet you could do them such a great dis-service by posting derogatory comments about the Koran on an international forum. Your words could come back to your "brothers" in the form of bullets?

Sorry to disappoint you but no you didn't come close to pissing me off. :)
Why would I give my power to you?

If anything, I was just trying to correct the misinformation that was posted, and what you do with it, is your concern, not mine.

What misinformation? It's as true as George Bush's father stacking the Supreme Court so his son could be elected 10 years later, as true that the world knew Saddam didn't have WMDs, and as true that the Electoral College is unfair. All of which is fact here on NS. :rolleyes:

Actually I do not know EXACTLY how you feel in regards to some of the posts that you have read. However, if there is any truth to the posts that you find upsetting, then perhaps finding a solution to those problems is better than shooting the messenger?

I've got 3800+ posts. I did this little exercise *once* to prove a point to Sinhue, and have put in several enjoinders. You're the one "on a mission" to obfuscate the truth just like Bush: that the Canadian Healthcare system sucks, that baby seals are clubbed to death, and that YOUR tax dollars pay for both of these awful things.

There. Now run along and stop blaming the US for all the evils in the world. :)

_______________

No, seriously. We're on a MESSAGE BOARD. How the HELL am I going to find a solution to the insurgency in Iraq? Or end the war on drugs/gun control/overturn the moronic Supreme Court's property decision? Go back in the thread and read my reply to Sinhue after the original "Canadan Gov't has blood on it's hands" post.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9128323&postcount=183

Interesting assertions, but the chart on that site doesn't bear them out. Either the poll is valid, in which case it indicates a significant portion of the problem is due to both intervention in Iraq and the overblown "abuses" of detainees, or the poll is invalid, in which case just toss it overboard.


Which chart on the site shows any data regarding opinions on abuse of detainees? The report makes no mention of abuse of detainees that I can find.

Can you direct me to this information on the site?

What misinformation? It's as true as George Bush's father stacking the Supreme Court so his son could be elected 10 years later, as true that the world knew Saddam didn't have WMDs, and as true that the Electoral College is unfair. All of which is fact here on NS. :rolleyes:
1. About "stacking" Supreme Court, this is the first I have heard about it.

2. About WMD, the reality is that the UN inspectors were not finding any. And two American reports, after the invasion, have confirmed that there were none. You cannot accept that fact?

3. About the "Electoral College is unfair" comment, I would imagine that is totally subjective. My personal take on this matter is that it seems rather odd that people living in a "democratic" country actually don't have the right to "democratically" elect the President.

I've got 3800+ posts. I did this little exercise *once* to prove a point to Sinhue, and have put in several enjoinders.
Ah, so the whole point of these posts is to complete an "exercise"? Sorta like a secret mission?

You're the one "on a mission"
Everyone on here is "on a mission". That is what debate is all about. Everyone offers up opinions and facts and normally, the facts will win the day. Regardless of the outcome, everyone is still entitled to their opinion whether or not they like the facts that have been presented, and they can either accept those facts or work towards effecting a change.

to obfuscate the truth just like Bush:
So you admit that Bush lies? Interesting.

that the Canadian Healthcare system sucks,
Actually, IMHO the Canadian Healthcare system does not suck, and if I had a choice between Canada's and that of the US, I would take our system, for many obvious reasons.

that baby seals are clubbed to death,
I am not trying to obfuscate the fact that "baby seals are clubbed to death", and I already offered my opinion on it. I don't have a problem with it, and I doubt that the majority of Canadians consider this issue a major one.

and that YOUR tax dollars pay for both of these awful things.
Yes my tax dollars do go to support a "universal" healthcare system, and I totally support such expenditures, and it certainly isn't an "awful thing" .

Meanwhile, US tax dollars (more than twice per capita than Canada) also go to support "Medicaid", whereby 45 Million Americans don't have access to basic health care. Now I do find that "awful".

As far as my tax dollars going to support the clubbing of seals, that is news to me. Could you please provide a link?

There. Now run along and stop blaming the US for all the evils in the world. :)
I don't know how old you are but judging from your previous posts, you are probably young enough to be my son, so I will exercise my right to post, especially on actions that affect the world. You wouldn't want to stifle "freedom of speech" would you?

1. About "stacking" Supreme Court, this is the first I have heard about it.

Wow. You must not have seen ANY of the 2004 election threads.

2. About WMD, the reality is that the UN inspectors were not finding any. And two American reports, after the invasion, have confirmed that there were none. You cannot accept that fact?

I can accept it fine. What I can't accept are revisionist asshole who assume that because we NOW know he didn't have any, that we knew he didn't have any THEN. After all, he did use them against Iran, the Khurds, and Israel struck Iraq in the 80s to ensure he didn't get nukes. Then he plays games with the inspectors for YEARS. Seems a bit odd, no? A bit risky??

3. About the "Electoral College is unfair" comment, I would imagine that is totally subjective. My personal take on this matter is that it seems rather odd that people living in a "democratic" country actually don't have the right to "democratically" elect the President.

It's quite democratic. Check this out: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9128153&postcount=11

Ah, so the whole point of these posts is to complete an "exercise"? Sorta like a secret mission?

:headbang: Did you read the link with Sinhue & my posts?

Everyone on here is "on a mission". That is what debate is all about. Everyone offers up opinions and facts and normally, the facts will win the day. Regardless of the outcome, everyone is still entitled to their opinion whether or not they like the facts that have been presented, and they can either accept those facts or work towards effecting a change.

I've seen *many* times when the "wrong side" simply stops posting. :(

So you admit that Bush lies? Interesting.

I'm a *centrist*. All politicians lie. I have no great love for Bush, but for better or worse he's the Prez.

Actually, IMHO the Canadian Healthcare system does not suck, and if I had a choice between Canada's and that of the US, I would take our system, for many obvious reasons.

Namely lack of experience with American medicine.

I am not trying to obfuscate the fact that "baby seals are clubbed to death", and I already offered my opinion on it. I don't have a problem with it, and I doubt that the majority of Canadians consider this issue a major one.

Fair enough.

Yes my tax dollars do go to support a "universal" healthcare system, and I totally support such expenditures, and it certainly isn't an "awful thing" .

Right. Now if the best doctors hadn't been fleeing Canada for decades and the system were not on par with British dentistry...

Meanwhile, US tax dollars (more than twice per capita than Canada) also go to support "Medicaid", whereby 45 Million Americans don't have access to basic health care. Now I do find that "awful".

EVERY American has access to basic health care. Just walk in. Though if you don't qualify for Medicaid you pay out of pocket. If you'd actually read my posts, you'd recall that a good number of those folks CHOOSE not to have health insurance. (I'll grant that some number (probably about a quarter to a third) lack it due to lack of income.) Heck, I'll give you a better example: My grand aunt worked for 25 years at a bank. She got health insurance with her retirement: $2500 deductible. Is she better off having paid into it for 25 years to get THAT? :rolleyes:

As far as my tax dollars going to support the clubbing of seals, that is news to me. Could you please provide a link?

Sure, here you go:
http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/seals_sscs_history.html

(1983) In April, the Sea Shepherd II moves into the Gulf of St. Lawrence and escorts three sealing ships out of the Harp seal nursery. RCMP and Canadian Coast Guard units ram and board the Sea Shepherd II in a tear-gas assault on the ice north of Nova Scotia.

1992 - In the damages suit, just days prior to going to trial, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans offers a $50,000 out of court settlement for damages done to the Sea Shepherd II while in Canada's possession. Sea Shepherd accepts the settlement.

1995 - Canada announces the full-scale resumption of commercial sealing. The government sets a bounty on landed seal meat.

I don't know how old you are but judging from your previous posts, you are probably young enough to be my son, so I will exercise my right to post, especially on actions that affect the world. You wouldn't want to stifle "freedom of speech" would you?

Chuckle. It's common knowledge that I'm 32. So unless you're about 50-60...

And I wouldn't DREAM of stifing you.

I visited the US from a very young age because my uncle moved there and my mum still tries to visit him every year.

Sice the age of three I have fallen in love with the American way of life and the kind and friendly nature of (most) of its people.

But these view have been slowly eradicated by American Government in the past few years. I still hold the same views about the majority of it's people.

The increasing Theocratic values of some Americans scares me. But I believe they have always been there, they are just more visible now.

As Im sure everyone here has stated, the world does not want a father figure. I would say that there are some servere problems with its own government that America needs to sort out. Like the increasing intertwining of the Corporate and political worlds.

I also have become more socialistic in my views, dont get me wrong, I believe in free enterprise amd what the French have so snobbishly deemed 'anglo-saxon capitalisim'. But when you are impressed by the wealth of the CBD's of cities like Baltimore and Boston, and you then go out to Tube ride in West Virginia. It is a shock.

The poverty that the poorest Americans endure is shocking to a European, because in europe although we have less nimble and quick-growing economies, I would say that social and economic equality is greater. (Although the Uk is less so)

A society is only as great as its poorest people.

I dont want to sound like some 'holier than thou' European, these are just my views.

The poverty that the poorest Americans endure is shocking to a European, because in europe although we have less nimble and quick-growing economies, I would say that social and economic equality is greater. (Although the Uk is less so)

A society is only as great as its poorest people.

I dont want to sound like some 'holier than thou' European, these are just my views.

So no European is as great as a Slovak gypsy?? :rolleyes:

So no European is as great as a Slovak gypsy?? :rolleyes:

I stand corrected, but A slovak gypsy is in a different country to an Unemployed German , so there's not much we can do a bout it.

They'll always be some poor people, but I think America has more people who are needlessly poor, Slovakia does not have the highest GDP per capita in the world.

I stand corrected, but A slovak gypsy is in a different country to an Unemployed German , so there's not much we can do a bout it.

They'll always be some poor people, but I think America has more people who are needlessly poor, Slovakia does not have the highest GDP per capita in the world.

And yet the US has a lower Unemployment rate than all over Europe. And if you say we have more people out of work, its because we have more people than all of Europe.

And yet the US has a lower Unemployment rate than all over Europe. And if you say we have more people out of work, its because we have more people than all of Europe.
First, prove it.

Second, what are the poverty rate statistics?

Third, it's not more people, it's percentage of people unemployed. As an American, I can't believe that we have a lower unemployment rate than the Scandinavian countries.

First, prove it.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3606494

That shows that in 2003, the Euro-zone unemployment rate is 8.8%. That is among the twelve nations that use the Euro. The US unemployment rate is at a stunning 5.1%

In Truth, Luxembourgh has a 3.9% unemployment rate whereas Spain has a 11.2% unemployment during october 2003.

Third, it's not more people, it's percentage of people unemployed. As an American, I can't believe that we have a lower unemployment rate than the Scandinavian countries.

I also didn't mention Scandinavia either. I should've made myself more clear. I'm talking those of lower europe and not those of the Scandania countries.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3606494

That shows that in 2003, the Euro-zone unemployment rate is 8.8%. That is among the twelve nations that use the Euro. The US unemployment rate is at a stunning 5.1%

In Truth, Luxembourgh has a 3.9% unemployment rate whereas Spain has a 11.2% unemployment during october 2003.

I also didn't mention Scandinavia either. I should've made myself more clear. I'm talking those of lower europe and not those of the Scandania countries.
Right, that's the thing. The original poster said that some people in the United States were needlessly poor. If there's a system in Scandinavian countries and Luxemburg that can fix that, then s/he's correct.

Right, that's the thing. The original poster said that some people in the United States were needlessly poor. If there's a system in Scandinavian countries and Luxemburg that can fix that, then s/he's correct.

But you also have to remember that Luxembourg is more of a city. Also remember that what works for one nation, does not mean it'll work for another.

The US needs to stop giving out free money to those that decide not to work and there are plenty of them.

Are some needlessly poor? Yea I can agree with that. Sometimes that is of their own choosing. Its not always the case but it does happen because they get free money if they stay that way.

I also didn't mention Scandinavia either. I should've made myself more clear. I'm talking those of lower europe and not those of the Scandania countries.

you can't just pick and choose what facts will fit your argument! :confused:

Why not also leave out the 10 states in the US with highest unemployment rates, just because 'oh they don't really count, its alright'. :rolleyes:

Either use all of Europe and all of the USA or none.

you can't just pick and choose what facts will fit your argument! :confused:

Why not also leave out the 10 states in the US with highest unemployment rates, just because 'oh they don't really count, its alright'. :rolleyes:

Either use all of Europe and all of the USA or none.

Eurozone those with the Euro between 8.8 to 9.0% unemployment
United States of America as a whole 5.1% unemployment.

Eurozone those with the Euro between 8.8 to 9.0% unemployment
United States of America as a whole 5.1% unemployment.
Thank you - i didn't care who 'won', just so long as the facts weren't being distorted :D

The US unemployment rate is at a stunning 5.1%
And the TRUE US unemployment rate (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/02/unemployment_ra.html) is a sluggish 8.6%?

Unemployment Rate: Worse than it Appears (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/02/unemployment_ra.html)

Start with the Augmented unemployment rate (8.6%). It was created by Fed Chief Greenspan to give a fuller read on the economy. And, if you use the broadest measure of unemployment (BLS's U-6) we're closer to 9.3%.

This is a link to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, a worldwide sampling poll intended to determine the attitudes of people in various countries toward, among other things, the US: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247

As best I can determine, one of the primary reasons for the "falling popularity of the US" are the miniscule number of US personnel "abusing" detainees. These problems are being delt with. Numerous military personnel have been disciplined, some of them most severely. Commanders having responsibility for those personnel have been given career-ending letters of reprimand, and in some cases have been relieved of duty. I was under the impression that "innocent until proven guilty" applied even to us military swine.

I lived through a time when American servicemen and servicewomen were reviled as "Nazis," "War criminals," and far worse. In the wonderful, liberal town of San Francisco, I myself was called "baby-killer" and spat upon.

This is how it all begins. Some Senator or Congressman, trying to make a political career over the dead bodies of American soldiers, makes the sort of wild, libelous accusations that Senator Dick Durbin made; the media, being the media, pick it up and repeat it, often magnifying it; our opponents abroad pick it up, deliberately magnifiy it and pass it on; those at home who either hate the military ( for whatever reason ), or who have some sort of ax to grind, expand the original accusations to cover all military personnel; eventually, some unrestrained idiot burns a flag, or spits on a soldier, or self-immolates in "protest."

Hegelian Dialectics, in brief, is a technique for moving people closer to your position by degrees, usually by taking an extreme position in the ( not unrealistic ) expectation that some will move a bit further toward your position simply because they figure your position must have some truth to it, else why would you be so extreme. The dialectic was used by the anti-war people during Vietnam to great effect.

I see things like people on NS General, or Senator Durbin, or any of a dozen others I could name, using the dialectic today, whether consciously or unconsciously is largely irrelevant.

If a particular American serviceman or servicewoman has transgressed, then try them for it and punish them accordingly. But I refuse to allow things like the Durbin allegations to stand without doing my best to point out exactly what they are: an attempt to use the Hegelian Dialectic to alter perceptions in favor of their own anti-American-military agenda.

The sort of statements being made by many on the left, both here and abroad, cannot help but give aid and comfort to those determined to kill as many American servicemen and servicewomen as possible, else why would the terrorist media be so quick to jump on statements like those made by Senator Durbin? ( example: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/796AA4AC-531C-4E6F-B855-7FBC52506824.htm )

If you repeatedly toss about wildly inaccurate and marginally defamatory accusations concerning what the US does in Iraq and at Guantanamo, it makes me wonder as to your motivation. The detainees at Guantanamo are not being mistreated. If anything, they are being mollycoddled in an effort to avoid further specious allegations about military personnel, largely by leftists with an ax to grind.

During WWII there was a saying: "Loose lips sink ships." For today's world it could be: "Repeat the lies, an American dies."

The bottom line for me is, if people in another country don't like the US, that's their business. Sure, it would be nice to be loved by other countries, but almost all nations ultimately act in their own self-interest. They could love the hell out of the US and smile broadly while they slip the knife in.

At a personal level, I couldn't care less what you think about me. If you don't like me then you don't have to hang around with me. Somehow, I still seem to have lots of friends. The same holds true at a national level. If a particular country doesn't "like" the US, they don't have to have civil dealings with us.

No, we the rest of the world hate the USA for lots of things apart of some mad assholes in your army. Besides, most of us don't hate the entire country, but only republicans, creationist, fanathical christians and the states of Missisipi and Alabama

The Kyoto Treaty is a prime example, whos rejection by Bush garnered a lot of unpleasant feelings towards the U.S.

Well the bit where you are playing fast and loose with the freakin' PLANET is a bit annoying.

And the TRUE US unemployment rate (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/02/unemployment_ra.html) is a sluggish 8.6%?

Unemployment Rate: Worse than it Appears (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/02/unemployment_ra.html)

Start with the Augmented unemployment rate (8.6%). It was created by Fed Chief Greenspan to give a fuller read on the economy. And, if you use the broadest measure of unemployment (BLS's U-6) we're closer to 9.3%.

To a degree though, the AUR is not a true representation of the economy. It includes people who aren't actively looking for work, who are always present regardless of the economic conditions in the US. During the late 90's, unemployment was headlined at +/- 4%, but the AUR was at 6-7%. Greenspan uses this to see how tight the labor markets are, which helps to see how inflation is.

Furthermore, the augmented unemployment factors in retirees because it includes people who stopped working

Clinton unemployment is averaged at 9.83% during the 90's boom, Bush at 8.5% during the weakest period of job growth?

And the TRUE US unemployment rate (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/02/unemployment_ra.html) is a sluggish 8.6%?

Unemployment Rate: Worse than it Appears (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/02/unemployment_ra.html)

Start with the Augmented unemployment rate (8.6%). It was created by Fed Chief Greenspan to give a fuller read on the economy. And, if you use the broadest measure of unemployment (BLS's U-6) we're closer to 9.3%.

So if we take that, we're still doing better than Europe. Please CH! I expected better from you. We still have a better economy than we did Under Clinton if we are to use those numbers + the Augmented numbes.

To a degree though, the AUR is not a true representation of the economy. It includes people who aren't actively looking for work, who are always present regardless of the economic conditions in the US. During the late 90's, unemployment was headlined at +/- 4%, but the AUR was at 6-7%. Greenspan uses this to see how tight the labor markets are, which helps to see how inflation is.

Furthermore, the augmented unemployment factors in retirees because it includes people who stopped working

Clinton unemployment is averaged at 9.83% during the 90's boom, Bush at 8.5% during the weakest period of job growth?

Oops! I see someone already beat me to the punch! :rolleyes:

I stand corrected, but A slovak gypsy is in a different country to an Unemployed German , so there's not much we can do a bout it.

They'll always be some poor people, but I think America has more people who are needlessly poor, Slovakia does not have the highest GDP per capita in the world.

You're all in the EU together. One currency, no borders... attempt at a common Constitution.

Right... and West Virginia isn't Rhode Island. What's you point?
Oh, I get it. It's that no German is as great as these Roma?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050518-10062100-bc-kosovo-gypsies.xml

:p
Sorry, it's just spurious to say that anything like that.

So if we take that, we're still doing better than Europe. Please CH! I expected better from you. We still have a better economy than we did Under Clinton if we are to use those numbers + the Augmented numbes.

Diff is under Clinton there was a large budget surplus....

Under Bush Jr.?....... whats the deficit now? a trillion? two?

Diff is under Clinton there was a large budget surplus....

Under Bush Jr.?....... whats the deficit now? a trillion? two?

And yet, the Unemployment rate is low :rolleyes:

Even if you factor the augmented unemployment rate, Bush has a better record there than Clinton. But this thread isn't about Clinton or Bush. I suggest we get back on track here.

Diff is under Clinton there was a large budget surplus....

Under Bush Jr.?....... whats the deficit now? a trillion? two?

Poor soul... you're confused.

The US has been running a deficit since 1958.
In a few (2, I think. And NOT 1999 or 2000!) of the Clinton years, the YEARLY budget came in under. That's all.

Poor soul... you're confused.

The US has been running a deficit since 1958.
In a few (2, I think. And NOT 1999 or 2000!) of the Clinton years, the YEARLY budget came in under. That's all.

Ahhhhh... YEARLY.. that was it. Apologies, economics was never my strongest :p

Ahhhhh... YEARLY.. that was it. Apologies, economics was never my strongest :p

No problem... It's an easy thing to lose track of, given the amount of BS that gets thrown around by both sides...

No problem... It's an easy thing to lose track of, given the amount of BS that gets thrown around by both sides...

Remember the three branches of government: money, television, and bullshit.

Clinton unemployment is averaged at 9.83% during the 90's boom, Bush at 8.5% during the weakest period of job growth?
The following chart seems to paint a slightly different picture? Notice that the "The Augmented Unemployment Rate." was falling during the Clinton years and rose during the Bush Jr. years.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/augmented.gif

The Augmented Unemployment Rate includes the discouraged, the underemployed, the part timers. For anyone concerned with the macro impact of the labor pool as consumers, this number is for you. It also provides a more accurate detail as to the health of the Job market.

The Augmented Unemployment Rate includes the discouraged, the underemployed, the part timers.

I work part time on a college campus. However, I'm employed. Therefor, you can't include those that are actually working. That's just plane dumb. I don't know what econ class you've had, but unemployment numbers should deal with those that are unemployed and not those that are actually working.

For anyone concerned with the macro impact of the labor pool as consumers, this number is for you. It also provides a more accurate detail as to the health of the Job market.

Not if it includes people that are actually working.

The Augmented Unemployment Rate includes the discouraged, the underemployed, the part timers.

What does that even mean? CEOs can be “discouraged” about their job if they don’t like what they are doing. “Underemployed” is also subjective, since some people actually like working in a job that others might consider below their education. You also realize that part-timers includes high school kids working as bus boys, right? Frankly, we should rely on actual unemployment, which is the percentage of people who claim to be seeking employment and can not obtain it. That is much more concrete.

Wow. You must not have seen ANY of the 2004 election threads.
I read many of the 2004 election threads and the only thing that stood out was that the Supreme Court awarded Bush the Presidency in 2000. I was unaware that Bush Sr. had stacked the higher court with Republican minded judges.

I can accept it fine. What I can't accept are revisionist asshole who assume that because we NOW know he didn't have any, that we knew he didn't have any THEN. After all, he did use them against Iran, the Khurds, and Israel struck Iraq in the 80s to ensure he didn't get nukes. Then he plays games with the inspectors for YEARS. Seems a bit odd, no? A bit risky??
I didn't believe he had them from Day 1, when the UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November of 2002. My country was also skeptical and wanted the UN inspectors to finish their assignment. Since Bush decided that the US was not going to wait for the inspections to be completed (because there were no WMD), my country was not prepared to send any troops. This is also why France, Germany, Russia, and China balked.

Many in our country did not buy into Bush's rhetoric that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the US, especially since Iraq didn't even have an effective air force, and their longest range missiles could only travel about 100 miles. Some threat.


It's quite democratic. Check this out: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9128153&postcount=11
I really don't see how it could be truly democratic considering the possibility that the electors do not have to follow the results of the popular vote. Besides, a candidate could win the popular vote and still lose the election. Totally weird.

:headbang: Did you read the link with Sinhue & my posts?
Well, the fact remains that the US is in the spot light because of an overly aggressive foreign policy. That and the fact that the two major parties in the US engage in such a barrage of propaganda, that it spills over onto the world stage. All anyone can do from the outside is shake their heads in amazement.

I've seen *many* times when the "wrong side" simply stops posting. :(
Yes, I have noticed that as well. Such is life?

I'm a *centrist*. All politicians lie. I have no great love for Bush, but for better or worse he's the Prez.
Well I tend to agree with you there (about the lying), but I do think the US could have a better Prez.

Namely lack of experience with American medicine.
I have read many articles on this subject and despite the rhetoric, Canada pays less than half GDP for healthcare, and yet we have a comparable level of healthcare. The major difference being that the US has 45 Million uninsured citizens.

Right. Now if the best doctors hadn't been fleeing Canada for decades and the system were not on par with British dentistry...
Yeah right. I guess that stems from the fact that you have limited knowledge of the Canadian healthcare system. Here is an interesting PDF file that is a good eye opener.

The US Health Care System: Best in the World, or Just the Most Expensive (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf)

EVERY American has access to basic health care. Just walk in. Though if you don't qualify for Medicaid you pay out of pocket. If you'd actually read my posts, you'd recall that a good number of those folks CHOOSE not to have health insurance. (I'll grant that some number (probably about a quarter to a third) lack it due to lack of income.)
It is kinda sad to think that some Americans "choose" not to have health insurance. That is truly a huge gamble?

As far as poor people are concerned who have no basic coverage, check out Access to healthcare on page 2 of the above link, especially where it talks about people whose lives are at risk because of no insurance.

Heck, I'll give you a better example: My grand aunt worked for 25 years at a bank. She got health insurance with her retirement: $2500 deductible. Is she better off having paid into it for 25 years to get THAT? :rolleyes:
In Canada, your aunt would have 100% coverage, zero deductible, and free prescription medicine (at age 65).

Sure, here you go:
http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/seals_sscs_history.html

(1983) In April, the Sea Shepherd II moves into the Gulf of St. Lawrence and escorts three sealing ships out of the Harp seal nursery. RCMP and Canadian Coast Guard units ram and board the Sea Shepherd II in a tear-gas assault on the ice north of Nova Scotia.

1992 - In the damages suit, just days prior to going to trial, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans offers a $50,000 out of court settlement for damages done to the Sea Shepherd II while in Canada's possession. Sea Shepherd accepts the settlement.

1995 - Canada announces the full-scale resumption of commercial sealing. The government sets a bounty on landed seal meat.
Nothing in there tells me that my tax dollars go to supporting the sealing industry. If anything, the sealers will end up paying taxes for their business, and the consumers will pay taxes on their purchases. Also, by culling the seals, the fisheries are more abundant, adding more tax dollars to the government coffers. Also the sealers and fishermen will remain gainfully employed and they will not collect unemployment cheques for that reason.

Chuckle. It's common knowledge that I'm 32. So unless you're about 50-60...
Well then I was right sonny boy!! :eek:

And I wouldn't DREAM of stifing you.
it takes a lot to stifle me. :)

...That is much more concrete.
And also misleading. Economic statistics that do not include things like underemployment (which is merely an indicator that there are not enough jobs and/or too many people of a high educational level), or discouraged (ie long term unemployed) people will lead you to false conclusions about the state the economy is in.
And it is a fact that currently the world is moving towards a system of more part-time and less actual full-time work, and that many end up being underemployed, because they cannot find full-time work although they need it. If that is not addressed, the standard of living is going to fall dramatically.
Someone needs to think of new policies on this issue, rather than sit back and declare he's done well because that's what selected statistics tell him.

I work part time on a college campus. However, I'm employed. Therefor, you can't include those that are actually working. That's just plane dumb. I don't know what econ class you've had, but unemployment numbers should deal with those that are unemployed and not those that are actually working.
Well if it is "just plain dumb", then take it up with your government? I didn't create this stuff.

Not if it includes people that are actually working.
Ummm I guess they figure that part timers who only work a few hours a week are not "fully" employed? BTW, this ONLY applies to the "Augmented Unemployment Rate". In the employment statistics, part timers are classed as being employed.

And yet you are asking me what econ class I took? :eek:

What does that even mean? CEOs can be “discouraged” about their job if they don’t like what they are doing. “Underemployed” is also subjective, since some people actually like working in a job that others might consider below their education. You also realize that part-timers includes high school kids working as bus boys, right? Frankly, we should rely on actual unemployment, which is the percentage of people who claim to be seeking employment and can not obtain it. That is much more concrete.
It looks like you have a lot of studying to do to understand the workings of your Bureau of Labour Statistics?

And also misleading. Economic statistics that do not include things like underemployment (which is merely an indicator that there are not enough jobs and/or too many people of a high educational level), or discouraged (ie long term unemployed) people will lead you to false conclusions about the state the economy is in.
And it is a fact that currently the world is moving towards a system of more part-time and less actual full-time work, and that many end up being underemployed, because they cannot find full-time work although they need it. If that is not addressed, the standard of living is going to fall dramatically.
Someone needs to think of new policies on this issue, rather than sit back and declare he's done well because that's what selected statistics tell him.
BRAVO!! Only people outside the US understand this stuff?

The following chart seems to paint a slightly different picture? Notice that the "The Augmented Unemployment Rate." was falling during the Clinton years and rose during the Bush Jr. years.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/augmented.gif

The Augmented Unemployment Rate includes the discouraged, the underemployed, the part timers. For anyone concerned with the macro impact of the labor pool as consumers, this number is for you. It also provides a more accurate detail as to the health of the Job market.

Clinton had no recessions during 1995-2000, while Bush had one from 2001-2002 (Mar-Nov 2001 technically), so there is a reason for the downtrend, in addition to the dot-com bubble and 9/11. The recession's true beginning was in Oct. 2000, when industrial production fell for the first time and unemployment reached its bottom. Combined with overtightening by the Federal Reserve (which makes one wonder if the augmented rate should be used to determine the conditions of the labor market), the recession was inevitable.

Many of the long-term unemployed who aren't actively searching for a job don't contribute much to the economy anyway. Secondly, the health of the job market is relative. The job market is healthy if and only if you have skills that are in demand. For example, if you have no qualifications/marketable skills, you will be unemployed simply because there is no demand for you or there are no positions you can do.

Lastly: I'm no Bush supporter; Clinton is one of my favorite presidents and I think he knew economic policy. :)

BRAVO!!
Thanks. You made my day! :)

And also misleading. Economic statistics that do not include things like underemployment (which is merely an indicator that there are not enough jobs and/or too many people of a high educational level), or discouraged (ie long term unemployed) people will lead you to false conclusions about the state the economy is in.


It's not so much the supply of educated people, it's what they are educated in. During the late 90's we had a massive overexpansion in IT, with hundreds of thousands of people employed in what was really a speculative bubble. The recession hit, and these skills fell in demand. As a result, there was oversupply and thus underemployment.

However, those who entered financial services have benefitted because they have seen steady gains as demand for their services rises, and their employment is very high.

Long term unemployment usually stems from either oversupply or lack of marketable skills.

Long term unemployment usually stems from either oversupply or lack of marketable skills.
I know, but it is unused resources nonetheless. Something is wrong if hundreds of thousands of smart, healthy people cannot be adapted to a new field, for years on end.
I don't think we disagree here. It is obvious though that some sort of Hysteresis is occuring (a market failure if you will), and that policies should be implemented to deal with that.

I know, but it is unused resources nonetheless. Something is wrong if hundreds of thousands of smart, healthy people cannot be adapted to a new field, for years on end.
I don't think we disagree here. It is obvious though that some sort of Hysteresis is occuring (a market failure if you will), and that policies should be implemented to deal with that.

The field worst affected is IT. However, I think it will improve dramatically as tech spending ramps up (that stuff bought in 2000 is getting old), the Internet becomes mature, confidence in it rises, and new technology becomes available and better. If the underemployed can learn the new skills necessary to work these systems, they will be alright.

The outsourcing problem is solving itself as companies realize three things:

1. Labor costs are catching up with the US, esp. in China/India
2. The quality of service is so atrocious as a result of outsourced work that it will help them to bring the jobs back.
3. The cost of hiring in these countries no longer makes the sacrifice in quality a worthwhile idea.

-snip-
So you're saying you believe the markets will solve the problem on their own?
But what about part time work then? Or Hysteresis?

So you're saying you believe the markets will solve the problem on their own?
But what about part time work then? Or Hysteresis?

A traditional response from a free-marketer like myself would be: the markets regulate themselves.

The shift to part-time work in many fields comes from a simple source: increased productivity. What took a day to do 10 years ago might only take 1/3 of a day or even less. Technology is primarily responsible for this. However, there is an upside: Someone has to run and build these systems. The new employment will be focused on technology, while many of the old modes like manufacturing will die out, much like agriculture did at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

When you refer to "market failiure", which markets do you mean? All of them collectively, or a particular one.

When you refer to "market failiure", which markets do you mean? All of them collectively, or a particular one.
Both. They both exist, while the particular ones are easier to quantify and argue. Collective failures are usually more based on equity issues, and those are difficult to debate.
Hysteresis is a market failure though. If one hasn't worked for 3 or 4 years, a firm simply isn't going to hire them anymore, or only at a much lower wage. That's inefficient.

Thanks. You made my day! :)
Glad to be of service! :)

I read many of the 2004 election threads and the only thing that stood out was that the Supreme Court awarded Bush the Presidency in 2000. I was unaware that Bush Sr. had stacked the higher court with Republican minded judges.

He didn't. But it was a claim made dozens of times, kind of like an "oh yeah?!?" thing. Mostly by folks that don't realize that the DEMs have only put 2 Justices out of the 9 onto the Supreme Court since Nixon.

I didn't believe he had them from Day 1, when the UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November of 2002. My country was also skeptical and wanted the UN inspectors to finish their assignment. Since Bush decided that the US was not going to wait for the inspections to be completed (because there were no WMD), my country was not prepared to send any troops. This is also why France, Germany, Russia, and China balked.

Then why play games with the inspectors? Why not do what Ghaddafi of Libya did and show you don't have anything?

Er... France, Germany, Russia, and China all balked because of the oil-for-food shennanigans at the UN, which I'm sure your cognizant of. I can't wait until that Watergate breaks and UN corruption is shown for how bad it really is.

BTW: Did you know that the UN owes New York City over $200 million USD in parking fines alone???

Many in our country did not buy into Bush's rhetoric that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the US, especially since Iraq didn't even have an effective air force, and their longest range missiles could only travel about 100 miles. Some threat.

And if a suitcase of bio-hazardous material exploded in NYC's Grand Central Station (where I walk EVERY WORKDAY), or maybe in LAX (Los Angeles Airport), what then?
It's not that Iraq could militarily strike the US. Their military never recovered from Gulf War I. It's that they HAD a working biological warfare program (again, Khurds & Iranians can testify), and WERE at (at least in the 80s and early 90s) working on nukes. Without free inspections, AS DICTATED IN THE CEASE FIRE, how could we be sure?

I consider it not only amazing, but that the feds are doing a good job in that there has been no stateside attack since 9.11.01. And I pray it stays that way.

I really don't see how it could be truly democratic considering the possibility that the electors do not have to follow the results of the popular vote. Besides, a candidate could win the popular vote and still lose the election. Totally weird.

Yes, that is an often noted though rarely occuring issue.

True, but it has happened only in 3 elections that the popular vote winner didn't win the election. That's less than a 5% margin of error, or about the same as any poll. :)

As for in being weird: it was a provision/compromise to get the small states to join the Union. The small states (Connecticut, South Carolina, Delaware, etc) were worried about New York and Virginia running the nation by fiat. The Electoral College gives all states at least 3 votes: 2 for their Senators plus 1 for each Congressman (which is determined by population). So right now, Connecticut has 7 votes and New York has 31. In a straight contest, CT should have 5 and NY should have 29. Having 22.58% of NY's vote is better than 17.24%. :)
Right now, it so happens that if a candidate wins all of New England (states north and east of NY, not counting NY), that canidate has the same number of votes as California. :)

Well, the fact remains that the US is in the spot light because of an overly aggressive foreign policy. That and the fact that the two major parties in the US engage in such a barrage of propaganda, that it spills over onto the world stage. All anyone can do from the outside is shake their heads in amazement.

The US is *always* in the spotlight. Name me any President since World War 2 that wasn't controversial on the world stage? ;)
It comes back to that being the big boy on the block, the US gets scrutinized more.

Yes, I have noticed that as well. Such is life?

Yeah...

Well I tend to agree with you there (about the lying), but I do think the US could have a better Prez.

Of course it could. And Canada could have a better Prime Minister. And Germany could have a better Chancellor. The people spoke, and that's democratic.

I have read many articles on this subject and despite the rhetoric, Canada pays less than half GDP for healthcare, and yet we have a comparable level of healthcare. The major difference being that the US has 45 Million uninsured citizens.

Half?? Ooooof!
What is it with insurance that you don't get? If someone doesn't WANT insurance, we don't make them pay for it. If they can't, yes, that's really hard/bad.

Yeah right. I guess that stems from the fact that you have limited knowledge of the Canadian healthcare system. Here is an interesting PDF file that is a good eye opener.

The US Health Care System: Best in the World, or Just the Most Expensive (http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf)

...and that'd be ruinous if Canada's population increased ten fold to the USA's population.

It is kinda sad to think that some Americans "choose" not to have health insurance. That is truly a huge gamble?

Life is a gamble.
I'm for as much personal responsibilty/freedom for the individual as possible. I hate censorship, I hate gun control, I hate having laws the are "for the public good" that aren't. The Supreme Court's property decision is a travesty. That I can't buy beer in my state on a Sunday and take it back to my home is absurd.
...and it's an American's right to opt in or out of health insurance just like if they want to own a car, a gun, or a copy of The Lord of the Rings. It's all about choices.

As far as poor people are concerned who have no basic coverage, check out Access to healthcare on page 2 of the above link, especially where it talks about people whose lives are at risk because of no insurance.

In Canada, your aunt would have 100% coverage, zero deductible, and free prescription medicine (at age 65).

Right. And that's great, and I'm happy it works for Canada. But the system would still collape with 295 million instead of 30 million people.

Nothing in there tells me that my tax dollars go to supporting the sealing industry. If anything, the sealers will end up paying taxes for their business, and the consumers will pay taxes on their purchases. Also, by culling the seals, the fisheries are more abundant, adding more tax dollars to the government coffers. Also the sealers and fishermen will remain gainfully employed and they will not collect unemployment cheques for that reason.

The Canadian Gov't PAID a bounty for seal meat. What more do you need??? :confused:

Well then I was right sonny boy!! :eek:

it takes a lot to stifle me. :)

Fair enough then.

What does that even mean? CEOs can be “discouraged” about their job if they don’t like what they are doing. “Underemployed” is also subjective, since some people actually like working in a job that others might consider below their education. You also realize that part-timers includes high school kids working as bus boys, right? Frankly, we should rely on actual unemployment, which is the percentage of people who claim to be seeking employment and can not obtain it. That is much more concrete.

Here here Undelia. Here here.

Well if it is "just plain dumb", then take it up with your government? I didn't create this stuff.

Leave it to the Government to screw something up. Hence why I trust the 5.1% number more than the augmented one since the augmented one actually has PEOPLE WORKING!!

Ummm I guess they figure that part timers who only work a few hours a week are not "fully" employed?

Are you telling me I"m not fairly employed CanuckHeaven? I'll let you in on a little secret. I got a promotion this past semester and I'm still working less than 40hrs a week. Why? Because its a college job. I know I am fairly employed. I am also not discouraged in my job either. I have fun at my place of work.

BTW, this ONLY applies to the "Augmented Unemployment Rate". In the employment statistics, part timers are classed as being employed.

Which is why I'm tossing out the Augmented Unemployment Rate because it does take in Part-timers and those that are actually working. :rolleyes:

And yet you are asking me what econ class I took? :eek:

You love that eek face don't you? Yes I can see that you do :eek:

It's not so much the supply of educated people, it's what they are educated in. During the late 90's we had a massive overexpansion in IT, with hundreds of thousands of people employed in what was really a speculative bubble. The recession hit, and these skills fell in demand. As a result, there was oversupply and thus underemployment.

However, those who entered financial services have benefitted because they have seen steady gains as demand for their services rises, and their employment is very high.

Long term unemployment usually stems from either oversupply or lack of marketable skills.

Bravo Vetalia. Well said. Well said indeed.

I am also not discouraged in my job either. I have fun at my place of work.
Since you don't even know what the meaning of "discouraged" is in relation to the US unemployment figures, there is really not much point in discussing those figures with you, or for that matter, the relevance of the "Augmented Unemployment Rate", which was designed to give a "true" picture of the unemployment in the US.

If the 5.1 figure gives you a warm fuzzy feeling than by all means you are welcome to remain rooted in your own fantasy land. However, such an attitude will not be able to boost your lack of credibility on this topic. :eek:

Since you don't even know what the meaning of "discouraged" is in relation to the US unemployment figures, there is really not much point in discussing those figures with you, or for that matter, the relevance of the "Augmented Unemployment Rate", which was designed to give a "true" picture of the unemployment in the US.

Hell of a run-on. Yes I know what it means but apparently sarcasm was lost on you without the little sarcasm tags. Alwell.

If the 5.1 figure gives you a warm fuzzy feeling than by all means you are welcome to remain rooted in your own fantasy land. However, such an attitude will not be able to boost your lack of credibility on this topic. :eek:

There's that eek face again. :rolleyes: You really do love it don't you? Since I'm working and I know that I work, I don't put much faith in the AUI. It includes us part timers and part-timers are actually working :rolleyes: Again, leave it to the government to screw something up.

Eurozone those with the Euro between 8.8 to 9.0% unemployment
United States of America as a whole 5.1% unemployment.

Except that your first statement said "all over europe" not "those countries with the Euro". Can you provide the facts for "all over europe"? If not, your statement is still unproved and most likely incorrect, since the countries you have chosen to leave out are those with the lowest rates of unemployment.

Except that your first statement said "all over europe" not "those countries with the Euro". Can you provide the facts for "all over europe"? If not, your statement is still unproved and most likely incorrect, since the countries you have chosen to leave out are those with the lowest rates of unemployment.
Maybe the following will help you out:

EU unemployment stable at 8.9%: Ireland lowest at 4.2% (http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10002042.shtml)

Eurostat compiles "harmonised" unemployment rates for Member States. These unemployment rates are based on definitions recommended by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). "Harmonised" means that the national micro data concerning the individuals and households are treated by Eurostat in the same fashion throughout the EU so as to allow comparability between the Member States.

The Eurostat definition of unemployed people are those aged 15 to 74 and who, following the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition:

- are without work;

- are available to start work within the next two weeks;

- and have actively sought employment at some time during the previous four weeks.

The unemployment rate is the number of people unemployed as a percentage of the labour force. The labour force is the total number of people employed and unemployed.

The numbers of unemployed and the monthly unemployment rate are estimates based on results of the European Union Labour Force Survey which is a household survey carried out in all countries on the basis of agreed definitions. These results are interpolated/ extrapolated to monthly data using national survey data and national monthly series on registered unemployment.

It is important to note that the "true" US unemployment rate is not 5.1%, and that European unemployment figures embrace those between 15 and 74.

Except that your first statement said "all over europe" not "those countries with the Euro". Can you provide the facts for "all over europe"? If not, your statement is still unproved and most likely incorrect, since the countries you have chosen to leave out are those with the lowest rates of unemployment.

I already know that Kradlumania. I was talking about the Eurozone.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion.
The only difference being that unless you're an American, it doesn't matter. :D

Before that generates 42 pieces of flame: Our President does not need foreign approval. You're free to dislike him (or her, should that come to pass). But the point is, we elected someone in our own best interest, as we do in every election. If they're your kind of guy or not is not the point.






BRAVO!

What, much like reknowned American Industrialist and overall unimportant cog in the wheel of the emergent Consumerite society of the 20th century, Henry Ford, who once stated that his customers could have any colour car they wanted, provided it was black?

Nahh...

I relish other people's opinions. I'm just widely known for taking the piss out of some of the more mealy-mouthed Bush apologists that resolutely refuse to budge the bridge of their noses out of Dick Cheney's personal catbox.

But enough about me.

Funny. YOU call them apologists. I doubt they see themselves as such.

He invented the charcoal briquette too.


And the selfish bastard didn't offer THOSE in any other color either.

Funny. YOU call them apologists. I doubt they see themselves as such.

Nothing funny about their propensity for perpetually giving that vile, crass little provincial an endless 'benefit of the doubt'. There's certainly an element of tragedy to it all, but humour? Not since the year 2000.

And you're right, they don't see themselves as such. Instead they make a big public noise about being 'centrist', and then go right back to being reactionary, right-wing pigfuckers. Like anyone is being fooled by throwing the word 'centrist' around occasionally.

Nothing funny about their propensity for perpetually giving that vile, crass little provincial an endless 'benefit of the doubt'. There's certainly an element of tragedy to it all, but humour? Not since the year 2000.

And you're right, they don't see themselves as such. Instead they make a big public noise about being 'centrist', and then go right back to being reactionary, right-wing pigfuckers. Like anyone is being fooled by throwing the word 'centrist' around occasionally.

Nice to see a well reasoned, neutral and non-crass opinion. :rolleyes:

Maybe the following will help you out:

EU unemployment stable at 8.9%: Ireland lowest at 4.2% (http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10002042.shtml)


Still doesn't change the fact that the EU is not Europe.

Still doesn't change the fact that the EU is not Europe.

Well, it's European, anyway. Splitting hairs, aren't you?

Well, it's European, anyway. Splitting hairs, aren't you?

Yes, very important hairs. It's like taking statistics about North America and leaving out Canada. Maybe the American public should learn to split more hairs.

Yes, very important hairs. It's like taking statistics about North America and leaving out Canada. Maybe the American public should learn to split more hairs.

I agree with you 100% on this cord!

Nice to see a well reasoned, neutral and non-crass opinion. :rolleyes:
Dobbsworld? "Reasoned?" "Neutral?" "Non-crass??" Aahahahahahahahahahahaha! As IF! :D

[ Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. ]

Dobbsworld? "Reasoned?" "Neutral?" "Non-crass??" Aahahahahahahahahahahaha! As IF! :D

[ Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. ]

Yeah kinda like Eutrusca being "un-bloodthirsty", or "politically centrist".

A real knee-slapper, there.






*note I never bother with obnoxious smiley BS.

That's it.

*streaks thread*

Liberal Unhappiness

"It’s been my experience that liberals are less happy than conservatives. Remember: I was a liberal for many years, and now I’m a conservative. I’ve run with both crowds. I voted for Gerald Ford in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992. Why might liberals be less happy? Why are they so bitter, so resentful, so envious, so angry?

Here’s my explanation. Conservatives are happy whether they have political power or not. Liberals are happy only when they have political power. The past few decades have not been good for liberals. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that only Democrats are liberal, then there have been no more than four liberal presidents—Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton—in the past fifty-two years. By contrast, there have been six nonliberal presidents: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Bush. In terms of years, liberals have held power for twenty, nonliberals for thirty-two.

The presidency is only one locus of power, of course, but liberals haven’t fared well in the legislative arena, either; and they certainly don’t control the United States Supreme Court. One should also keep in mind that many liberals consider Bill Clinton a traitor for endorsing workfare and other middle-of-the-road policies and for nominating moderates, rather than fire-breathing liberals, to the federal bench. Clinton was famous for stealing conservative ideas. When you add it all up, liberals have been denied the power they crave.

To return to the explanatory question I posed, why are liberals unhappy when they lack political power? Here we get to the substance of liberal and conservative beliefs. Liberals are social engineers. They have a vision of an egalitarian society in which desert and responsibility play minimal roles—and they’re determined to implement this vision. Their objective is to rebuild society in the liberal image. To do this, they need power. Conservatives are skeptical of social engineering. They believe that society evolves over time and that this is good. They are not opposed to change; they insist that change be endogenous rather than exogenous, organic rather than imposed, gradual rather than abrupt. They believe in evolution, not revolution. They are also skeptical of the power of reason to improve people’s lives. Tradition, they say, is the embodiment of reason and the repository of collective wisdom. It should not be taken lightly, much less ignored or ridiculed.

Conservatives can be happy without power because their basic instinct—their raison d’être—is to thwart liberal projects. They can do this by mustering sizeable minorities and by exploiting the built-in conservative tendencies of constitutional government. To the liberal mind, this is obstructionism. The conservative would agree, but insist that obstruction of hare-brained schemes is a good thing, not a bad thing. When you put it all together, you find frustrated and unhappy liberals and contented conservatives.

P.S.: If you reject my premise that liberals are less happy than conservatives, then there will be nothing—in your view—to be explained; so please don’t write to me challenging the premise. I said that in my experience, which is wide and deep, liberals are less happy than conservatives. That’s my datum, my given, my starting point. This post is an attempt to explain why liberals are less happy." - Keith Burgess-Jackson - 8/2004


When I read that blog, it made sense to me even though I have no microscope into the minds of liberals at large. I can't say I agree with Keith's reasons for WHY liberals seem so unhappy because I simply don't have a provable answer. But while I cannot say WHY, I am forced to agree with his conclusion because the posts I read here from people whom I've concluded are liberals are usually very venomous, spiteful and full of hateful anger. They seem to be a very disgruntled lot.

When I read that blog, it made sense to me even though I have no microscope into the minds of liberals at large. I can't say I agree with Keith's reasons for WHY liberals seem so unhappy because I simply don't have a provable answer. But while I cannot say WHY, I am forced to agree with his conclusion because the posts I read here from people whom I've concluded are liberals are usually very venomous, spiteful and full of hateful anger. They seem to be a very disgruntled lot.
You may have to go back a ways in history to understand why liberals are "full of hateful anger," which is quite ironic to say the least. It's been my experience with conservatives that they are constantly attacking then when they come under attack they play the victim card while counterattacking. Just look at the Dean v Republican statements. All throughout American history, starting before the Civil War, liberals had had to work incredibly hard to impose their ideals on society, which in hindsight we now virtually fully accept. Such as Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights Act, Social Security, 13th, 14th amendments, equal rights and women's suffrage can be attributed to liberal action but each has come with a price and I think liberals are getting fed up with long fights against conservatives that in 20 years, we'd look back and say "who the hell would be screwed up enough to oppose gay marriage?"

It's true liberals tend to be more pessimistic, but that carries a deeply negative connotation (much in the same way republicans threw dirt all over the word "liberal") and in ways it's good. Liberals will be the ones to save us from the peak oil crisis that we will soon face. Liberals will be the ones to curb overpopulation and save the world for all of us. That logic that liberals are venemous is totally untrue. Of course there are exceptions, just like some conservatives may be caring and somewhat compassionate, but you never see liberals as venemous as Bill O Rielly or Ann Coulter, who is virtually pure evil.

You may have to go back a ways in history to understand why liberals are "full of hateful anger," which is quite ironic to say the least. It's been my experience with conservatives that they are constantly attacking then when they come under attack they play the victim card while counterattacking. Just look at the Dean v Republican statements. All throughout American history, starting before the Civil War, liberals had had to work incredibly hard to impose their ideals on society, which in hindsight we now virtually fully accept. Such as Brown v. Board of Education, Civil Rights Act, Social Security, 13th, 14th amendments, equal rights and women's suffrage can be attributed to liberal action but each has come with a price and I think liberals are getting fed up with long fights against conservatives that in 20 years, we'd look back and say "who the hell would be screwed up enough to oppose gay marriage?"

It's true liberals tend to be more pessimistic, but that carries a deeply negative connotation (much in the same way republicans threw dirt all over the word "liberal") and in ways it's good. Liberals will be the ones to save us from the peak oil crisis that we will soon face. Liberals will be the ones to curb overpopulation and save the world for all of us. That logic that liberals are venemous is totally untrue. Of course there are exceptions, just like some conservatives may be caring and somewhat compassionate, but you never see liberals as venemous as Bill O Rielly or Ann Coulter, who is virtually pure evil.

First - Liberals have done many wonderful things in this country and have brought about much needed change in a lot of areas. That being said, I still don't understand the anger many show when someone disagrees with them.

There are exceptions to every rule. And yes, Ann Coulter and some other conservatives do tend to be vindictive and spiteful in their debates. But overall, most of the hate I see in debates does not come from the conservative corner. Both sides get angry - this is true. But liberals seem to be more angry, more often.

Liberals frequently resort to name calling and I often wonder if it might be because they have run out of defenses for their point of view. I don't know why liberals do this and my own hypothesis is certainly open to scrutiny. The old "Hitler" label - or in your case - calling someone "evil". I see Ann Coulter as extreme, but I do not think of her as evil.

Myself, I never call my opponent a name out of exasperation or rage because it is often seen (at least to me) as a concession of sorts. Also, I can't bring myself to dislike the person I am arguing with enough to lose my temper and label them by some monniker in a vain hope of grouping them into some category of misanthropy of my own design that might help me feel better about my personal beliefs while under their attack.

The spite you see in a small number of conservatives seems to be present in a majority of liberals. I don't say all liberals are venemous in their arguments - but looking at the threads here, an awful lot of them are. Do a comparison and you'll see that far fewer conservative leaning people react as spitefully when their beliefs are challenged.

"politically centrist".

Doing my best Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

2) Regardless of your assertations that US-style democracy is not the only way, that is what is going to be spread by your government. Not Chilean-style, not Canadian-style, not Australian-style...and many nations are rightfully tired and wary of US intervention, and right or not, will violently oppose the aggressive imposition of this style of government.

excellent someone mentioned Australia! the link some posted did't mention Australia at all :(. though its probabli close to great britians

Which, as they say in England, is poppycock.

or bladerdash.

Here's a simple axiom I like to remember.

What's popular isn't always what's right.

K. Done and done. The US does what it has to, like every other nation alive. The US is just maligned because it is actually strong enough to do what it has to.

Doing my best Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

No, Markreich. It means precisely what I know it to mean.

Still doesn't change the fact that the EU is not Europe.
I understand that and was actually trying to help you out. It appears that my good friend Corneliu is somewhat confused with his overly enthusiastic defense of the American economy.

Considering that the European Union includes ages 15 to 74 in their stats, makes the realitively low unemployment level even more impressive in comparison with the US level which is based on a retirement age of 65.

As I stated before, the true US unemployment level is in the 8 to 9% range.

eutrusca.... for some reason i always feel like i am on the opposing side of every argument you make on the message boards. but today is a good day i guess, becuase honestly...

In America's eyes, America comes first. We do not, should not, and shall not make decisions based on how other nations 'feel' about them. Our self interest is most important to us. IT really doesnt matter if the other nations don't like us, because they fear us, and they envy our power and global influence. The UN is vitually useless, and if we must take issues into our own hands (ie:iraq war) then we must.

The only way to reach a goal is by the ends justifying the means, otherwise you are led blindly on an uncharted path into the unknown.
-poetic twist of niccolo machiavelli

First - Liberals have done many wonderful things in this country and have brought about much needed change in a lot of areas. That being said, I still don't understand the anger many show when someone disagrees with them.

There are exceptions to every rule. And yes, Ann Coulter and some other conservatives do tend to be vindictive and spiteful in their debates. But overall, most of the hate I see in debates does not come from the conservative corner. Both sides get angry - this is true. But liberals seem to be more angry, more often.

Liberals frequently resort to name calling and I often wonder if it might be because they have run out of defenses for their point of view. I don't know why liberals do this and my own hypothesis is certainly open to scrutiny. The old "Hitler" label - or in your case - calling someone "evil". I see Ann Coulter as extreme, but I do not think of her as evil.

Myself, I never call my opponent a name out of exasperation or rage because it is often seen (at least to me) as a concession of sorts. Also, I can't bring myself to dislike the person I am arguing with enough to lose my temper and label them by some monniker in a vain hope of grouping them into some category of misanthropy of my own design that might help me feel better about my personal beliefs while under their attack.

The spite you see in a small number of conservatives seems to be present in a majority of liberals. I don't say all liberals are venemous in their arguments - but looking at the threads here, an awful lot of them are. Do a comparison and you'll see that far fewer conservative leaning people react as spitefully when their beliefs are challenged.
A very interesting view of liberals that you have here, but I do not believe that you have read the threads thoroughly enough or you wouldn't have arrived at the conclusions that you have posted.

Some of the most vitrolic exchanges have centered around the War in Iraq. It appears that it is the conservatives that seek revenge, that rationalize and justify the killing of innocent civilians or colateral damage, as the conservatives like to call it.

It is the conservatives on here who have talked about nuking the whole Middle East, and denying people basic human rights. It is the conservatives who want to "liberate" the Iraqis by imposing democracy on them. I thought conservatives prefered slow change?

And if it hadn't been for liberals, there wouldn't have been a "revolution", or a US of A, which runs counter to the words offered in the blog article...."They believe in evolution, not revolution."

And you can damn well bet, that there would be a lot more anger from the conservatives on here IF the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency. And if you had of been on NS during the run up to the Presidential election, you would have seen tons of mudslinging from both sides.

Just one look at your President and the world does not see the "compassionate conservative image" that he wants to portray. While he may want to perserve some conservative traditions at home, he is very liberal in dishing out death and destruction abroad.

Some of the most vitrolic exchanges have centered around the War in Iraq. It appears that it is the conservatives that seek revenge, that rationalize and justify the killing of innocent civilians or colateral damage, as the conservatives like to call it.

It is the conservatives on here who have talked about nuking the whole Middle East, and denying people basic human rights. It is the conservatives who want to "liberate" the Iraqis by imposing democracy on them. I thought conservatives prefered slow change?

And you can damn well bet, that there would be a lot more anger from the conservatives on here IF the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency. And if you had of been on NS during the run up to the Presidential election, you would have seen tons of mudslinging from both sides.

Just one look at your President and the world does not see the "compassionate conservative image" that he wants to portray. While he may want to perserve some conservative traditions at home, he is very liberal in dishing out death and destruction abroad.


I'm not blasting liberals, and it's not just the Iraq war. When someone makes any statement supporting anything conservative (I'm not talking about bashing gays or any negative statement to some liberally sacred notion), liberals will start bashing that person with angry spite - calling him names, calling him stupid, saying they hope he loses his job or the like. They get personal and ugly. You might see one, maybe two conservative posters do something like that to a liberal poster. I regularly see more than a dozen liberals bash a conservative thusly.

And when Clinton was president, you didn't see such jealous hatred from the conservative camp. They might have made a few remarks about Bill Clinton's indescretions, but they didn't call their liberal debating adversaries names or wish them personal ill will.

I am seeing a lot of liberal people losing control of themselves and making discussions personal. The scales are tipped one way when it comes to the political leanings of the people promulgating these personal abuses. It isn't just one issue.

I see a lot of emotional depression and hate. The most uplifting posts by liberals are cynical criticisms of conservatives - otherwise none of them seem 'happy' to me (in the political discussions of the general forum).

That's it.

*streaks thread*

:cool:

That was the best post I've seen here in a long time! ;)

And when Clinton was president, you didn't see such jealous hatred from the conservative camp. They might have made a few remarks about Bill Clinton's indescretions, but they didn't call their liberal debating adversaries names or wish them personal ill will.

Sooooo...trying to get him impeached was just what... a college prank, then?

I'll tell you, if that crapola had happened here in Canada, the Dems would have won the last two elections, and the GOP would still be in the political hinterlands, vying desperately for a comeback.

Sooooo...trying to get him impeached was just what... a college prank, then?

Nope, it wasn't a college prank. It was something that needed to be done and was done. To bad he wasn't convicted but that's in the past. He did comment high crimes and midemenors. Again though that is in the past.

I'll tell you, if that crapola had happened here in Canada, the Dems would have won the last two elections, and the GOP would still be in the political hinterlands, vying desperately for a comeback.

Thank God we're not in Canada then because this country would be royally screwed if we were.

Sooooo...trying to get him impeached was just what... a college prank, then?

I'll tell you, if that crapola had happened here in Canada, the Dems would have won the last two elections, and the GOP would still be in the political hinterlands, vying desperately for a comeback.

Congress tried to impeach him. Professional politicians. Not regular Joes. I'm not talking about politicians in my observations. I'm talking about every day people like you and me.

I'm not blasting liberals, and it's not just the Iraq war. When someone makes any statement supporting anything conservative (I'm not talking about bashing gays or any negative statement to some liberally sacred notion), liberals will start bashing that person with angry spite - calling him names, calling him stupid, saying they hope he loses his job or the like. They get personal and ugly. You might see one, maybe two conservative posters do something like that to a liberal poster. I regularly see more than a dozen liberals bash a conservative thusly.

And when Clinton was president, you didn't see such jealous hatred from the conservative camp. They might have made a few remarks about Bill Clinton's indescretions, but they didn't call their liberal debating adversaries names or wish them personal ill will.

I am seeing a lot of liberal people losing control of themselves and making discussions personal. The scales are tipped one way when it comes to the political leanings of the people promulgating these personal abuses. It isn't just one issue.

I see a lot of emotional depression and hate. The most uplifting posts by liberals are cynical criticisms of conservatives - otherwise none of them seem 'happy' to me (in the political discussions of the general forum).
Well, I really don't know whether you are new here or not with your 20 posts, but I think you need to get a new scorecard?

It appears that the least tolerant posters are the conservatives especially when it comes to wars, religion, politics, human rights, and money.

As far as your comment that "the most uplifting posts by liberals are cynical criticisms of conservatives", is quite cynical in itself. The most uplifting posts by liberals is where they do celebrate life and the victorys along the way.

BTW, while you are re-checking that scorecard, perhaps you might want to check out how many "celebration of life" threads are started by conservatives.

It appears that the least tolerant posters are the conservatives especially when it comes to wars, religion, politics, human rights, and money.


:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

eloquence, dead by the hand of emoticon. alas.

eloquence, dead by the hand of emoticon. alas.

It was all the commentary required. I really, really am tired of both sides of the spectrum pointing at the other and acting like two five year old brothers.

I am tired of...no, make that 'troubled by' of the non-discussion of emoticon response.

:(

Bo-ring.

Well, I really don't know whether you are new here or not with your 20 posts, but I think you need to get a new scorecard?

It appears that the least tolerant posters are the conservatives especially when it comes to wars, religion, politics, human rights, and money.

As far as your comment that "the most uplifting posts by liberals are cynical criticisms of conservatives", is quite cynical in itself. The most uplifting posts by liberals is where they do celebrate life and the victorys along the way.

BTW, while you are re-checking that scorecard, perhaps you might want to check out how many "celebration of life" threads are started by conservatives.


But you don't see name calling from the conservatives is my point. When a liberal posts an entry celebrating some victory in the legal process, I usually see a lot of liberals piping in and saying bravo and a small number of conservatives voicing their discontent with that victory. Those conservatives who do respond are called idiots, vulgar expletives etc by some of those liberals. By the same token, when a conservative posts some text about a conservative or Bush backing notion, he is quickly blasted by the liberals with gross exaggerations to counter his argument as well as the ubiquitous name calling. I'm not saying conservatives here don't do the same thing - but they seem to do it in far smaller numbers than their liberal adversaries. They don't appear as obtuse and upset in their responses.

I've been a forum member longer than anyone I've yet seen in these debates even though I rarely actually post something. So I've been on here long enough to have observed a lot of threads on which to base my conclusions. My conclusions are not facts and you are certainly welcome to dispute them, but in my defense, I have made these conclusions only after examining a LOT of evidence over more time than everyone here in this particular thread, looking at the 'member since' dates.

Now whether you accept that I have actually been reading posts over the last two years based on my own small post count is your business, of course.

It was all the commentary required. I really, really am tired of both sides of the spectrum pointing at the other and acting like two five year old brothers.


I agree, but I've sadly grown accustomed to it.

But you don't see name calling from the conservatives is my point.

And Nerion? You know, not to rain on your parade, but we kinda get the point. You've repeated yourself at least three times already, but I won't shoot the messenger, or burn the message.

Just FYI, in a friendly fashion: No-one is an especially big fan of hearing the same thing over and over again, constructive though it may be. Why not try speaking out on other topics of conversation, you know - for variety's sake?

Thanks in advance,

a horrible northern sodomite (me!)

I am tired of...no, make that 'troubled by' of the non-discussion of emoticon response.

:(

Bo-ring.

:cool:

And Nerion? You know, not to rain on your parade, but we kinda get the point. You've repeated yourself at least three times already, but I won't shoot the messenger, or burn the message.

Just FYI, in a friendly fashion: No-one is an especially big fan of hearing the same thing over and over again, constructive though it may be. Why not try speaking out on other topics of conversation, you know - for variety's sake?

Thanks in advance,

a horrible northern sodomite (me!)


Yeah, I hear you. Just trying to get the last word in when people argue with me (a character flaw, I'll admit). And I got impassioned about this subject so I got on my soap box and went ape $%it. Sorry about the lack of variety, but I'm real selective about what I'll argue about. :D