NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi there. I was watching CNN and they and other news stations often give statistics for the presidents approval rating. Taking my second statistics class in college, I got curious if I gave a poll would the numbers be significantly different than the news stations. So this is an independent poll, call it a little southern boys curiosity lol. So lets vote!

A Bush-rating poll on a predominantly anti-Bush forum. I'll give him a 10/10 so nobody can keep the average rating at the bottom of the spectrum :D

A Bush-rating poll on a predominantly anti-Bush forum. I'll give him a 10/10 so nobody can keep the average rating at the bottom of the spectrum :D

Hey you live in bama too?
What do you think of Bob Riley?
How is it going?

I'll give him a 0.5/10 because I liked one thing he did - the do not call list

Hey you live in bama too?
What do you think of Bob Riley?
How is it going?



Hmm, there was one issue I disagreed with him on but that was a while back and I can't even remember what it was lol. Other than that, he takes my stance on most issues.

Can I give a negative?

Otherwise, it's a 0.

Hi there. I was watching CNN and they and other news stations often give statistics for the presidents approval rating. Taking my second statistics class in college, I got curious if I gave a poll would the numbers be significantly different than the news stations. So this is an independent poll, call it a little southern boys curiosity lol. So lets vote!
And if you are in your stats class you will know the problem fitting a curve to a non randomized survey (assuming you make it over the large requirements) :)

I'll give him a 0.5/10 because I liked one thing he did - the do not call list
Yeah that thing is fucking great ... I can sit through a meal now

Your poll is flawed as there are many people from other countries(that is if you were planning for the American vote).

Don't like him.

i only credit him for Afghanistan and the do-not- call list.

Can spam act! Bastard!

I also don't like his efforts to undermine the establishment clause and to hamstring science.

Ouch. 70% disapproval.

Ouch. 70% disapproval.



It should be much worse. I guess most of the libbies are asleep :D

Ouch. 70% disapproval.
But we have to break 40 total votes MINIMUM to get into “large survey” territory

But we have to break 40 total votes MINIMUM to get into “large survey” territory
It's also 1:06 AM in the morning.

It's also 1:06 AM in the morning.
Well 12:06 here but for it to even start to be able to be fit to a curve with any sort of confidence lvl we need a bit more time (besides there is more then just the united states posting here lol)

libbies

That company went out of business a long time ago.

Maybe it's because not too many conservatives know how to work a computer. :D

That company went out of business a long time ago.

Maybe it's because not too many conservatives know how to work a computer. :D



Hmmph :mad:

That company went out of business a long time ago.

Maybe it's because not too many conservatives know how to work a computer. :D
Lol thats true of my dad anyhow ... its fun to watch him type lol

If Bush manage to become President, just think what I could do! Bwhahahaha!! Oh and I disapprove of the chimp.

I just can't approve of George W. Bush, speaking as moderately as I possibly can. Why? Many reasons.

I can't say that our President is a particularly well-learned, intelligent person, which seems despairing in itself.

I can't say I fully agree with this war we are in.

It seems we don't care about finding bin Laden.

The Bush administration, guilty by association, possibly guilty directly, deliberately misinterpreted and lied about our military intelligence reports, to the world through press meetings, the United Nations directly, and the United States Congress in State of the Union addresses, an impeachable offense.

Support of higher-income bracket tax breaks. It doesn't seem necessary at all to give tax breaks to the group that needs it least.

I could keep going on nitpicking. But those are the core things that made me vote a disapproval. I don't think I'm unreasonable, liberal, or stupid for having problems with those topics.

I just can't approve of George W. Bush, speaking as moderately as I possibly can. Why? Many reasons.

I can't say that our President is a particularly well-learned, intelligent person, which seems despairing in itself.

I can't say I fully agree with this war we are in.

It seems we don't care about finding bin Laden.

The Bush administration, guilty by association, possibly guilty directly, deliberately misinterpreted and lied about our military intelligence reports, to the world through press meetings, the United Nations directly, and the United States Congress in State of the Union addresses, an impeachable offense.

Support of higher-income bracket tax breaks. It doesn't seem necessary at all to give tax breaks to the group that needs it least.

I could keep going on nitpicking. But those are the core things that made me vote a disapproval. I don't think I'm unreasonable, liberal, or stupid for having problems with those topics.



If being fed false information and stating it because you believed it to be true is lying, then aren't we all chronic liars?

http://tinypic.com/8vrlvd.jpg

http://tinypic.com/8vrlvd.jpg



Yet the man has a black secretary of state ;)

I just can't approve of George W. Bush, speaking as moderately as I possibly can. Why? Many reasons.

I can't say that our President is a particularly well-learned, intelligent person, which seems despairing in itself.

I can't say I fully agree with this war we are in.

It seems we don't care about finding bin Laden.

The Bush administration, guilty by association, possibly guilty directly, deliberately misinterpreted and lied about our military intelligence reports, to the world through press meetings, the United Nations directly, and the United States Congress in State of the Union addresses, an impeachable offense.

Support of higher-income bracket tax breaks. It doesn't seem necessary at all to give tax breaks to the group that needs it least.

I could keep going on nitpicking. But those are the core things that made me vote a disapproval. I don't think I'm unreasonable, liberal, or stupid for having problems with those topics.

YOU STUPID LIBERAL TERRORIST LOVING HIPPIE!!! WE SHOULD CHARGE YOU WITH TREASON!!!11

JESUS AND RONALD REAGAN VOTED FOR BUSH AND SO SHOULD YOU, FOR EMPEROR!!!!111

LIBRAILS :gundge:

*snickers*

I'm positive I'm not parroting what some might call "liberal lies". I watched his State of the Union addresses. And I heard, for myself, "significant quantities of depleted uranium in Niger(ia?)."

Just to let you know, misleading Congress directly is impeachable.

YOU STUPID LIBERAL TERRORIST LOVING HIPPIE!!! WE SHOULD CHARGE YOU WITH TREASON!!!11

JESUS AND RONALD REAGAN VOTED FOR BUSH AND SO SHOULD YOU, FOR EMPEROR!!!!111

LIBRAILS

I thought this was amusing. The Admins would not find it very funny though. Keep jokes on a nonpersonal level. Thanks.

I thought this was amusing. The Admins would not find it very funny though. Keep jokes on a nonpersonal level. Thanks.

*turns on the applause sign*

You can laugh now. :)

I'm positive I'm not parroting what some might call "liberal lies". I watched his State of the Union addresses. And I heard, for myself, "significant quantities of depleted uranium in Niger(ia?)."

Just to let you know, misleading Congress directly is impeachable.




Deception is an intentional act. He truly believed his information was correct, therefore it was not intentional.

That would be left for the courts to decide. But since no one even wants to point out this problem in the courts, nothing will happen.

I think the do not call list alone should get him a 7. It is a godsend. Maybe George Bush is God.

I think the do not call list alone should get him a 7. It is a godsend. Maybe George Bush is God.



But God is omniscient :(

Yet the man has a black secretary of state ;)
What's that got to do with being a religious zealot?

But God is omniscient :(

You got yourself a mighty point there. Maybe he is just leading us on, and then someday someone will walk in as he is reading Hop on Pop without anyone helping him. Then what would you think?

What's that got to do with being a religious zealot?



The burning cross is generally a KKK reference, so that has everything to do with it. I, who many would refer to as a religious zealot (zealot isn't exactly the most accurate term for a Christian fundamentalist though, as the zealots were a Judaic sect lol), take offense at being compared to a klansman :mad:

You got yourself a mighty point there. Maybe he is just leading us on, and then someday someone will walk in as he is reading Hop on Pop without anyone helping him. Then what would you think?



I failed to consider that God, being an eternal being, cannot die....and the wicked pretzel failed to slay our brave leader....perhaps....just perhaps...... :eek: ..... :D

I failed to consider that God, being an eternal being, cannot die....and the wicked pretzel failed to slay our brave leader....perhaps....just perhaps...... :eek: ..... :D
Everyone knows that the pretzel was satan in sourdough form.

The burning cross is generally a KKK reference, so that has everything to do with it. I, who many would refer to as a religious zealot (zealot isn't exactly the most accurate term for a Christian fundamentalist though, as the zealots were a Judaic sect lol), take offense at being compared to a klansman :mad:
You are ascribing meaning to the pic which I did not even intend (besides the fact that I didn't create the image). There was no KKK reference meant - simply that bush is a religious zealot. ;)

I wasn't aware the KKK had copyrighted burning crucifixes...:rolleyes:

If you choose to take somehow take personal offense at Bush being portrayed as a religious nutjob, feel free to do so. :D

Everyone knows that the pretzel was satan in sourdough form.
Don't you read Genesis? "And Satan shall have power over the salted sourdough, and bring down mighty nations."

A Bush-rating poll on a predominantly anti-Bush forum.

I dont understand this, it seems like 70% of the people I know and have ever met are anti-Bush (including myself)....I would like to know how he got reelected.

Don't you read Genesis? "And Satan shall have power over the salted sourdough, and bring down mighty nations."
I didn't know you were religous Maud, I thought I was the only mormon here. Maybe someone can give GW a lifetime supply of sourdough, and cure our country.

I'm not American so probably not entitled to vote but George Bush scares me.

Best thing he's done: Made sure that Australia isn't the only country to have a thoroughly embarrassing leader.

Worst thing: Where do I start?? War; restricting or attempting to restrict existing civil liberties (i.e. abortion, turning off life support, government/police rights to monitor and detain); influencing the Australian government to attempt to restrict existing civil liberties (because Little Johnnie has to keep up with his friends); generally saying lots of dumb things...

As for how he got elected, I work with American citizens residing in Australia and they don't like him but seem to think he was the lesser of two evils. I'm even more scared!

I didn't know you were religous Maud, I thought I was the only mormon here. Maybe someone can give GW a lifetime supply of sourdough, and cure our country.
You dumbass, you cant go around telling people I am mormon. I was trying to be a respected member of the NS community. Now what am I supposed to do?

Yet the man has a black secretary of state ;)
Why does he have one, though? Surely you don't believe he actually gives a damn about the African-American community?

Well...I certainly can't say I approve.

More than anything else, it's Iraq, and his constant roll-backs on environmental protections that piss me off.

I'm no tree-hugging hippy, but damnit, whenever I hear about a piece of environmental legislation and Bush in the same sentence, it's either because Bush shot down legislation that improves envirionmental protections, or he passed a bill that reduces existing environmental ...pisses me right the fuck off.

Iraq is trickier, but personally I feel the war was initiated too soon. It's not like we didn't have a military presence in the area, and world opinion was solidly committed to continuing to breathing down Saddam's neck.

If we had made SURE that Afghanistan was on it's feet, made SURE that we had the overwhelming military presence to eliminate all but the meager scraps of Al-Qaeida and Taliban in the country, and made SURE that democracy was being proven as a sound political system in that country BEFORE attacking Iraq, then we would have had a great example for the rest of the Islamic world to show that we had the right ideas for improving their own nations.

It might have taken ten years, or even twenty, but democracy might well have spread on it's own in other Arab nations without additional U.S. military interference had they been given one shining example of how democracy could work in their culture, instead of two slipshod examples.

[/RANT]

a couple of things;
As I am not American I should probably be very careful commenting on this thread. Well, anyway, would someone be kind enough to explain to me what this do not call list is about?
Also, about mrs. Rice, if the next president necessarily has to be republican maybe she ought to do it. I mean, how a woman, who's African-American manages to become secretary of state at a time when a ... like George W. is president is beyond my understanding. She just must be very talented. :confused:

a couple of things;
As I am not American I should probably be very careful commenting on this thread. Well, anyway, would someone be kind enough to explain to me what this do not call list is about?
Also, about mrs. Rice, if the next president necessarily has to be republican maybe she ought to do it. I mean, how a woman, who's African-American manages to become secretary of state at a time when a ... like George W. is president is beyond my understanding. She just must be very talented. :confused:
Well, you see, Fachistos, what I think is, you see, Bush is a political puppet. The Republican party decided they wanted to look real, real, tolerant. So, they said, "Dude, make Omarosa your Secretary of State!" but Bush didn't understand the Apprentice reference, so they had to try to explain it to him without using any big words over and over again until he finally understood it. And that is how Condoleeza Rice became Secretary of State.

Well, you see, Fachistos, what I think is, you see, Bush is a political puppet. The Republican party decided they wanted to look real, real, tolerant. So, they said, "Dude, make Omarosa your Secretary of State!" but Bush didn't understand the Apprentice reference, so they had to try to explain it to him without using any big words over and over again until he finally understood it. And that is how Condoleeza Rice became Secretary of State.

uh, right...something like that must've happened. :rolleyes:

I dont understand this, it seems like 70% of the people I know and have ever met are anti-Bush (including myself)....I would like to know how he got reelected.

Where do you live?

Anyway, I disapprove of President Bush, yet I think he’s better than Kerry.

I don’t believe he knew Saddam didn’t have the weapons, the military has found documents and other evidence the Saddam planned to make people believe he had WMDs as long as possible, until his bribes could get sanctions lifted and he could get real WMDs.

I think he sincerely believed the tax cuts were good for America, whether they were or not is debatable. Anyway, it was not a diabolical right wing conspiracy.

Afghanistan was well done, but we don’t have the manpower there to accomplish what we need done.

Iraq was carried out completely the wrong way. The Iraqis that surrendered should have been shot or captured, not allowed to go home. We should have taken the old fashioned route of installing a new dictator friendly to the US and then gotten out of there.

The President is far too concerned with social policies, something the government should have no part of.

He spends way to much money, especially on things that the feds shouldn’t be involved in, like education.

He has ignored pleas to militarize the boarders.

uh, right...something like that must've happened. :rolleyes:
Yes, it must've, simply because I said so. :p

Yes, it must've, simply because I said so. :p

I read it on the Internet. Therefore, it must be true. ;)

And if you are in your stats class you will know the problem fitting a curve to a non randomized survey (assuming you make it over the large requirements) :)

What your referring too is the error. That's why the poll is open for 30 days is to get as many voters as possible. I will still have to do correction formulas for the results. I'll use a program called mintab. It makes things much easier in the computation stage of the seven stages we use in my class. I Define H sub null and the alternative hypothesis. II State the level of significance. III State the statistic formula being used in the experiment. IV Decision rule stage for either accept H sub null or reject H sub null and go with the alternative hypothesis. V Computation stage. VI State to either accept or reject H sub null. VII Conclude evidence in a personal manner to the problem.

Wow, very Anti-Bush. But hey, at least I have someone with the coolness of Eutrusca around in the 'APPROVE' group.

On a 0-10 scale, I'll give Bush a 7!

Hey you live in bama too?
What do you think of Bob Riley?
How is it going?
he's being a moron while claming to have saved the world

I give him a 3/10. That's because I cautiously/mildly approve of his foreign policy, but I disagree with him on everything else.

Hmm, there was one issue I disagreed with him on but that was a while back and I can't even remember what it was lol. Other than that, he takes my stance on most issues.
This surely can't be true.
A Christian socialist system like that mentioned in the New Testament would be excellent.
I am an avid Christian socialist :D
If we didn't agree on foreign policy, economy, and enviroment, I would choose wacko liberal

Surely you disagree with Bush on many things?

I dont understand this, it seems like 70% of the people I know and have ever met are anti-Bush (including myself)....I would like to know how he got reelected.
I have only ever met one pro-Bush person, but I don't live in Amurca.

me = thread-killer

I'd give him a 7/10. If 9/11 hadn't happened he woud have been a 6/10. Anyway, I think the Iraq invasion was actually a good move because think of it:
Before the first Gulf War Iraq had the 4th most powerful army. Having such a powerful ally in the Middle East would prove to be a good anti-terrorism move if Iraq's military can be trained well enough. They can keep tabs on the Middle East while we hunt down more Taliban if they can keep their troops properly trained and outfitted. It's also a good move for democracy and whatnot.

Overall, I don't think his domestic policy is very good. If he focused more on that, he probably would have noticed his mistakes and fixed them on his second term.

I'll give him a 2.3 for lyrics, but I can't dance to him, so I say drop it and play the next record.

Anyway, he did one thing in his whole useless life that I approve of: When he was Governor, he made Spanish mandatory learning for elementary kids. Kudos.

5/10, because he isn't good or bad. I disagree with his reckless deficit spending (although the deficit has shrunk rapidly) and Iraq, but overall the other stuff is OK. I like CAFTA, and his promoting of free trade. The tax cuts I'm on the fence about, and I like his plans to cut oil priices by converting military bases to refineries. I disagree with his faith based initiatives and gay marriage ban. So he's kind of half good half bad.

Economy, decent but not great. 5/10 Not his fault, but it could have been worse.
Foreign policy: 5/10 Give it ten years and then decide

eh... I'll give him a 3/10

He hasn't managed to destroy the country....


Yet.

I'm not an American (Yet), but I'd say about 7/10. I won't go into terrible detail for everything, but suffice it to say that I agree with a fair number of his policies, and moreover I believe the ones I disagree with are generally made in good faith. To give a couple of examples of things I like and don't like;

Very strong approval of his policies on immigration (At least the ones I know of), on trade, CAFTA, and so forth. Also for not militarizing borders.
Strong approval of Iraq, although I believe it could have been handled better. (By exposing Oil-for-food corruption before attacking Iraq.) But overall I think the effects of Bush's presidency won't be seen fully for another five, ten, even twenty years.

Disapproval of various security measures in airports. I understand it's for security purposes, but taking prints and iris scans of all visitors isn't going to help very much.
Strong disapproval of plans on gay marriage and the like. But then I oppose all monotheists on the subject. (Well, all that I know of. Zoroastrianists might be totally cool with it.) Anyway, I don't like Bush's failure to seperate Church and State.

Overall though, I like. Anyone who can read into conversations will be able to see in interviews he's actually nothing like the gung-ho dumb Texan cowboy stereotype, but meh, whatcha gonna do?

This should have been a numeric poll.

I'd give him a 5 out of 10. He's done some good things and he's done some bad things. Not our best president, but definitely not our worst. Rather unremarkable on the whole.

Can I give a negative?

Otherwise, it's a 0.


I completely agree. This guy is one of the top 3 worst presidents of all time.

I completely agree. This guy is one of the top 3 worst presidents of all time.

Could be worse, he could have Jimmy Carter's spot at number 2.

GWB has done two remarkably good things. The first was to get a tax cut bill through Congress. That pulled us out of Clinton's recession. The other really good thing he did was to take the fight against terrorists to them. Now we are fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, not New York and Boston.

He's done some remarkably bad things, as well. Mostly finding ways to squander the increased revenue that the tax cut developed on things like prescription drugs and education. The federal baggage police department and the failure to allow profiling on airline flight were pretty dumb ideas, too. I suspect he will be just as remarkably bad when he nominates a pal to the Supreme Court.

All told, give him a 6/10. Not having a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the attacks in 2001 is worth quite a bit.

I'm not american but I think Bush is great. Not for any political reason, I just think he makes brilliant comedy material.

If being fed false information and stating it because you believed it to be true is lying, then aren't we all chronic liars?
Try a little harder to determine who really released what misinformation, and don't attempt a bait-and-switch here. Try educating yourself on maybe the 9/11 Commission Report, the Duelfer Report AND the Downing Street Memo AND IT'S SUPPLEMENTS before you try your argument.
*tsk*

Deception is an intentional act. He truly believed his information was correct, therefore it was not intentional.
You can't state for certain at all what he INTENDED. Just what the EVIDENCE says ... to wit, see my above post.

You got yourself a mighty point there. Maybe he is just leading us on, and then someday someone will walk in as he is reading Hop on Pop without anyone helping him. Then what would you think?
I (to interject) would think the reading would be just as challenging for him as "My Pet Goat" was.

You dumbass, you cant go around telling people I am mormon. I was trying to be a respected member of the NS community. Now what am I supposed to do?
Marry in??
(Sorry, couldn't help m'self. *Flame on!*)


:EDIT:
The above post was NOT authorized by anyone in the ruling administration of the Horizontally Challenged Citizenry of Straughn, only the work of someone recently appointed to a post for which they weren't qualified. Feel free to strike it from record or ignore. Or sack the reporters.

I read it on the Internet. Therefore, it must be true. ;)
Everything i post is false.
The above post is true.




:eek:

Overall, I think he's doing okay. He's basically given up his marriage protection thing, which is basically all I disagreed with. I agree with making abortions a state decision again.

Could be worse, he could have Jimmy Carter's spot at number 2.

Hes not beating Clinton at #1.

I strongly approve of Bush. 10/10

Overall, I think he's doing okay. He's basically given up his marriage protection thing, which is basically all I disagreed with. I agree with making abortions a state decision again.

Agreed. Let the states handle abortions! That's where that should be. Not at the federal level.

7/10 as I've stated before on Bush's approval.

I'm very happy with what he's done! We aren't dead yet! And I mean all those people in Iraq are suffering from OUR bad choices! And they say the people of the United States are corrupt!

Keep in mind I'm being sarcastic and i give him 3/10... cuz we arent dead!

Hes not beating Clinton at #1.

I strongly approve of Bush. 10/10

I approve as well. That makes 39 of us.

Fact: Bush's "Misery Index" is lower than Clinton's first term and only .8 higher than the average in Clinton's second term.

Man, I don't care what people say! Clinton was a good president! Lets just push aside some of the bad things he's done which have nothing to do with the future and safety of our country, but the good things he's done, which has kept us much safer than Bush has.

I approve, except regarding the patriot act.
"Those who trade freedom for security will find neither"
-Benjamin Franklin
9/11 might not have happened if passengers on the planes had been armed. Leave security to the people.
9.75/10

Man, I don't care what people say! Clinton was a good president! Lets just push aside some of the bad things he's done which have nothing to do with the future and safety of our country, but the good things he's done, which has kept us much safer than Bush has.

I disagree with that. Clinton did far more damage to our defensive abilitities than Bush. Clinton also errected the wall between intel agencies. Clinton did nothing after the terror bombings that took place against americans. Just how did Clinton keep us safe?

Man, I don't care what people say! Clinton was a good president! Lets just push aside some of the bad things he's done which have nothing to do with the future and safety of our country, but the good things he's done, which has kept us much safer than Bush has.

I agree that he was overall more good than bad, but:

It was the weakening of the intelligence agencies under Clinton (which weren't his fault, but a widespread response to the end of the Cold War) and the lack of followthrough on the embassy bombings/WTC that helped set the stage for 9/11 (which was planned under his term, nothing to do with GW).

Wheeee!!! I LOVE it when I can shit on Bush! Disapprove all the way!

I wish it'd let me vote more than once! I hate that son of a Bush with every fiber of my being. He's a miserable bastard, and sure as SHIT is no christian, in spite of what he SAYS.

It's easy to SAY you are a Christian, but, when your actions say something different, I'm afraid I gotta go with the actions...and Mr. Bush is no fucking Christian!

Man, I don't care what people say! Clinton was a good president! Lets just push aside some of the bad things he's done which have nothing to do with the future and safety of our country, but the good things he's done, which has kept us much safer than Bush has.
1. please name 3 indisputable ways President Clinton bettered America.
2a.How has he kept us safer?
2b.How has President Bush made America more dangerous?
(please note the quote in previous post)

I dont understand this, it seems like 70% of the people I know and have ever met are anti-Bush (including myself)....I would like to know how he got reelected.

Repeat after me...

D - I - E - B - O - L - D

In other words...he cheated.

You'll never convince me otherwise. Where's the paper trail to prove he didn't cheat?

When the President of Diebold promises "to deliver Ohio to the President" and is a major Republican Party contributor...AND is in charge of most of the voting machines in the country...and tabulating the votes...AND there is no paper trail, so that malfeasance can never be proved...AND diebold makes plenty of ATM's that provide a paper reciept...it starts to look pretty goddamn suspicious to me.

Insinuating? Hell no, I'm not insinuating ANYTHING!! I'm OUTRIGHT ACCUSING DIEBOLD OF STEALING THE ELECTION FOR BUSH!! I have zero faith in our elections process anymore, and I won't ever again, until we have a voter-verifyable paper trail.

Wheeee!!! I LOVE it when I can shit on Bush! Disapprove all the way!

I wish it'd let me vote more than once! I hate that son of a Bush with every fiber of my being. He's a miserable bastard, and sure as SHIT is no christian, in spite of what he SAYS.

It's easy to SAY you are a Christian, but, when your actions say something different, I'm afraid I gotta go with the actions...and Mr. Bush is no fucking Christian!
2 Peter 2:10b-11
Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
Listen to our holy book, Hypocrite, and stop making the rest of us look bad.

Repeat after me...

D - I - E - B - O - L - D

In other words...he cheated.

You'll never convince me otherwise. Where's the paper trail to prove he didn't cheat?


Where's the proof that he did cheat?

If you can't prove it, you can't "accuse" Bush of cheating. You can only theorize that he did. Give me proof of large scale voter fraud fully documented by the FEC and proven in Federal court against Diebold and I'll believe you. Otherwise, it is not true.

Hi there. I was watching CNN and they and other news stations often give statistics for the presidents approval rating. Taking my second statistics class in college, I got curious if I gave a poll would the numbers be significantly different than the news stations. So this is an independent poll, call it a little southern boys curiosity lol. So lets vote!

If you are taking your second statistics class, then you know there is a difference between a scientific poll and a Nation States poll. :eek:

thsi site is goin to have a lot of nerdy left wingers, therefore a pole would not be fair, it would be tainted and give people the impression that you are not a trustworthy source if you posted it somewhere. but i'll play along, im kinda conservafvtive, more so than liberal, but i'm more into what rome did and Alexander the great then pussyfooting around in the tulips with tehrest of the world, which is what america si doin now, and will continue to do, especially if we elected a liberal leader, so i give bush a 7/10 that's a C- nothing to write home to texas about for George. :headbang:

2 Peter 2:10b-11
Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
Listen to our holy book, Hypocrite, and stop making the rest of us look bad.


wow' you're holier than art hou? you swore and made yourself look like an idiot, i do believe Jesus disapprove's of that, and Jesus' main theme besides lovey dovey is divine justice, punishing evil, read revelation, he murders, and dtortures with plagues humanity, yah, you need to do your homework, the jews, who were God's FIRST Chosen people were impowered byGod to Slay aAll of Their Enemies, for you to say Bush is a bad Christian for taking out Saddazm Hussein, you're a moron. :mad: :mp5:

This is the man who prefers visual aids to reading, can't be bothered to attend NAACP conventions for 5 years in a row and counting, uses taxpayer money to finance a promotional tour for lining the pockets of Wall Street financiers by 'privatizing' Social Security, insists that a man who would trash the UN one minute become our ambassador to it the next in spite of an obvious lack of diplomacy, confuses hedonistic capitalism with the values espoused by certain religious fundamentalists and thus creates a form of Darwinian fascism beneath that cloak, and has now backed himself into a corner regarding a close advisor.

A false Dmitri!

Let him run himself into the ground. Impeachment seems almost too good for him. Leave him to Heaven. I fear a backlash against even the Christian LEFT in 2008. (We are out there.)

wow' you're holier than art hou? you swore and made yourself look like an idiot, i do believe Jesus disapprove's of that, and Jesus' main theme besides lovey dovey is divine justice, punishing evil, read revelation, he murders, and dtortures with plagues humanity, yah, you need to do your homework, the jews, who were God's FIRST Chosen people were impowered byGod to Slay aAll of Their Enemies, for you to say Bush is a bad Christian for taking out Saddazm Hussein, you're a moron. :mad: :mp5:


Revelation wasn't Jesus' words. It was written by John, who claimed to have recieved it from God. Apocalyptic writing is loaded with symbolism and imagery; to try and interpret it literally is failiure.

The Jews only killed when it was justifiable to do so. Bush isn't a Jew, first of all, so it's pointless to argue that. Secondly, if it is our moral duty to remove dictators, why didn't we do it in 91, or why did we make arms deals with him in the 80's?

Thirdly, calling people morons is flaming. Stop it.

I'll give him a 0.5/10 because I liked one thing he did - the do not call list

Yeah the do not call list was his crowning achievemnet, what was that other thing.. saddam something..

anywho id give him maye like a 2-3 out of ten, hes in my opinion really screwing up on most thing, its good saddams out but the war itself was uncalled for the economy's f****d (blame that on clinton if you want), nd his enviromental policies sound like those of a captain planet villain
i.e reduceing standards in many industries like say mercury in tuna which results in birth defects and miscarriages

So, yah i dont like him as a president.

Oh yeah not to mention the patriot act.

I approved just to try and buck the trend.

I'd like to ask this to everyone who disapproved: Did President Bush ever do anything that personally wronged you? Anyone you know closely?

I don't like everything he does. I don't like the way he's gone about the Iraq war, or his close alliance with the moral Right. However, the only way he's "worsened" my life is make airplane lines longer and slower, and that's for the long-term good.

2 Peter 2:10b-11
Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
Listen to our holy book, Hypocrite, and stop making the rest of us look bad.

So... george bush IS god?

Clinton did nothing after the terror bombings that took place against americans. Just how did Clinton keep us safe?

Well since Bush was president at that moment, it must have been hard for Bill to take over the White House. *laughing* You really are forgeting your own presidential history here.

I think he was referring to the embassy bombings
Perhaps a history lesson is in order?

I think he was referring to the embassy bombings


Perhaps, he (and you, same political side) will confirm, but admit that it was strange to read :D Have a nice day!

ACtually, verry different political side,im 100% prime grade a liberal, anywho you have a nice day too
(geez hes almost as nice as the folks at macdonalds)

Well since Bush was president at that moment, it must have been hard for Bill to take over the White House. *laughing* You really are forgeting your own presidential history here.

Do you need a history lesson? Do I have to run down all the terror incidents that have taken place under Clinton and Clinton did shit on? I sure hope not. Read history!

Do you need a history lesson? Do I have to run down all the terror incidents that have taken place under Clinton and Clinton did shit on? I sure hope not. Read history!
Remind me again...what is it exactly that Bush is effectively eliminating terrorism? How are Bush's responses to terrorism better than Clinton's? So far, they've been worse.

Remind me again...what is it exactly that Bush is effectively eliminating terrorism? How are Bush's responses to terrorism better than Clinton's? So far, they've been worse.

Bush took the war to the enemy's homeland. Sorry if that violates your moral code but if your in a war, you take it to the enemy's homeland. Clinton never bothered to do that.

Yes because since we plowed our tanks over there mosques terrorism has certainly gone down!
really now, terrorism hasnt been this high in, well, never?

Yes because since we plowed our tanks over there mosques terrorism has certainly gone down!
really now, terrorism hasnt been this high in, well, never?

And we're not even doing that. The only time a mosque has been destroyed was when the terrorists were using them to shoot at coalition forces. Thus under International Law, makes the mosque a valid target but only the mosque that the enemy is shooting out of and even then, we go to great pains as to not to totally destroy it.

Bush took the war to the enemy's homeland. Sorry if that violates your moral code but if your in a war, you take it to the enemy's homeland. Clinton never bothered to do that.
lol, maybe thats what it seems like, but in actuality, how is invading Iraq going to eliminate terrorism? There's just going to be an even bigger incentive for terrorists. We didn't take the war to them. We did in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. We went in for some reason, and now the terrorists are going there, we never went into Iraq to get terrorists. Doing nothing is better than kicking over a hornet's nest and making shit worse.

Bush took the war to the enemy's homeland. Sorry if that violates your moral code but if your in a war, you take it to the enemy's homeland. Clinton never bothered to do that.
And yet even that has not managed to kill terrorism ... just stur it up (not saying unseating sadam was a bad thing but if eliminating terrorism was the primary goal it really has not made much of a dent in it)

Bush took the war to the enemy's homeland. Sorry if that violates your moral code but if your in a war, you take it to the enemy's homeland. Clinton never bothered to do that.
*Hint*

What does one call bombing various countries?


More to the point, why didn't Bush jump at the chance to attack al queda et al (because we all know terrorists come from Iraq) once he took office?


We all know he didn't. He didn't do shit until after the attacks. But if clinton was to be expected to jump into action and kick some aye-rab ass, why wasn't Bush?

And we're not even doing that. The only time a mosque has been destroyed was when the terrorists were using them to shoot at coalition forces. Thus under International Law, makes the mosque a valid target but only the mosque that the enemy is shooting out of and even then, we go to great pains as to not to totally destroy it.

My point was that since the war terrorism has only been on the rise due to more and more people seeing the US as the enemy for invading there homeland, i dont know any statistics on mosque damage if you want a mor acurate example "since we BOMBED CIVILAN AREAS".

ACtually, verry different political side,im 100% prime grade a liberal, anywho you have a nice day too
(geez hes almost as nice as the folks at macdonalds)

Sorry about that (thinking that you were a neocon monster, like I did)
*Reading the topic* Strong debater you are !!!Continue to kick fascist or neocon ass :fluffle:

My point was that since the war terrorism has only been on the rise due to more and more people seeing the US as the enemy for invading there homeland, i dont know any statistics on mosque damage if you want a mor acurate example "since we BOMBED CIVILAN AREAS".

Wrong, if there actually was more popular support against the Americans, you would see much more then one or two car bombs a day and nobody trying out for the police and military, but they line up in droves. They might not like the Americans, but they sure as hell dont like being randomly blown up by Syrians.

YOU STUPID LIBERAL TERRORIST LOVING HIPPIE!!! WE SHOULD CHARGE YOU WITH TREASON!!!11
LOL......

JESUS AND RONALD REAGAN VOTED FOR BUSH AND SO SHOULD YOU, FOR EMPEROR!!!!111

LIBRAILS :gundge:

*snickers*
Jesus is just some non-existent figure and Ronald Reagan is a dead conservative so why should we vote for Bush.

Jesus is just some non-existent figure and Ronald Reagan is a dead conservative so why should we vote for Bush.

As a neocon liar, I must finetune and say that Reagan is alive in Bush and Haliburton-Cheney. Go profits and die commons! :(

Yep, the US had it coming. But a sparkle of light: most NYC people don't see any relation between them and the stupids/freaks on the other side of the river.

-snip-
Actually, there's been some interesting research done by a guy called Pape or something - a book called "Dying to Win". I haven't read it, but he collected data on every single suicide bombing since 1980 and found some interesting correlations...

Listen to our holy book, Hypocrite, and stop making the rest of us look bad.

Sorry but not everybody reads the bible for an hour every day.

Actually, there's been some interesting research done by a guy called Pape or something - a book called "Dying to Win". I haven't read it, but he collected data on every single suicide bombing since 1980 and found some interesting correlations...

Yeah I read it and agree with it in some respects, in the idea that most of the muslims that do bombings are in fact not poor, ect ect ect...ive read that...a majority of them educated and or rich.

But....they all require a hardcore radicalization in Islam, im Syrian myself, and you take that away from a person, they dont do the things you see.

Also, look at Iraq today, fastest growing economy in the world right now, and there are not that many bombs going off a day, they sure as hell get covered of course, but there arnt that many, a majorty dont like the americans there, but they are willing to give things a chance to work out. And the people coming in droves for the police and military...they arnt doing it for the americans, they are doing it to try to stop this fucking foreginer Syrians and Iranians from blowing up Iraqis.

Maybe it's because not too many conservatives know how to work a computer. :D


I can use one very well, thanks. :D

But there's not "Fair to Middling" choice, so I have to pass.

-snip-
Well, the Tamil Tigers don't have an Islamic Fundamentalist base. And they are big on suicide bombers.
And another correlation seems to indicate that foreign military occupations cause suicide bombings, especially when the occupier has a different religion. (Osama loves to call them "Crusader" - why do you think that is?)

So if that is the case, then the best way to stop suicide bombings is to get the hell out of there.

I'm pretty sure the republicans have manipulated this poll in some way to make Bush look good...*suspicious look on face*

Repeat after me...

D - I - E - B - O - L - D

In other words...he cheated.

You'll never convince me otherwise. Where's the paper trail to prove he didn't cheat?

Where's the proof that he did cheat?

If you can't prove it, you can't "accuse" Bush of cheating. You can only theorize that he did. Give me proof of large scale voter fraud fully documented by the FEC and proven in Federal court against Diebold and I'll believe you. Otherwise, it is not true.

Again...where's the proof that he didn't cheat?

If you can't prove it, you can't "claim" that Bush won the election legitimately. You can only theorize that he did. Give me proof, in the form of a documented paper trail that demonstrates that Bush fairly won the state of Ohio in the 2004 elections, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, it is not true.

Oh wait...that's right...you can't give me proof. :rolleyes:

you should change the poll... you need a middle choice. like. he's doing a good job... he's doing bad a job... he's doing a SATISFACTORY job. thats what i would vote.

since i'm in school, i'd grade him a C. just, average. he's made mistakes, but i think hes on the right track (for foreign relations anyways) thats just my opinion.

I hate Bush. The do not call list is cool, but it's so much more fun to screw with the telemarketers!

Again...where's the proof that he didn't cheat?

If you can't prove it, you can't "claim" that Bush won the election legitimately. You can only theorize that he did. Give me proof, in the form of a documented paper trail that demonstrates that Bush fairly won the state of Ohio in the 2004 elections, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, it is not true.

Oh wait...that's right...you can't give me proof. :rolleyes:

Um this argument is totally and utterly ridiculous. Even investigations, headed by democrats, agreed that Bush won the 2004 election. Secondly, Bush won the state of Ohio by a big enough margin to discredit any errors. It is not true? Just because you say so? You are just wrong.

Give it a rest. He won the election. Fairly. And by a big enough margin to invalidate any claims.

I think Bush is ok.. decent guy... I wish he did some things differently, but he is better then a democrat.

Wheeee!!! I LOVE it when I can shit on Bush! Disapprove all the way!

I wish it'd let me vote more than once! I hate that son of a Bush with every fiber of my being. He's a miserable bastard, and sure as SHIT is no christian, in spite of what he SAYS.

It's easy to SAY you are a Christian, but, when your actions say something different, I'm afraid I gotta go with the actions...and Mr. Bush is no fucking Christian!

Congratulations. You have suck to the level of an extremist by claiming to know the condition of another human being’s heart.

So if that is the case, then the best way to stop suicide bombings is to get the hell out of there.

Bingo. More security at home beats blowing up stuff oversees every time.

A Bush-rating poll on a predominantly anti-Bush forum. I'll give him a 10/10 so nobody can keep the average rating at the bottom of the spectrum :D
Any international forum is going to be predominantly anti-Bush. Any American forum is going to be 50\50, or, more likely, 40\60 (leaning towards disapproval).

If approval ratings were expressed in Celsius my rating for Bush Jnr would be
-273°... absolute zero.

Again...where's the proof that he didn't cheat?
[...]
Oh wait...that's right...you can't give me proof. :rolleyes:
Yes, because we all know that you're supposed to prove negatives...

My opinion of Bush... that's actually rather complex.

I was for the Iraq war. I won't deny that for anything. To me, it's mind boggling that people actually think we're there for borderline occupation, or "imperialism" as I've heard it referred to as. That's ridiculous. What I will also label as ridiculous is the mindset that we went to war only for oil. Or that we went to war only for WMD's. Pure and simple, that is nothing but anti-republican foam spewing out the mouth of people who, frankly, do not know what the government did, and what it does now.

I feel the war in Iraq was mitigated amidst a plethora of reasoning, not least of which I believe was WMD's. Though rightward leaning I am, I am also not spoon fed, and thus I believe oil was also a driving factor in the war. I also believe the liberation of the Iraqi people was yet another reason Washington took into account. However, it is my personal belief that the ultimate, decisive factor that propelled us to war was Iraq's position in the battlefield of the 21st century.

Face it - war for a long time is going to show it's ugly face there, in the Middle East. Twice have we needed all the assistance from nearby allies to invade Iraq, and twice has the most valuable "ally" turned it's back on us. Saudi Arabia is more than usually willing to help, but Turkey, perhaps enjoying the attention of the US needing it, seems to think saying "no" in some way changes the outcome of war.

Well, fast forwarding to July of 2005 shows that Turkey is now no longer needed. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States' ability for rapid deployment of troops to combat terrorists and rogue nations has been propelled forward with incredible potential.

I mentioned WMD's earlier, and this is a topic I have wanted to get out of my system. The Bush administration made very clear that Iraq would be invaded if Saddam didn't abandon his ambitions to rekindle a long-dead WMD program. By July, 2005, we know Saddam didn't have one. But in February, 2003, the US government didn't know that. If the US government didn't know that, the American people certainly did not know that. If the American people didn't, then in no way did the rest of the world, save for select Iraqis.

So. Rather than removing a regime known for its brutality, all while attempting to remove any possible threat of weapons of mass destruction, the people of the Earth decry the US invasion. I respect others opinions. I respect them, I don't go around calling them "dumb morons," or "miserable failures," or "shrubs." Particularly when 25 million people have just been allowed to decide their own fate in government for the first time in 4,000 years.

This is how I like Bush.

Having that rant just gone on, I suppose many wonder how I can dislike him, particularly when I disclose the fact that loathed Clinton. I would imagine most would consider me an easily-swayed American who has absorbed everything the government has fed him. Whatever you think, here are my qualms with Bush, which unfortunately coheres itself back to one thing:

His religion.

I do not believe that gay marriage is a difficult, nor "unsanct" concept especially in today's world. Denying the right of marriage to those who would partake in it differently is undeniably a Christian influence in our government, a heavy one at that, one that would undermine the rights of thousands. Denying the right of marriage to gays or lesbians is nothing more than the paranoia of the dark ages resurfacing in 2005.

I am not gay, and it is quite impossible for me to be lesbian. However uncomfortable any situation might be for me, however, I will respect the rights of those participating in that form of love. I can always refuse a gay person asking me out. If he persists, so too shall I. I have a girlfriend, and she is wonderful, thank you very much.

I am also at odds with Bush's stance on stem cell research, once again refused by him due to his faith. Stem cell research may continue only on the stem cells that had been extracted previous the ruling. Stem cell research has already cured select hundreds in experimental treatment facilities globally. Biotech is the fastest growing industry in the world right now, not unlike the computing surge of the '90's.

While I do not have a qualm with religion in particular, it irritates me to see such flagrant legislation so obviously based on the ideological beliefs of one person. I believe it is high time that "Separation of Church and State," is written into cold, hard, law, so that power may not be weilded by the ideologies of those in government. When an individual takes the office of the Presidency, one of the most influential seats of power on Earth, mind you, they have a responsibilty. Not only must they cherish and abide by the rules laid down by our founding fathers in the form of the Constitution 200+ years ago, they must also set aside their ideological ignomities and govern in a generally unbiased fashion. The 300 million people in the nation are not all Christian, Mr. Bush.

This is what I dislike about Bush.

Before anyone tries, I do not think Bush has lived up to the "responsibility" I mentioned above. I would absolutely love it if an Athiest were elected to office.

Jesus is just some non-existent figure and Ronald Reagan is a dead conservative so why should we vote for Bush.

Hmmmm Chinese Republics?

The MUSLIMS considers Jesus to be a prophet so yes, Jesus did exist!

Again...where's the proof that he didn't cheat?

If you can't prove it, you can't "claim" that Bush won the election legitimately. You can only theorize that he did. Give me proof, in the form of a documented paper trail that demonstrates that Bush fairly won the state of Ohio in the 2004 elections, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, it is not true.

Oh wait...that's right...you can't give me proof. :rolleyes:

That argument doesn't work. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

The ballots were counted and Bush was proven to be the winnner, and it was legally certified by Ken Blackwell after the recount. Thus, until new decisive proof is given, Bush legally won the election.

I approve of Bush about as much as i approve of rat turds in my Cheerios.

his advisors sure are, hes a political puppet for those who arnt charasmatic or popular enough but are educated and probably would be a better president. thats just how politics and the electorate work

That's a tough choice. I don't disapprove of him, but I think the previos two presidents were better. if he had to get a letter grade, I think I would give him a C+. Clinton would probably be a B and Bush Sr. a B-, IMHO.

I'll give George Bush Jr. a generous 2 out of 10 for being the comic relief during a very grim time of terrorism and fear.

I'll give George Bush Jr. a generous 2 out of 10 for being the comic relief during a very grim time of terrorism and fear.
meh, I give him a 1 for that. A 2 after he: a) chokes on pretzels, b) falls off an untippable Segway, c) crashes into a police officer on a bike, d) makes an ass of himself (well, more than usual) while ordering ribs, e) holds hands with another man while opposing gay marriage, f) shoves himself in front of Clinton while entering Clinton's own Presidential library, g) calls the Pope "sir" instead of the usual "Your Holiness" or anything of the like, and that's about all I can think of now.

"Too many good docs are goin' outta business... Too many OBGYN's aren't able to, practice their love... with women all across the country..." *Morons cheer and celebrate* :D *Badoom ching*

I dont understand this, it seems like 70% of the people I know and have ever met are anti-Bush (including myself)....I would like to know how he got reelected.

Many Americans felt that he was the lesser of two evils.

Also, I believe that many Americans liked that Bush was decisive. Even if you hate him, you at least know where he's going. Kerry was a different story. Who knows, he may be more decisive than Bush, but he did not appear that way to the American public.

Basically, it comes down to three categories: his handling of foreign policy, his handling of domestic policy, and my own personal problems with the "image" he has crafted for himself.

Now, his handling of foreign policy is a difficult thing to describe, because its a complex issue. I am not, unlike many people on the left, a priori against war. I tend towards a Wilsonian logic on that matter: war can, and indeed should, be used as a means of promoting justice around the world. That being said, like Wilson, I don't think we should call in airstrikes in every situation; while global justice is the goal, bombing someone is not always the best way to accomplish it. It's just that sometimes it's the only way to acomplish it. This has nothing to do with Bush so far, just a quick view on where I'm coming from when I do critique his foreign policy.

So with respect to his foreign policy, I'm not a priori against it because he uses violence as a means toward his end. Nor am I a priori against Iraq because, unlike most people on the left, I do think Iraq has something to do with terrorism, although in no way that any person from the administration has ever argued for such a connection. Basically, the idea of connecting Iraq to terrorism isn't to say that Iraq had connections with Al Queda, because that simply isn't true, and the President has admitted that it was untrue. Rather, it is to say that terrorism is the result of something that has gone fundamentally wrong with Middle Eastern culture: for whatever reason, young, educated Muslim males feel compelled to associate with radical Islamic factions, and even worse, to destroy themselves in an attempt to take infidels with them. One possible way of changing that culture is to provide them with a working, functioning, Western-style alternative. That alternative model is precisely what we are trying to build in Iraq. So in that very bank-shot way, Iraq is connected with the War on Terror. Iraq had nothing to do initially with terrorism, and it wasn't a threat, but it made a good place to start the creep of Western-style democracy into the region.

Now, I do have some serious questions about this policy, no doubt about it. For one thing, it's an open question of whether or not the problem with Islamic culture is one that can be fixed by military intervention or by installing Western democratic traditions there. To be entirely honest, my guess is that the real reason why Saudis have become so radicalized has little to do with any cultural concerns so much as it does the fact that in 20 years, the average annual income in Saudi Arabia has gone from around $20,000 to around $7,000, and they are responding to this economic crisis in the same way followers of Father Coughlin did in America in the 1930's. If that's the case, then attacking Iraq is much less effective than perhaps undoing some of our anti-OPEC work we've been doing since the oil shocks in the 70's or muzzling some of our multinational corps who have been working in the region. But it is still possible in my mind that attacking Iraq was a way of changing their culture, and also still possible that it will turn out to be an effective way of changing their culture.

What is a problem in my mind is the fact that this administration has, from the get-go, decided to bungle every single step of the occupation of Iraq. We had no plans for a post-invasion Iraq, on the idiotic grounds that we couldn't know what the situation would be like when we were finished attacking (which is why we have things called contingency plans, Donald! We did a shitload more damage to Germany than we did to Iraq, but we still managed to have a post-war blueprint to work from). We disbanded the Iraqi national army, which had the effect of destroying a large part of our possible garrison force, as well as making the best-armed and best-trained men in the country unemployed for extended periods. We didn't go in with enough men (Bush still insists that if the army asks for more men, he will give it to them, conveniently ignoring the fact that he made his view perfectly clear by firing Gen. Shinseki for his temerity to suggest pre-war that they needed to double the size of the planned invasion force). Our stopgap measures to maintain unit cohesion have caused morale to plummet and recruitment to drop (I for one might have considered a tour in the Army for law school funding, but I sure as hell ain't now that I have no guarantee of ever getting out of a combat assignment). His directives on torture, authorized by people like Alberto Gonzales and Donald Rumsfeld, have done nothing but destroy any chance of popular support in the region for anything American to say nothing of compromising American values and ideals. In short, I have a beef with the Bush administration because if we do win in Iraq, it will be in spite of all the Administration's efforts, not because of it.

Secondly, I detest the fact that they weren't honest with us from the start. Paul Wolfowitz has himself said that the decision to invade on the grounds of WMD's in Iraq was purely a bureaucratic one: they didn't know whether there were or weren't WMD's in Iraq, but they felt as though they couldn't just come out and say "Saddam's a bad guy, so we need to invade Iraq", so they instead hyped Iraq as a genuine threat to America when they knew it wasn't. Even if Saddam had WMD's, there was abso-frappin'-lutely no way they could have delivered them to America, but that did not deter Bush & Co. from positing everything from links to terrorism (falsely) to UAV's capable of delivering nukes to the East Coast (absurd). If they had simply said "Sanctions aren't driving out Saddam, and Saddam is hurting his people, so we need to invade", I probably would have supported his efforts. Instead, he felt the need to assert the most ridiculous stuff in order to convince people not only that Saddam had to go, but that he had to go because he was a threat, when they clearly knew he wasn't.

That's pretty much all I have to say about that, so I will switch to his domestic policy, which is more or less one giveaway to the superrich and corporations of the country after another. I don't even need to go into the absurdity of cutting taxes in the face of war (need I remind you that Tom DeLay was specifically quoted as saying to a group of donors that In the face of war, cutting taxes was the absolute priority), but even worse, that hasn't stopped Bush from dramatically increasing the size of the federal government with things like the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill (a giveaway to drug companies) and numerous tax incentives. Back in the days when I was a Republican, I honestly believed that there was no worse a way to run a government than through tax-and-spend "liberalism." I have now realized that there is a far worse way: borrow-and-spend "conservatism".

I also object to the fact that he has done all this pork-barrel spending at the cost of those who need it most: the poor. From his bankruptcy "reform" bill to the way he structures his tax cuts to the cuts he has made in low-income assistance for college, the people who are worst off from his efforts are those that, as a self-described Christian, he should be most trying to help.

Finally, I object to the way he styles himself. Every interview I've seen him in, he swaggers around with a smothering Texas bravado and any article about him cannot help but note his "cowboy" demeanor. The reason why this is so offensive to me is because I grew up on a farm. I spent the first 17 years of my life being a "cowboy", and let me tell you something: if he's a cowboy, I'm also an astronaut.

I mean, for crying out loud, the guy grew in Connecticut. He went to high-school in Andover, where he was best-known as a cheerleader. He went to college at Yale University, because his father went there. And now you want to tell me that this Yankee is one of us because he bought a "ranch" in '99 (also, a quick question: exactly what does Bush grow on this "ranch"?)? Not only no, sir, but hell no. This little pissant ain't nothing but a weekend warrior who likes to pretend he's a "cowboy." It ticks me off badly enough that he gives us a bad name (cowboys are usually some of the smartest people you'll meet: you have to be if you spend time around half-ton animals that could kill you if you move wrong), but it infuriates me to no end that people in Western states buy his load of horseshit. He isn't one of us and he'll never be one of us. In my book, he'll always be just some dumb yuppie who wouldn't know a post-hole digger from his asshole.

Where's the proof that he did cheat?

If you can't prove it, you can't "accuse" Bush of cheating. You can only theorize that he did. Give me proof of large scale voter fraud fully documented by the FEC and proven in Federal court against Diebold and I'll believe you. Otherwise, it is not true.

I can accuse anybody of anything I want. And there is proof out there. Much of it is circumstantial, but if they hung people on circumstantial evidence, Bush would be slowly twisting in the wind...where he belongs, war criminal that he is!

And it'll never happen, because the FEC is in Bush's pocket, just like the rest of the government...and since there is no paper trail, there IS no way to prove it...especially since Diebold continues to refuse to allow independent scrutiny of it's source code for the voting machines.

You just are a Bush suck-up that would refuse to believe even the most hard-core evidence, even if it were shoved in your face. which we will never get, because the criminals made damn sure there wasn't much hard evidence to be found! It's true...but he'll never be convicted of it, and neither will Diebold.

Some day, the truth WILL out, though...and I expect to see you with a mouthful of crow on that day. Remember who said it first. Remember who made the accusation. I did. And I stand by it. there's enough circumstantial evidence, and enough anecdotal stories of various infractions and malfeasance to warrant my issuing such an accusation.

could I prove it in a court of law? with what I have...no. But that don't mean it didn't happen. just that I can't prove it, and neither can anyone else. you're as bad as the guy who breaks the law by, say, speeding, and says, "Cop didn't see it, I didn't do it." You still DID it...you just got away with it, that's all.

Same with Mr. Bush. He did it. He'll get away with it, too.

This is the man who prefers visual aids to reading, can't be bothered to attend NAACP conventions for 5 years in a row and counting, uses taxpayer money to finance a promotional tour for lining the pockets of Wall Street financiers by 'privatizing' Social Security, insists that a man who would trash the UN one minute become our ambassador to it the next in spite of an obvious lack of diplomacy, confuses hedonistic capitalism with the values espoused by certain religious fundamentalists and thus creates a form of Darwinian fascism beneath that cloak, and has now backed himself into a corner regarding a close advisor.

A false Dmitri!

Let him run himself into the ground. Impeachment seems almost too good for him. Leave him to Heaven. I fear a backlash against even the Christian LEFT in 2008. (We are out there.)


You are so right. The Christian LEFT is out there. And here's where to find them...
http://www.christianalliance.org

I can accuse anybody of anything I want. And there is proof out there. Much of it is circumstantial, but if they hung people on circumstantial evidence, Bush would be slowly twisting in the wind...where he belongs, war criminal that he is!

And it'll never happen, because the FEC is in Bush's pocket, just like the rest of the government...and since there is no paper trail, there IS no way to prove it...especially since Diebold continues to refuse to allow independent scrutiny of it's source code for the voting machines.

You just are a Bush suck-up that would refuse to believe even the most hard-core evidence, even if it were shoved in your face. which we will never get, because the criminals made damn sure there wasn't much hard evidence to be found! It's true...but he'll never be convicted of it, and neither will Diebold.

Some day, the truth WILL out, though...and I expect to see you with a mouthful of crow on that day. Remember who said it first. Remember who made the accusation. I did. And I stand by it. there's enough circumstantial evidence, and enough anecdotal stories of various infractions and malfeasance to warrant my issuing such an accusation.

could I prove it in a court of law? with what I have...no. But that don't mean it didn't happen. just that I can't prove it, and neither can anyone else. you're as bad as the guy who breaks the law by, say, speeding, and says, "Cop didn't see it, I didn't do it." You still DID it...you just got away with it, that's all.

Same with Mr. Bush. He did it. He'll get away with it, too.

Prove it. You don't have evidence. He didn't do anything wrong. It was a legitimate election and even the democratic party recognized Bush won. Get over it.

I approved just to try and buck the trend.

I'd like to ask this to everyone who disapproved: Did President Bush ever do anything that personally wronged you? Anyone you know closely?

I don't like everything he does. I don't like the way he's gone about the Iraq war, or his close alliance with the moral Right. However, the only way he's "worsened" my life is make airplane lines longer and slower, and that's for the long-term good.

Yes, Bush has done PLENTY to wrong me.

He's trashed the economy, making it next to impossible for me to find a decent job. His policies have encouraged mega-corporations to outsource their jobs to places where they can get around all of our laws, and pay people like 50 cents a day to work in squalid conditions...thus lowering the amount of available jobs here.

I'm now 34, and in the last three years, every job I have managed to get has been temp only...and all of them have paid less than I made when I was working part-time while going to high school.

FUCK BUSH!!! Asshole from the ninth plane of Hell!

Yes, Bush has done PLENTY to wrong me.

He's trashed the economy, making it next to impossible for me to find a decent job. His policies have encouraged mega-corporations to outsource their jobs to places where they can get around all of our laws, and pay people like 50 cents a day to work in squalid conditions...thus lowering the amount of available jobs here.

I'm now 34, and in the last three years, every job I have managed to get has been temp only...and all of them have paid less than I made when I was working part-time while going to high school.

FUCK BUSH!!! Asshole from the ninth plane of Hell!

What a deranged liberal. You are full of ad hominems and slippery slopes... maybe beacuse you are unqualified? Look at it this way, there are better jobs out there now because of the Bush adminstration, and the economy is doing fine. It is growing steadily.

Outsourcing actually creates more jobs at home.

That argument doesn't work. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

The ballots were counted and Bush was proven to be the winnner, and it was legally certified by Ken Blackwell after the recount. Thus, until new decisive proof is given, Bush legally won the election.

Certified by the same Ken Blackwell who is a Republican? Who tried to invalidate thousands of voter registration applications just because they were not on the correct "weight" of paper? I was a deputy Voter Registrar in Texas, and I can tell you it made no difference what weight of paper the registration application was on. None! All applications were submitted, and all who registered in time were allowed to vote. (of course, Texas doesn't make you declare your party on your application, so there'd be no way to just trash Democratic applications...such as what happened in Ohio...and Utah!)

And now the Republican administration in Ohio (Gubnor Taft and ilk) are all mixed up in the lastest scandal, perhaps you've heard of Coingate? Yeah, buncha trustworthy people there in Ohio, I can tell you that...

Yes, Bush has done PLENTY to wrong me.

He's trashed the economy, making it next to impossible for me to find a decent job. His policies have encouraged mega-corporations to outsource their jobs to places where they can get around all of our laws, and pay people like 50 cents a day to work in squalid conditions...thus lowering the amount of available jobs here.

I'm now 34, and in the last three years, every job I have managed to get has been temp only...and all of them have paid less than I made when I was working part-time while going to high school.


What did you major in in college? That has a lot to do with it.

By the way, Bush didn't do anything to the economy. It was the ridiculous overextension during the bubble that caused the recession. Outsourcing occured under Clinton just as much as it has under Bush, it's over 25 years old as a policy.

Certified by the same Ken Blackwell who is a Republican? Who tried to invalidate thousands of voter registration applications just because they were not on the correct "weight" of paper? I was a deputy Voter Registrar in Texas, and I can tell you it made no difference what weight of paper the registration application was on. None! All applications were submitted, and all who registered in time were allowed to vote. (of course, Texas doesn't make you declare your party on your application, so there'd be no way to just trash Democratic applications...such as what happened in Ohio...and Utah!)

And now the Republican administration in Ohio (Gubnor Taft and ilk) are all mixed up in the lastest scandal, perhaps you've heard of Coingate? Yeah, buncha trustworthy people there in Ohio, I can tell you that...

Again, there is no proof of election fraud. Until formal action is taken by the FEC and proof is sufficent to prove your claims, they are nothing more than conspiracy theory. Not unlike the Republicans and their "black helicopters" under Clinton.

Taft is a disgrace. I didn't vote for him, and consider him to be a terrible governor on all levels. This entire state is corrupt, with Cleveland being especially bad.

Prove it. You don't have evidence. He didn't do anything wrong. It was a legitimate election and even the democratic party recognized Bush won. Get over it.

No, the Democrats caved in, because they knew the kind of proof we needed to prove otherwise would not be attainable, because there was no paper trail, and Diebold continues to refuse to allow independent scrutiny of it's voting machine source code.

Furthermore...when the President of Diebold (a major contributor to the Republicans) comes out and says his company "will help deliver Ohio to the President (Bush)" AND there is no voter-verifyable paper trail (the screen might SAY you voted Kerry, but then tabulate the vote for Bush, and who'd ever know?) and when you consider diebold is among the largest manufacturers of ATM's...all of which provide paper records of transactions - and they claim they can't do that for voting machines...when they have been doing it with ATM's since the 80's??

Look, I mighta been born at night, but it wasn't last night, and there's a whole heap of shit piled up somewhere, and it sure starts to smell kinda funky. no, nothing that can be PROVEN in a court of law...but I know the smell of horse shit when I smell it (I live in rural America, okay?)

Would you use an ATM that didn't provide a paper record?
would you accept a statement from your bank that said you had $300 less than you thought you did...but they could not document where that 300 bucks went? Would you just say...okay, the bank must be right? Or would you challenge them to show you the paper trail?

Unfortunately, in election 2004, there WAS no paper trail...because the Powers That Be didn't WANT a paper trail. Why not? Good question! So the Democrats, realizing there was no way to PROVE the malfeasance beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law...and knowing that any court they brought it to would already be in Bush's pocket anyway....knowing they couldn't possibly get an unbiased hearing, and knowing that the type of evidence they really needed just plain didn't exist (because the criminals made damn sure it didn't exist) they caved in.

Eventually, sometime...somewhere, the truth WILL out. And you wait and see...we will find out, for 100% sure...that Bush stole the election in 2000...and in 2004. He's an illegitimate pRedisdent, as far as I am concerned, and he is NOT my President, because I refuse to acknowledge him so.

My Kerry-Edwards sticker remains firmly affixed to my car where it will stay until we have a legitimate election. And I mean one with a paper trail so we can prove cheating. And until we have that or a Democratic President...I will continue to have zero faith in our voting process.

you can't make me believe that many people would vote against their own economic self-interest by voting Repukelican.

What a deranged liberal. You are full of ad hominems and slippery slopes... maybe beacuse you are unqualified? Look at it this way, there are better jobs out there now because of the Bush adminstration, and the economy is doing fine. It is growing steadily.

Outsourcing actually creates more jobs at home.

Bullshit. Then where's all the jobs? Where's the 2.5 million jobs Bush lost in his first term?

This is spoken like a true selfish person who, because everything is going hunky-dory for him...he assumes it is for everyone else.

why don't you try being a job-seeker in this economy for a while, if this economy is so good?

Tell you what?? Since you believe the economy is so good, and jobs are so plentiful, why don't you quit and give me your job...and then you can go out and look for a job that meets my skills/abilities/acceptable salary range. Once you do, we'll switch and you can have your old job back, okay?

You wouldn't take me up on a challenge like that, would you?

I mean, if the economy is so great and wonderful...and there's such a plethora of jobs out there...doesn't seem like it would take you all that long, would it? So how about it? You give me your job, and you start looking for a job for me. I'm an office clerk by trade, accustomed to making approximately ten dollars an hour. The minute you find a job like that...we will again trade places, you may have your job back, and I'll take the office job.

Betcha wouldn't take me up on it! How about putting your money where your mouth is?

Again, there is no proof of election fraud. Until formal action is taken by the FEC and proof is sufficent to prove your claims, they are nothing more than conspiracy theory. Not unlike the Republicans and their "black helicopters" under Clinton.

Taft is a disgrace. I didn't vote for him, and consider him to be a terrible governor on all levels. This entire state is corrupt, with Cleveland being especially bad.

the entire state is corrupt, yet you have faith in Ken Blackwell, and his certification of the voting results...could it be you have faith in that only because it produced the outcome you wanted produced?

Funny you should trust any elected official in Ohio if, as you say, the entire state is corrupt. And, incidentally, I agree with that assessment of Ohio. the entire state IS corrupt. And I include Ken Blackwell.

the entire state is corrupt, yet you have faith in Ken Blackwell, and his certification of the voting results...could it be you have faith in that only because it produced the outcome you wanted produced?

Funny you should trust any elected official in Ohio if, as you say, the entire state is corrupt. And, incidentally, I agree with that assessment of Ohio. the entire state IS corrupt. And I include Ken Blackwell.

I don't trust any of them. I only think Bush and Blackwell and everyone else are innocent until proven guilty. Personally, I don't think it's above them or any politicians to rig elections for a candidate, but I can't be convinced until proven.

This state needs a real change to get things rolling again. Especially stopping the "brain drain" of talented people because of our lopsided economy around here (Cleveland especially. It looks like a dystopian 1950's for most of it).

well... looking at the results...
frankly it astounds me
*thumbs down*
vote clinton-clinton '08!

well... looking at the results...
frankly it astounds me
*thumbs down*
vote clinton-clinton '08!

I quite fear the possibility of her running. There is something decidedly undemocratic about the Bushes and Clintons trading off the White House every 8 years.

No, the Democrats caved in, because they knew the kind of proof we needed to prove otherwise would not be attainable, because there was no paper trail, and Diebold continues to refuse to allow independent scrutiny of it's voting machine source code.

This is of course nonsense, as diebold machines account for very few of the actual votes. Additionally most are done on punchcards.

Your kerry edwards sticker can stay on your car. Be that way. Two losers on a sticker. Of course you would be cheering if Kerry won. You don't give a damn about a pretty good working system, you only care about your own political agenda. That's all.

Oh and about the economy (which is solid!)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050715/bs_afp/forexus_050715221207

"The latest set of unexpectedly tame monthly consumer price and wholesale-level inflation reports damped some hopes that the Fed will continue raising rates to 4.0 percent or higher. Higher rates would increase demand for the US currency and send the dollar higher.

The Labor Department reported that US producer prices were unchanged in June despite higher energy prices.

The core rate of inflation at the wholesale level fell 0.1 percent. Economists had expected the producer price index to rise 0.4 percent in June, with growth in core inflation pegged at 0.1 percent."

----

Budget deficit? What budget deficit?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162398,00.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050713/pl_afp/useconomybudget_050713170845

Oh and a bit off topic.. Italy is on the right track again (i'm part italian)..

http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_918276.html

This is of course nonsense, as diebold machines account for very few of the actual votes. Additionally most are done on punchcards.

Your kerry edwards sticker can stay on your car. Be that way. Two losers on a sticker. Of course you would be cheering if Kerry won. You don't give a damn about a pretty good working system, you only care about your own political agenda. That's all.

Oh and about the economy (which is solid!)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050715/bs_afp/forexus_050715221207

"The latest set of unexpectedly tame monthly consumer price and wholesale-level inflation reports damped some hopes that the Fed will continue raising rates to 4.0 percent or higher. Higher rates would increase demand for the US currency and send the dollar higher.

The Labor Department reported that US producer prices were unchanged in June despite higher energy prices.

The core rate of inflation at the wholesale level fell 0.1 percent. Economists had expected the producer price index to rise 0.4 percent in June, with growth in core inflation pegged at 0.1 percent."

----

Budget deficit? What budget deficit?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162398,00.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050713/pl_afp/useconomybudget_050713170845

Oh and a bit off topic.. Italy is on the right track again (i'm part italian)..

http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_918276.html


Listen...

FUCK THE BUDGET DEFECIT!! I could give a rat's ass!

Where's the fucking J-O-B-S?? That's what I wanna know, and all I give a flying fuck about!

and I mean jobs that pay commensurate to what I am accustomed to earning, with benefits I have come to expect...and a job commensurate with my skills and abilities. I'm not talking about fuckin' burger flipper jobs. I'm talking about REAL JOBS...you know, the kind that give you an honest day's pay for an honest day's work? Where's the fucking J-O-B-S??

Bush's policies have caused so many of them to be shipped overseas that there are less jobs available here, so now employers can get away with fucking over workers, and offering less and less pay, because some poor desperate schmuck will take it. And that's bullshit.

There oughta be enough goddamn jobs here that we can demand a fair wage, and the kind of benefits most Americans have come to expect in exchange for working thier ass off!

And until there are...I don't give a rat's ass about anything else, Bush fucking sucks. I don't care what else he does, or fails to do. It's all about the J-O-B-S. Once everything is okay in my pocketbook, then we can worry about other things. Until then, I give a shit, okay?

Far as I am concerned, things are NOT okay in my pocketbook at the moment, and I blame Bush for that, and so, ergo, I hate Bush, he sucks dead green donkey dick.

Listen...

FUCK THE BUDGET DEFECIT!! I could give a rat's ass!

Where's the fucking J-O-B-S?? That's what I wanna know, and all I give a flying fuck about!

and I mean jobs that pay commensurate to what I am accustomed to earning, with benefits I have come to expect...and a job commensurate with my skills and abilities. I'm not talking about fuckin' burger flipper jobs. I'm talking about REAL JOBS...you know, the kind that give you an honest day's pay for an honest day's work? Where's the fucking J-O-B-S??

Bush's policies have caused so many of them to be shipped overseas that there are less jobs available here, so now employers can get away with fucking over workers, and offering less and less pay, because some poor desperate schmuck will take it. And that's bullshit.

There oughta be enough goddamn jobs here that we can demand a fair wage, and the kind of benefits most Americans have come to expect in exchange for working thier ass off!

And until there are...I don't give a rat's ass about anything else, Bush fucking sucks. I don't care what else he does, or fails to do. It's all about the J-O-B-S. Once everything is okay in my pocketbook, then we can worry about other things. Until then, I give a shit, okay?

Far as I am concerned, things are NOT okay in my pocketbook at the moment, and I blame Bush for that, and so, ergo, I hate Bush, he sucks dead green donkey dick.

Bush has been great and most investors agree with me. Income is up, spending is up and job growth is up (unemployment is down to 5%). Also you seem to know little about outsourcing:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba480/

"Contrary to popular belief, abundant evidence shows that American consumers, workers and businesses are benefiting from outsourcing.

Increase in Product Availability. An Institute for International Economics study by Catherine Mann notes that globalization of computer hardware manufacturing led to a 10 to 30 percent decline in prices, making such equipment more affordable and leading to a far greater increase in jobs in the long run.

Stronger U.S. Job Demand. Mann believes globalization of Information Technology (IT) services “will yield even stronger job demand in the United States for workers with IT proficiency and skills.” Indeed, she notes that overall employment in job classifications most affected by IT service outsourcing is rising, not falling.

Competitive Gains for Small Businesses. Researchers have also found that small firms and new startups gain more from outsourcing than large corporations. The latter have managerial structures that hinder their ability to take full advantage of outsourcing’s benefits. Smaller and younger companies can easily organize themselves to utilize outsourcing, thereby gaining sales and competing better in today’s global marketplace.

Rising Standards of Living. Indians now doing jobs outsourced from America are seeing a rapid rise in their wages and standard of living. In the process, they are becoming more like Americans, which is translating into demand for American goods and lifestyles. Thus, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, for every $1 outsourced, the economic gain to the United States as a whole is $1.12 to $1.14; whereas the country to which a job is outsourced gains just 33 cents."

---

Apparently you know nothing about job growth, and how the job market functions, and what outsourcing really is. Outsourcing has been in this country for over a 100 years. I think you really should stop bashing Bush for something that is not happening. It is stunning, in almost every sentence you have you have to say "Bush sucks", "Bush sucks"... whatever. Your a terrible attitude problem and you have a big problem with the facts. Just because you are having bad luck, does not make it indicative of the entire job market.

Additionally your attitude is totally out of line and I have reported your post.

I concur with you, Mesatecala. But not on Bush. His policies aren't the best that could be conjured, yet, as I said on my China Reborn thread,

Quoting myself:
Besides, we own China just as much as they own us. We are losing manufacturing jobs to them, that is true, but our companies employ those Chinese workers. If China and America fell from what little mutual grace exists, the Chinese would face significant unemployment, and trade deficits and shortfalls of their own, not to mention inflation.

Which is true. We employ the people in those nations, and if we left, they would face significant unemployment, and economic stagnation.

As for Lyrics, go to community college, you hippie. :rolleyes: You can get a better job with better qualifications, that is what happens in a capitalist society. So grow up or shut up.

Bush has been great and most investors agree with me. Income is up, spending is up and job growth is up (unemployment is down to 5%). Also you seem to know little about outsourcing:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba480/

"Contrary to popular belief, abundant evidence shows that American consumers, workers and businesses are benefiting from outsourcing.

Increase in Product Availability. An Institute for International Economics study by Catherine Mann notes that globalization of computer hardware manufacturing led to a 10 to 30 percent decline in prices, making such equipment more affordable and leading to a far greater increase in jobs in the long run.

Stronger U.S. Job Demand. Mann believes globalization of Information Technology (IT) services “will yield even stronger job demand in the United States for workers with IT proficiency and skills.” Indeed, she notes that overall employment in job classifications most affected by IT service outsourcing is rising, not falling.

Competitive Gains for Small Businesses. Researchers have also found that small firms and new startups gain more from outsourcing than large corporations. The latter have managerial structures that hinder their ability to take full advantage of outsourcing’s benefits. Smaller and younger companies can easily organize themselves to utilize outsourcing, thereby gaining sales and competing better in today’s global marketplace.

Rising Standards of Living. Indians now doing jobs outsourced from America are seeing a rapid rise in their wages and standard of living. In the process, they are becoming more like Americans, which is translating into demand for American goods and lifestyles. Thus, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, for every $1 outsourced, the economic gain to the United States as a whole is $1.12 to $1.14; whereas the country to which a job is outsourced gains just 33 cents."

---

Apparently you know nothing about job growth, and how the job market functions, and what outsourcing really is. Outsourcing has been in this country for over a 100 years. I think you really should stop bashing Bush for something that is not happening. It is stunning, in almost every sentence you have you have to say "Bush sucks", "Bush sucks"... whatever. Your a terrible attitude problem and you have a big problem with the facts. Just because you are having bad luck, does not make it indicative of the entire job market.

Additionally your attitude is totally out of line and I have reported your post.


Good. Report my post. I didn't do anything against NS rules when I posted it. I did not attack or flame you. I attacked and ranted about Bush, which is perfectly legal by NS rules. what's the matter? Can't you take someone having a different opinion than you? If so, you had better get off General, because what I posted is fairly mild considring some of the things I have seen on General. This is not a Forum for the thin-skinned, trust me, it isn't. You will see some of the most vitriolic debate in General, and you better learn how to be prepared for it.

As to your statistics...first, your source only cites IT work. I am an office clerk, not IT. Second, unemployement is "down to 5%?" Great! That means it WAS higher. And during Bill Clinton's term, unemployment was, one time, down to 2.2%.
Thid, unemployment figures do not count "discouraged workers" who've given up looking for work...or those who've exhausted their unemployment benefits. So the actual amount of people unemployed is far higher than you suggest.

The most telling sign of the fact that the economy is NOT as good as it was (and you can spin this till you're blue in the face, you can't get around it) is the fact that apartments now rent for less money than they did in the late 90's. Can you imagine why that might be?

It's because people made more money in the late 90's, the market was better, and so they COULD charge more rent and therefore did so. Nowadays, the market will not bear the types of rents we all paid in the late 90's, people cannot afford them.

Example: I went from paying $465 for a one-bedroom, 400 sq. ft. apartment in 1999 to paying $425 for a one-bedroom, 650 sq. ft. apartment in 2005, just prior to my economically forced relocation to Pennsylvania. Yes, at age 34, after 10 years on my own, I was economically forced to move back in with Mommy, because I can no longer make it out there, and THAT is how bad the economy sucks.

So go on...make fun of me...a 34-year old who had to move back home with Mommy. go on, make fun of me! Because I know damn well I'm far from the only person my age and some younger, who've had to give up their freedom and independence, and move back home because it was no longer possible to support oneself out there, with our terrible economy.

So you go on and blather all you want about how Bush is so wonderful. The fazcts, however, are on MY side. Oh, maybe Bush is great for the INVESTOR CLASS...but he SUCKS for those, like me, and most Americans...who are in the WORKING CLASS.

So go ahead, report this post, too, just because it contains opinion you don't like.

I concur with you, Mesatecala. But not on Bush. His policies aren't the best that could be conjured, yet, as I said on my China Reborn thread,



Which is true. We employ the people in those nations, and if we left, they would face significant unemployment, and economic stagnation.

As for Lyrics, go to community college, you hippie. :rolleyes: You can get a better job with better qualifications, that is what happens in a capitalist society. So grow up or shut up.

Yeah....great. Then you explain to me how I am supposed to go to community college, when I haven't found a job yet. Do you know that Texas disqualifies you for unemployment compensation for going to school? Even if you are only a part-time, evening student? And I had to collect MY unemployment from Texas, even though I'm a Pennsylvania resident...because all the work eligible for unemployment at the time I filed, had been performed in Texas. Thus, I am bound by Texas' rules. No school. Unless I give up my unemployment. In which case, I would not be able to pay any rent to my mom, or put gas in my car to look for work. In which case, my mom would probably throw me out, and I'd end up a bum on Skid Row. But you'd probably like to see that, wouldn't you? Every one of you conservatives are completely and totally heartless, and unfeeling when it concerns the hardships of someone else, aren't you?

Your actions...and your ideology, and th policies you support all say that you have no compassion for those down on their luck.

Good. Report my post. I didn't do anything against NS rules when I posted it. I did not attack or flame you. I attacked and ranted about Bush, which is perfectly legal by NS rules. what's the matter? Can't you take someone having a different opinion than you? If so, you had better get off General, because what I posted is fairly mild considring some of the things I have seen on General. This is not a Forum for the thin-skinned, trust me, it isn't. You will see some of the most vitriolic debate in General, and you better learn how to be prepared for it.

You used an excessive amount of swear words. I feel that isn't needed in any debate. Keep your temper under control. I also believe that NS rules prohibit you from blowing your fuse like you did at me. I've seen plenty of general and never have I seen so many swear words in one post before. I'm not thin-skinned. I just want people to show respect to others.

As to your statistics...first, your source only cites IT work. I am an office clerk, not IT. Second, unemployement is "down to 5%?" Great! That means it WAS higher. And during Bill Clinton's term, unemployment was, one time, down to 2.2%.

Then go into IT. Get training. Go into a field that has better opportunity. Adapt, or shut up. Unemployment rate during Clinton was never at 2.2%. That's a completely ridiculous.

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/em165/images/unemployment.gif

Source: http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM165

Thid, unemployment figures do not count "discouraged workers" who've given up looking for work...or those who've exhausted their unemployment benefits. So the actual amount of people unemployed is far higher than you suggest.

That would only add a marginal amount of people to the unemployment rate. Furthermore, the amount of jobs growth is sufficient enough for people to start looking.

The most telling sign of the fact that the economy is NOT as good as it was (and you can spin this till you're blue in the face, you can't get around it) is the fact that apartments now rent for less money than they did in the late 90's. Can you imagine why that might be?

The housing boom is responsible for rising prices. The housing market is actually quite good for those who bought property in the 1990s. My parents bought a town home in Virginia for something like $90,000. It is now worth close to $300,000. Additionally the economy is doing very well right and performing very well based on industrial production growth, the strong housing market, and the strong retail sector.

It's because people made more money in the late 90's, the market was better, and so they COULD charge more rent and therefore did so. Nowadays, the market will not bear the types of rents we all paid in the late 90's, people cannot afford them.

No they didn't. In fact income is up these days. It is just that the housing market is getting overheated by growth, and will begin to cool off. Then people can afford bigger houses. You don't have a single clue what you are talking about.

Example: I went from paying $465 for a one-bedroom, 400 sq. ft. apartment in 1999 to paying $425 for a one-bedroom, 650 sq. ft. apartment in 2005, just prior to my economically forced relocation to Pennsylvania. Yes, at age 34, after 10 years on my own, I was economically forced to move back in with Mommy, because I can no longer make it out there, and THAT is how bad the economy sucks.

Welcome to the days of rising prices. It is called inflation adjustment. You either have to adapt, or get something smaller. Get a better job which I know by looking at the data there is plenty or put up. The economy is not bad, nor does it suck. In fact it is solid. Growth is solid. Just because you have inadequate education and training does not make it indicative of the entire market.

So go on...make fun of me...a 34-year old who had to move back home with Mommy. go on, make fun of me! Because I know damn well I'm far from the only person my age and some younger, who've had to give up their freedom and independence, and move back home because it was no longer possible to support oneself out there, with our terrible economy.

The economy isn't terrible, smart one. It is you having not enough training to adapt to the changing market place.

The fazcts, however, are on MY side. Oh, maybe Bush is great for the INVESTOR CLASS...but he SUCKS for those, like me, and most Americans...who are in the WORKING CLASS.

No the facts are on my side and I have consistently proven that to be so. All the figures are on my side, and in fact the economy I can say is robust right now.

I'll report your previous post because you used an excessive amount of swearing, which is not necessary.

The most telling sign of the fact that the economy is NOT as good as it was (and you can spin this till you're blue in the face, you can't get around it) is the fact that apartments now rent for less money than they did in the late 90's. Can you imagine why that might be?

It's because people made more money in the late 90's, the market was better, and so they COULD charge more rent and therefore did so. Nowadays, the market will not bear the types of rents we all paid in the late 90's, people cannot afford them.

Example: I went from paying $465 for a one-bedroom, 400 sq. ft. apartment in 1999 to paying $425 for a one-bedroom, 650 sq. ft. apartment in 2005, just prior to my economically forced relocation to Pennsylvania. Yes, at age 34, after 10 years on my own, I was economically forced to move back in with Mommy, because I can no longer make it out there, and THAT is how bad the economy sucks.

So go on...make fun of me...a 34-year old who had to move back home with Mommy. go on, make fun of me! Because I know damn well I'm far from the only person my age and some younger, who've had to give up their freedom and independence, and move back home because it was no longer possible to support oneself out there, with our terrible economy.

I own a few rental properties and I can give a different reason why rental rates are down. The housing market is a great buyers market with interest rates below 5 percent in places. Why rent when you can buy a house and pay much less than a rental? Only the really credit-UNworthy are renting. I used to get a lot of applications that I had to turn down, even though I had empty houses.

This is a good example of what's wrong with Democrats, liberals, and Bush-Haters. They can't take responsibility for themselves. You are moving in with your mom. It looks like you have made some bad choices that include very little-to-no post--high school education. Instead of fessing up and trying to improve yourself, you've decided that Bush is to blame and you are not.

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/em165/images/unemployment.gif
LOL Notice how this thing stopped rising abruptly when Clinton took office?
Notice again how this squiggly line rose again as soon as Clinton left office?

I rest my case.

For this and for other reasons IMO
Clinton was the greatest american president since FDR.

Quoting Lyrics
The most telling sign of the fact that the economy is NOT as good as it was (and you can spin this till you're blue in the face, you can't get around it) is the fact that apartments now rent for less money than they did in the late 90's. Can you imagine why that might be?

It's because people made more money in the late 90's, the market was better, and so they COULD charge more rent and therefore did so. Nowadays, the market will not bear the types of rents we all paid in the late 90's, people cannot afford them.

Example: I went from paying $465 for a one-bedroom, 400 sq. ft. apartment in 1999 to paying $425 for a one-bedroom, 650 sq. ft. apartment in 2005, just prior to my economically forced relocation to Pennsylvania. Yes, at age 34, after 10 years on my own, I was economically forced to move back in with Mommy, because I can no longer make it out there, and THAT is how bad the economy sucks.

So go on...make fun of me...a 34-year old who had to move back home with Mommy. go on, make fun of me! Because I know damn well I'm far from the only person my age and some younger, who've had to give up their freedom and independence, and move back home because it was no longer possible to support oneself out there, with our terrible economy.

Sucks to be you, man.

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/em165/images/unemployment.gif
LOL Notice how this thing stopped rising abruptly when Clinton took office?
Notice again how this squiggly line rose again as soon as Clinton left office?

I rest my case.

For this and for other reasons IMO
Clinton was the greatest american president since FDR.

Unemployment pretty much goes up and down like a cycle in terms of economic booms and recessions. You don't rest your case because you don't understand. Clinton didn't control the private sector so he's not responsible for job growth. And the recession started in the last three months of the Clinton adminstration. So your case is shot down.

http://www.brookesnews.com/042302clintonrecession.html

"No matter what the Democrats and their media stooges claim, the US recession began under Clinton and not Bush. Nevertheless, it would still be unfair to lay the blame at Clinton's feet. But then, unlike hardcore Dems like Kerry, Edwards and Kennedy, I strive to be scrupulously honest in my debates."

That's my view. I don't blame Clinton for the recession, but it is a misnomer to say it started under Bush.

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/em165/images/unemployment.gif
LOL Notice how this thing stopped rising abruptly when Clinton took office?
Notice again how this squiggly line rose again as soon as Clinton left office?.

Look at a more recent graph than early 2001:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

We had a recession caused by the collapse of the largest speculative bubble ever (which occured during Clinton's watch); that recession was also the mildest in decades.

Bush unemployment is at levels equal percentagewise to Clinton's percentage in 1997, five years after he took office.

I find myself on the Libertarian side of things on many issues, and I'd like to ask the hard right, where are the personal freedoms? Where is smaller government? Now don't get me wrong, I take issue with "free" trade, and I'm totally Green when it comes to the environement, but I want government out of my personal life!

All I've seen under this Admin is more and more intrusion into people's private lives at a burgeoning cost to taxpayers! Where is the smaller government that Republicans tout so highly? Where is my right to own any gun, use any substance in the privacy of my own home, do as I please with my reproductive organs? Why were we promised smaller government only to receive the Patriot Act, perhaps the biggest increase of intrusive government since the McCarthy days? Where is my right to peaceably assemble? Try to peaceably assemble today, and find a cop's baton at your back almost instantly. And where is my right to at least decide where my tax dollars are going, since I seem forced to pay taxes on many things I don't even use? I see all kinds of tax exemptions for the rich, but nothing for the working poor.

Or could the problem truly be that all "small government" really ever meant was less regulations on the already filthy rich polluters who have more money than they could spend in two lifetimes, but still want to get richer off the sweat of my brow anyway. Yeah, I think that's it. Yup, this Admin sucks for hundreds of reasons, not least of which is the fact that government is bigger now than it's ever been and growing steadily more intrusive as rightwing Christians lobby every politician out there to promote their agenda or risk losing voting blocs.

Bush is not freedom based, he's as authoritarian as you can get. This isn't a free country, it's plutocracy, its a little dynasty, and there's nothing small or free about that!

Look at a more recent graph than early 2001:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServletbad link.


Clinton had several surpluss budgets. Presidents named Bush could only dream of those.

bad link.

Clinton had several surpluss budgets. Presidents named Bush could only dream of those.

Fixed it:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

I only defend him on economic matters other than the deficit:

I agree that his deficits are out of control. There's no reason to spend like he has. The Republicans in power are mostly disgraceful, lying about their "small government" positions while voting in billions of dollars of pork and bloating the government to its biggest ever.

I'm ashamed of our Congress, plain and simple. Personally, I liked Clinton, so I'd gladly vote him in again.

All I've seen under this Admin is more and more intrusion into people's private lives at a burgeoning cost to taxpayers! Where is the smaller government that Republicans tout so highly? Where is my right to own any gun, use any substance in the privacy of my own home, do as I please with my reproductive organs? Why were we promised smaller government only to receive the Patriot Act, perhaps the biggest increase of intrusive government since the McCarthy days? Where is my right to peaceably assemble? Try to peaceably assemble today, and find a cop's baton at your back almost instantly. And where is my right to at least decide where my tax dollars are going, since I seem forced to pay taxes on many things I don't even use? I see all kinds of tax exemptions for the rich, but nothing for the working poor.

This is all faulty exaggeration. I don't think you need to own an M-16 with a grenade launcher or M-60 MG? Is that really necessary? The Patriot Act also provided better cooperation between law enforcement agencies. I think it is great that it was pushed. I of course was not all for everything in it, but the courts have already deleted portions of it that I don't agree with. You can have a peaceful assembly today. Wake up. This isn't 1968 era (DNC convention). You can assemble and have a protest. Take a look at those Moveon fools outside the white house. They were allowed to do it.

Your tax dollars have been used for programs for years. It isn't new to Bush. Really, start to understand ever since there was a government it has been taking money from you and using it for other things. Thank the tax cut for giving you it back. The tax cuts were across the board.

You wanna live in a country with high taxes like Sweden? Go ahead and do so.

Yup, this Admin sucks for hundreds of reasons, not least of which is the fact that government is bigger now than it's ever been and growing steadily more intrusive as rightwing Christians lobby every politician out there to promote their agenda or risk losing voting blocs.

This is of course more exaggeration. Bush is decent. He's not perfect, nor is any president. But he certainly is pretty decent. He's not authoritarian.


This isn't a free country, it's plutocracy, its a little dynasty, and there's nothing small or free about that!

And you call yourself a libertarian. You aren't no libertarian. You are as far to the left as it comes. I'm a libertarian. A real libertarian.

Canada6: What deficit?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050713/pl_usnw/budget_deficit_falls_nearly__100_billion124_xml

It is falling under Bush. So it is very easy in his reach. We also have to spend for a war. So like it or not, budget deficits will exist. We can also afford them.

I generally tend to agree with Bush. He's definetely not a great president, nor is he a horrible one. The recession is not Directly Bush's fault. That's just blatant stupidity, to blame a failing economy on the president. HE DOES NOT CONTROL THE ECONOMY. WE DO. It's not at his very fingertips for him to say, "Oh, I think I'll fuck us over today" or, "I'm feeling quite perky, lets give it a boost." Things don't work like that. People seem to think they do. As for the war, it was wasn't necessary, but I support it. Saddam's ass should've been out of office nearly 15 years ago. I applaud Bush for having the balls to stir shit up in the middle east and say "Hey, you guys aren't doing things right". I mean, face it, democratic reforms are abound in the middle east. That's the only way things will change in the middle east, when these fundamentalist regimes grant their people rights. On the home front, things could be better...Immigration for one....patriot act needs some cleanin up...Economy is growing...and Bush'll be out in 3 years. So people really have no right to complain.

The economy wasn't even failing people! THERE WAS NO RECESSION IN 2001. NONE. It is agreed that a recession consists of two-three quarters of negative GDP numbers. This did not happen.

Your tax dollars have been used for programs for years. It isn't new to Bush. Really, start to understand ever since there was a government it has been taking money from you and using it for other things. Thank the tax cut for giving you it back. The tax cuts were across the board.

Canada6: What deficit?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050713/pl_usnw/budget_deficit_falls_nearly__100_billion124_xml

It is falling under Bush. So it is very easy in his reach. We also have to spend for a war. So like it or not, budget deficits will exist. We can also afford them.


Still I fault him for allowing pork like the highway and energy bills (pour money in to useless ethanol but not a dime for new refineries? :confused: ) and that Medicare drug benefit. The Homeland Security department is way too heavy with bureaucrats as well.

I agreed with his tax cuts, they helped revive the economy in 2002 and averted a "double dip" recession caused by corporate collapses.

The economy wasn't even failing people! THERE WAS NO RECESSION IN 2001. NONE. It is agreed that a recession consists of two-three quarters of negative GDP numbers. This did not happen.

Technically, you are correct. Still, the economic losses had the effect of a recession, so it's called one even though it wasn't one.

Still I fault him for allowing pork like the highway and energy bills (pour money in to useless ethanol but not a dime for new refineries? :confused: ) and that Medicare drug benefit. The Homeland Security department is way too heavy with bureaucrats as well.


It is better we seek alternative energy, believe me.. ethanol isn't useless.

And it is up to private industry to invest more in petroleum and refineries. I see a lot of potential in Alberta, which has 1.3 trillion BTU of oil.

Technically, you are correct. Still, the economic losses had the effect of a recession, so it's called one even though it wasn't one.

Well economically and logically speaking, I think it is wrong to call it a recession. There needs to be two quarters of contraction.

Technically, you are correct. Still, the economic losses had the effect of a recession, so it's called one even though it wasn't one.

It was still one of the strongest, if not the strongest, economies in the world, despite it falling slightly.

Canada6: What deficit?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050713/pl_usnw/budget_deficit_falls_nearly__100_billion124_xmlTHey are still very very deep in the red and far from billions in surpluss.

I revise my number of 1.3 Trillion BTU for Alberta. That's estimated, not proveable. Anyways, here is an article showing that huge investment is pouring into Canada already to get oil out of sands.. it was previously too expensive.. but now isn't because of better technology. Also keep in mind, Canada is second to Saudi Arabia.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn32355.htm

07-05-03 The US government said Canada holds the world's second-largest oil reserves, taking into account Alberta oil sands previously considered too expensive to develop.
The Energy Information Administration, the statistical wing of the US Department of Energy, has included recent private sector estimates that an additional 175 bn barrels of oil could be recovered from resources known to exist in Western Canada since the 19th Century.

At a briefing on this year's EIA International Energy Outlook, EIA Administrator Guy Caruso cited a December report that raised Canada's proven oil reserves to 180 bn barrels from 4.9 bn barrels, thanks to inclusion of the oil sands -- also known as tar sands -- now considered recoverable with existing technology and market conditions.
"Canada will be producing a lot of oil from the development of these tar sands, but the quality of those reserves differs substantially from the Saudi reserves in terms of cost and ability to bring... the productive capacity on in ameaningful way," Caruso said. "There is a difference in the absolute amount versus the ability to turn that into productive capacity," he said.

The latest estimates put Canada ahead of war-torn Iraq, which the EIA estimates holds 112.5 bn barrels and is constrained from raising production for entirely different reasons. The US agency estimates Saudi Arabia's recoverable oil reserves at 264 bn barrels.
The EIA projects Canadian oil sands could produce 2.2 mm bpd by 2025 compared with the current level of about 700,000 bpd, which already represents more than a fourth of total Canadian output of 3.1 mm bpd.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers estimates current projects will raise Alberta oil sands production to 1 mm bpd this year, and continuing development will raise it further to 1.8 mm bpd by 2010, according to CAPP Vice President Greg Stringham.
Current oil sands projects are economically viable at crude oil prices of $ 18-$ 20 a barrel, though the quality of oil produced can vary according to whether production comes from "in situ" reserves that require drilling assisted by steam-injection pressure or from simple mining, Stringham said. CAPP's own estimate of Canada's recoverable oil sands is 315 bn barrels -- 20 % from mining and the rest from steam-assisted drilling.
"There's clearly a lot of the stuff in the ground," said David Pursell, oil-sector analyst with Houston-based investment bank Simmons & Co. But the commercial viability of the reserves is sensitive to oil prices, technology and public policy, Pursell said.

Among political complications are the additional carbon dioxide emissions from production and processing of the tarry substance. Stringham said despite Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol limiting carbon dioxide emissions, the industry expects the international agreement to add only 25 cents to 30 cents a barrel to development costs through 2012.
Oil sands development, which relies heavily on natural gas, could benefit from development and pipeline transport of large Arctic gas reserves in Alaska's North Slope and Canada's Mackenzie Delta, which under current proposals could be on-stream by 2010, the CAPP official said. While cautious about the new reserve estimates, Pursell said oil sands may be "a good contrarian investment" at a time most energy investors are focused on natural gas.
"It's a good potential source of hydrocarbons in this hemisphere," he said.

This is all faulty exaggeration. I don't think you need to own an M-16 with a grenade launcher or M-60 MG? Is that really necessary?

Yes, in fact it is, and who are you to say that it's not?

You can have a peaceful assembly today. Yeah, just like how the big RNC protest in New York went off without a hitch, right? And hundreds of non violent protesters DIDN'T end up in a makeshift jail in a parking lot with no food or water for hours and sometimes days, that kind of peaceful protest, right? Perhaps you've never felt the sting of tear gas, I doubt I'd ever find you out in the street putting your ass on the line for anything.

Thank the tax cut for giving you it back. The tax cuts were across the board.

Really? I didn't get shit! You know why? I never popped out a god damn flesh loaf, that's why. I get penalized every paycheck for being responsible and not having kids I can't afford. Some tax break there.

Bush is decent. Yes, I'm sure the Bin Laden family found him most affable as well.


And you call yourself a libertarian. You aren't no libertarian. You are as far to the left as it comes. I'm a libertarian. A real libertarian.

HAHAHA! Look who thinks he has a monopoly on free thought! HAHAHA, you ARE aware that the libertarian spectrum goes both right and left, right? Just like the authoritarian spectrum. Would you have called Stalin a liberal? Surely he was a leftist, does that automatically make him a liberal? I guess it does in your book. Hooray for Stalin the liberal! And only rightwingers can be libertarian, right? Hahaha, I'd call you stupid, but I don't want to get banned.

THey are still very very deep in the red and far from billions in surpluss.

The US has had budget deficits often in historical terms. This isn't anything new. And it can afford these deficits, so there is no problem there.

From what I see, you should be happy that the US is willing to invest in your country (if you are in fact from Canada).

Yeah, just like how the big RNC protest in New York went off without a hitch, right? And hundreds of non violent protesters DIDN'T end up in a makeshift jail in a parking lot with no food or water for hours and sometimes days, that kind of peaceful protest, right? Perhaps you've never felt the sting of tear gas, I doubt I'd ever find you out in the street putting your ass on the line for anything.

This is BS (and not to mention disinformation). Those people were allowed to protest. But since there were a lot of important political figures there they could not go close. And some of them were violent, not peaceful. I got hit with a tear gas canister while in Ecuador coming back from a supermarket walking. I got caught between soldiers and rioters. The US IS VERY FREE. I've been to countries that were outright dictatorships.

Really? I didn't get shit! You know why? I never popped out a god damn flesh loaf, that's why. I get penalized every paycheck for being responsible and not having kids I can't afford. Some tax break there.

Go work for a living then like my parents. They got a generous check because they work hard for a living.

Yes, I'm sure the Bin Laden family found him most affable as well.

The Bin Laden family severed ties in the early 90s with Osama himself. Take it this way.. if my uncle committed a crime, it doesn't mean I'm guilty.

HAHAHA! Look who thinks he has a monopoly on free thought! HAHAHA, you ARE aware that the libertarian spectrum goes both right and left, right? Just like the authoritarian spectrum. Would you have called Stalin a liberal? Surely he was a leftist, does that automatically make him a liberal? I guess it does in your book. Hooray for Stalin the liberal! And only rightwingers can be libertarian, right? Hahaha, I'd call you stupid, but I don't want to get banned.

You are not a libertarian. You are very much to the left. I think you are acting ridiculously. Libertarians are only on the center to the right. Those are real libertarians. Those on the left are false libertarians.

You shouldn't call names around here. I'm very smart thank you very much. At least I back myself up.

From what I see, you should be happy that the US is willing to invest in your country (if you are in fact from Canada).Born and raised. It's funny canada should be mentioned in the forum along with surplusses. Canada has had like 7 or 8 in a row.

Born and raised. It's funny canada should be mentioned in the forum along with surplusses. Canada has had like 7 or 8 in a row.

I mentioned Canada because of their huge reserves.. that can reduce Western dependence on Saudi Arabia by a huge amount.

I have no beef with american oil investments in Canada. So long as they don't rape our virgin territory. Canadians wouldn't stand for it if they decided to rip up Algonquin Park because oil had been found.

Go work for a living then like my parents. They got a generous check because they work hard for a living.

You know what, screw you dude, and I don't give a ratfuck if I get banned for this. I work 8 hours a day in a nursing home taking care of your future parents. I bust my fucking ass taking care of rich fuckers who pay my boss bank, who then in turn pays me next to nothing because the current labor laws say she can do that. Don't give me that fucking shit about working hard, I work harder than you'll ever fucking know!



The Bin Laden family severed ties in the early 90s with Osama himself. Take it this way.. if my uncle committed a crime, it doesn't mean I'm guilty.

The Bin Laden family fucking financed Arbusto for fuck sakes, but you don't care, he's your guy, you don't care, you would defend him no matter what he did.

You are not a libertarian. You are very much to the left. I think you are acting ridiculously. Libertarians are only on the center to the right. Those are real libertarians. Those on the left are false libertarians.

BULLSHIT!

http://www.pritsky.net/blogpics/compass.jpg

You will see that authoritarianism and libertarianlism run the entire length through right and left. I repeat my question, do you think Stalin is a liberal? Because by your logic, only rightwingers can be libertarians, so then if the inverse is implied, then all leftwingers must be liberals. How about that ol' liberal Pol Pot, yeah, he was some liberal, right? Or that liberal Lennin? And if rightwingers are automatically libertarian from simple virtue of being rightwing, then how about that great libertarian of yore, Hitler?

Ok this is my last post for the day as I need to go out and get to work.

You know what, screw you dude, and I don't give a ratfuck if I get banned for this. I work 8 hours a day in a nursing home taking care of your future parents. I bust my fucking ass taking care of rich fuckers who pay my boss bank, who then in turn pays me next to nothing because the current labor laws say she can do that. Don't give me that fucking shit about working hard, I work harder than you'll ever fucking know!

My parents are retiring to Italy. They aren't going to to a nursing home. I'm half Italian (my dad's side). You need to control your temper. You also need to understand there are better jobs out there. I work my ass off too. I have to pay bills from both university and my apartment. I'm going to shoot for my B.A degree and then my masters. So don't you dare.

You will see that authoritarianism and libertarianlism run the entire length through right and left. I repeat my question, do you think Stalin is a liberal? Because by your logic, only rightwingers can be libertarians, so then if the inverse is implied, then all leftwingers must be liberals. How about that ol' liberal Pol Pot, yeah, he was some liberal, right? Or that liberal Lennin? And if rightwingers are automatically libertarian from simple virtue of being rightwing, then how about that great libertarian of yore, Hitler?

I don't believe that scale from political compass. I took the test and I'm not convinced. I'm sorry. Also I'm not an extreme right winger, so stop quoting Hitler.

Also your post has been reported.

so stop quoting Hitler.

Where did I ever QUOTE Hitler?

Also your post has been reported.

Make my day.

I'll report your previous post because you used an excessive amount of swearing, which is not necessary.
Yeah, go running to Mommy. Because you can't take it that I'm right, and I'm ANGRY.

Everything I had has been TAKEN from me by this rotten economy, and i'm pissed off about it. so I hate your little Bushie boy, okay?

So go whine to Mommy because I said I hate your little Bushie boy. You would, too, in my circumstances, of which you know NOTHING.

Every temp agency I have gone to tells me time and again my skills are great, some of the best they have seen. But they never have jobs for me.

Now you tell ME why that is, if the economy is so "robust."

Yeah, go running to Mommy. Because you can't take it that I'm right, and I'm ANGRY.

Everything I had has been TAKEN from me by this rotten economy, and i'm pissed off about it. so I hate your little Bushie boy, okay?

So go whine to Mommy because I said I hate your little Bushie boy. You would, too, in my circumstances, of which you know NOTHING.

Every temp agency I have gone to tells me time and again my skills are great, some of the best they have seen. But they never have jobs for me.

Now you tell ME why that is, if the economy is so "robust."

Post-secondary education?

I own a few rental properties and I can give a different reason why rental rates are down. The housing market is a great buyers market with interest rates below 5 percent in places. Why rent when you can buy a house and pay much less than a rental? Only the really credit-UNworthy are renting. I used to get a lot of applications that I had to turn down, even though I had empty houses.

This is a good example of what's wrong with Democrats, liberals, and Bush-Haters. They can't take responsibility for themselves. You are moving in with your mom. It looks like you have made some bad choices that include very little-to-no post--high school education. Instead of fessing up and trying to improve yourself, you've decided that Bush is to blame and you are not.

Yeah. I had very little post-high school education. Would you like to know WHY?!?!
I never had the OPPORTUNITY to go to school beyond high school. I couldn't get grants or loans, because my father was an alcoholic bum who could only manage to get work and be paid under the table, and he refused to disclose his income for fear of the IRS.
And, because I was under 24, and still living at home at the time (because I could not possibly support myself AND go to school at that age) I could not get access to either loans or grants.

So the opportunity wasn't THERE for me back then.

I'm glad YOU were so fortunate that YOU could choose your parents, and your heritage, and make sure YOU got taken care of so you could go to post-highschool education. I only WISH I could have.

Again, you don't know what other people's circumstances are...you just automatically assume "lazy" like the typical know-it-all conservative that has ALL the answers...except, of course, ones that fit the circumstances...which is why conservatives PISS ME OFF!!

Sucks to be you, man.

Tell me about it. And you, or anyone out there...still wonders WHY I hate Bush?

Damn it, I had it all going on in the late 90's!! I had a great little life going for myself. Then George Bush came along, and presto-chango, everything's a great big pile of shit!

Tell me about it. And you, or anyone out there...still wonders WHY I hate Bush?

Damn it, I had it all going on in the late 90's!! I had a great little life going for myself. Then George Bush came along, and presto-chango, everything's a great big pile of shit!

What did you work in?

The dot-coms and corporate crooks are to blame for this, not Bush.

I find myself on the Libertarian side of things on many issues, and I'd like to ask the hard right, where are the personal freedoms? Where is smaller government? Now don't get me wrong, I take issue with "free" trade, and I'm totally Green when it comes to the environement, but I want government out of my personal life!

All I've seen under this Admin is more and more intrusion into people's private lives at a burgeoning cost to taxpayers! Where is the smaller government that Republicans tout so highly? Where is my right to own any gun, use any substance in the privacy of my own home, do as I please with my reproductive organs? Why were we promised smaller government only to receive the Patriot Act, perhaps the biggest increase of intrusive government since the McCarthy days? Where is my right to peaceably assemble? Try to peaceably assemble today, and find a cop's baton at your back almost instantly. And where is my right to at least decide where my tax dollars are going, since I seem forced to pay taxes on many things I don't even use? I see all kinds of tax exemptions for the rich, but nothing for the working poor.

Or could the problem truly be that all "small government" really ever meant was less regulations on the already filthy rich polluters who have more money than they could spend in two lifetimes, but still want to get richer off the sweat of my brow anyway. Yeah, I think that's it. Yup, this Admin sucks for hundreds of reasons, not least of which is the fact that government is bigger now than it's ever been and growing steadily more intrusive as rightwing Christians lobby every politician out there to promote their agenda or risk losing voting blocs.

Bush is not freedom based, he's as authoritarian as you can get. This isn't a free country, it's plutocracy, its a little dynasty, and there's nothing small or free about that!


What HE said, basically!!

You rock, dude!

Yeah. I had very little post-high school education. Would you like to know WHY?!?!
I never had the OPPORTUNITY to go to school beyond high school. I couldn't get grants or loans, because my father was an alcoholic bum who could only manage to get work and be paid under the table, and he refused to disclose his income for fear of the IRS.
And, because I was under 24, and still living at home at the time (because I could not possibly support myself AND go to school at that age) I could not get access to either loans or grants.

So the opportunity wasn't THERE for me back then.

I'm glad YOU were so fortunate that YOU could choose your parents, and your heritage, and make sure YOU got taken care of so you could go to post-highschool education. I only WISH I could have.

Again, you don't know what other people's circumstances are...you just automatically assume "lazy" like the typical know-it-all conservative that has ALL the answers...except, of course, ones that fit the circumstances...which is why conservatives PISS ME OFF!!

Ah, of course. Therein lies the problem. Your parents.

Scholarship? Good grades in high school pay off. My dad's parents were dirt poor, and he got grants and loans, paid them off, and now has a good job and (for the most part) financial securtiy. While I do feel sorry for you, much of the blames lies with you.

Yeah, go running to Mommy. Because you can't take it that I'm right, and I'm ANGRY.

Everything I had has been TAKEN from me by this rotten economy, and i'm pissed off about it. so I hate your little Bushie boy, okay?

So go whine to Mommy because I said I hate your little Bushie boy. You would, too, in my circumstances, of which you know NOTHING.

Every temp agency I have gone to tells me time and again my skills are great, some of the best they have seen. But they never have jobs for me.

Now you tell ME why that is, if the economy is so "robust."

Go to a career college. You can get funding easily these days. It is quick training that'll take a year. My bestfriend is doing that, and he didn't go to university. So don't give me this.. oh I can't do it because of blah blah blah.

Dude, I work for a living too. I go to university, and I'm going to get my masters.

you aren't right. You are wrong. And all the facts are on my side. It isn't my fault your education and skills are inadequate. There are plenty of jobs out there, and the economy is very robust. Your skills are inadequate. They are just trying to be nice to you.

i know plenty about the real world.

Ok this is my last post for the day as I need to go out and get to work.



My parents are retiring to Italy. They aren't going to to a nursing home. I'm half Italian (my dad's side). You need to control your temper. You also need to understand there are better jobs out there. I work my ass off too. I have to pay bills from both university and my apartment. I'm going to shoot for my B.A degree and then my masters. So don't you dare.



I don't believe that scale from political compass. I took the test and I'm not convinced. I'm sorry. Also I'm not an extreme right winger, so stop quoting Hitler.

Also your post has been reported.


Wow...you sure like reporting other people's posts...and letting them know in the forum that you did it.

did you know that what you are doing is, and has been, considered a form of flamebaiting?

Perhaps a bunch of people ought to report YOU for telling other people you reported THEM.

What did you work in?

The dot-coms and corporate crooks are to blame for this, not Bush.

and the corporate crooks are all friends and contributors to Bush.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Wow...you sure like reporting other people's posts...and letting them know in the forum that you did it.

did you know that what you are doing is, and has been, considered a form of flamebaiting?

Perhaps a bunch of people ought to report YOU for telling other people you reported THEM.

I'm not flame baiting anyone. You are the one flame baiting and flaming. You are insulting, you are cursing and you have a temper you can't seem to keep under control. I'm trying to be nice.

Now I must get going. So I'll talk to you later.

Ah, of course. Therein lies the problem. Your parents.

Scholarship? Good grades in high school pay off. My dad's parents were dirt poor, and he got grants and loans, paid them off, and now has a good job and (for the most part) financial securtiy. While I do feel sorry for you, much of the blames lies with you.

Scholarships? don't make me laugh! The fucking prioncipal of our high school was arrested for EMBEZZLEMENT of the goddamn scholarship funds! Look it up sometime. Her name was Marjorie Ball. I was a Crockett High School (Austin, Texas) alumni. Look it up sometime. There WAS NO MONEY for scholarships after the criminal got done with it!

I graduated 66 of 399, just missing the top 15 percent. I would have gotten SOMETHING for that, if not for the crook.

Go to a career college. You can get funding easily these days. It is quick training that'll take a year. My bestfriend is doing that, and he didn't go to university. So don't give me this.. oh I can't do it because of blah blah blah.

Dude, I work for a living too. I go to university, and I'm going to get my masters.

you aren't right. You are wrong. And all the facts are on my side. It isn't my fault your education and skills are inadequate. There are plenty of jobs out there, and the economy is very robust. Your skills are inadequate. They are just trying to be nice to you.

i know plenty about the real world.

You don't know my skills. And you have now personally attacked me by telling me MY skills are inadequate, when you don't even know what they are! So you know what? i'm putting you on ignore, before I really lose my temper on you.

You don't know my skills. And you have now personally attacked me by telling me MY skills are inadequate, when you don't even know what they are! So you know what? i'm taking great delight in reporting YOU...and putting you on ignore, before I really lose my temper on you.

Again, what did you do back in the 90's? I'm interested because it will help explain your situation even better.

Again, what did you do back in the 90's? I'm interested because it will help explain your situation even better.

Basically, I worked as an office clerk, and did a lot of data entry.

My skills, currently, are approximately 12,000 keystrokes per hour with zero errors on data entry, and about 60 words per minute, zero errors, in typing.

Additionally, my Word and Excel scores are among the highest the agency has seen. And I've been told this by a number of agencies. and no, they aren't just "being nice" as someone else suggested, because I do not see how getting scores like I have been getting on my proficiency in these programs would be anything less than awesome, considering I routinely get 100% in both Basic and Intermediate-level functions, and 90-95 percent in the Advanced-level functions. Youy just CAN'T do a whole lot better than that!! Not possible!

So, tell me again why there are no jobs for me, and yet it is a "robust" economy!!

God-damn these Bush butt-kissers really piss me off! No, I'm not directing the last statement at YOU, Vetalia. You asked a legitimate question.

It's the Bush butt-kissers that are pissing me off.

Basically, I worked as an office clerk, and did a lot of data entry.

My skills, currently, are approximately 12,000 keystrokes per hour with zero errors on data entry, and about 60 words per minute, zero errors, in typing.

Additionally, my Word and Excel scores are among the highest the agency has seen. And I've been told this by a number of agencies. and no, they aren't just "being nice" as someone else suggested, because I do not see how getting scores like I have been getting on my proficiency in these programs would be anything less than awesome, considering I routinely get 100% in both Basic and Intermediate-level functions, and 90-95 percent in the Advanced-level functions. Youy just CAN'T do a whole lot better than that!! Not possible!
.

Data entry was hit pretty bad by the dot-com collapse, but given your skills it seems odd that you can't get hired. Where are you looking for work? That has a lot to do with it, especially since some areas were hit harder than others.

Data entry was hit pretty bad by the dot-com collapse, but given your skills it seems odd that you can't get hired.
It's called "Hysteresis" and is a form of market failure, in which employers resist employing a perfectly able unemployed person because that person has been unemployed for a long time.

It's called "Hysteresis" and is a form of market failure, in which employers resist employing a perfectly able unemployed person because that person has been unemployed for a long time.

That would make sesne in their case, especially given the wage pressures commonly associated with that employment during the late 90's.

It's called "Hysteresis" and is a form of market failure, in which employers resist employing a perfectly able unemployed person because that person has been unemployed for a long time.

Yeah? Thanks. At least now I know the term for what's going on. so how the fuck do I overcome it?

This is such a load of bullshit....

I mean, okay, I have been un abd under-employed for nearly two years now. But, for Christ's sake...it's because there's never been crap available for two years, it isn't like I haven't been TRYING!! The only shit I can GET is temp...two months here...two weeks there, four months here, and long stretches of nothing in between. It's really getting on my fucking nerves!

I mean, I'm to the point where I would do just about ANYTHING, legal or not...to get a goddamn job.

Get training elsewhere. Adapt or fail.


So, tell me again why there are no jobs for me, and yet it is a "robust" economy!!

The economy is very robust and strong.

God-damn these Bush butt-kissers really piss me off! No, I'm not directing the last statement at YOU, Vetalia. You asked a legitimate question.

It's the Bush butt-kissers that are pissing me off.

What does Bush have to do with this anyways? This is the private sector.

Get training elsewhere. Adapt or fail.



The economy is very robust and strong.

Robust? Hardly. Strong? Anemic more I like it.


If the economist is very robust and strong, why on earth is the fed cutting rates like no tomorrow, extremely worried about the current account balance, and trying to calm down the housing markets?

Yeah? Thanks. At least now I know the term for what's going on. so how the fuck do I overcome it?
My father had the same problem, although he was higher figure in the IT Business, although some Australian xenophobia was part there too.

What he ended up doing was to just stop trying and started his own business. Maybe that's the best thing for you to do as well?

Robust? Hardly. Strong? Anemic more I like it.


If the economist is very robust and strong, why on earth is the fed cutting rates like no tomorrow, extremely worried about the current account balance, and trying to calm down the housing markets?

The fed is raising rates slowly, buddy.

Anemic not at all. That's false. Totally. Utterly. Wrong!

http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_912724.html

LONDON, July 11 (newratings.com) – Analysts at First Berlin express their optimism regarding the US economy and believe that it would witness GDP growth of 3.7% in 2005.

In a research note published this morning, the analysts mention that US factory orders improved significantly on a month-on-month basis in May this year. A series of data, including the June Consumer Price Index and the July Consumer Sentiment Index, is scheduled to be released in the current week.

-snip-
But you would agree that this is hardly thanks to Bush's voodoo economics, right?

But you would agree that this is hardly thanks to Bush's voodoo economics, right?

This is exactly what I expect from an international forum... bad rhetoric. Bush has voodoo economics (no, he has a logical economic plan.. ie, tax cuts)...

This is exactly what I expect from an international forum... bad rhetoric. Bush has voodoo economics (no, he has a logical economic plan.. ie, tax cuts)...
:D
My little friend, I am a second year Economics student with grades in the top 2% of my university of more than 30,000 students.

"Voodoo Economics" is a commonly used nickname for Supply Side Economics used in practice. It is accepted by the academic community that when supply side economics came through a bit (Reagan and Thatcher come to mind...) it had a few useful ideas, which were integrated into the mainstream.

Then it was abandoned, because most of it was bullshit. One of those things was the strange Laffer-Curve that Supply Side Economics assumes.
Obviously, if you are a businessman, and you have a lobby full of business interests, rich people's tax cuts and so on sound like a good idea. But they aren't.

So calm down. You are a little paranoid about "anti-Americans" coming after you. Don't be. Discuss arguments with people on their merits, that's all you need to do.

:D
My little friend, I am a second year Economics student with grades in the top 2% of my university of more than 30,000 students.

Oh just your second?

I'm in my third year of university. A junior. I'm taking political science as my major, and am double minoring in economics and urban development. I'm not an idiot. i also have a 3.9 GPA (that's on the US scale). And there are 33,000 students at my school Seems like your credibility isn't all you claim it is... hahahah...

"Voodoo Economics" is a commonly used nickname for Supply Side Economics used in practice. It is accepted by the academic community that when supply side economics came through a bit (Reagan and Thatcher come to mind...) it had a few useful ideas, which were integrated into the mainstream.

It is a misnomer. It is falsely applied by pro-Keynes people to criticize Reagan and other supply sided advocates as myself. It is falsely applied.

Then it was abandoned, because most of it was bullshit. One of those things was the strange Laffer-Curve that Supply Side Economics assumes.
Obviously, if you are a businessman, and you have a lobby full of business interests, rich people's tax cuts and so on sound like a good idea. But they aren't.

Incorrect. Most of Reagan's policies were very good for the nation and supply sided economics did in fact work as it created millions of jobs. This is well known. Also Reagan's tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. In fact those who experienced the biggest tax cuts were in the middle income tax brackets.

So calm down. You are a little paranoid about "anti-Americans" coming after you. Don't be. Discuss arguments with people on their merits, that's all you need to do.

I am paranoid because you people seek to destroy this country and I'm going to fight in every way I can. I also had a look at your nation. That's a good one. Keep your fragile economy, thank you very much. :)

Your credibility has just been shot.

I am paranoid because you people seek to destroy this country and I'm going to fight in every way I can.

Your credibility has just been shot.

You think your credibility's been dodging bullets tonight, Mesa?

It is a misnomer. It is falsely applied by pro-Keynes people to criticize Reagan and other supply sided advocates as myself. It is falsely applied.
It is also commonly used at least by my lecturers...

Incorrect. Most of Reagan's policies were very good for the nation and supply sided economics did in fact work as it created millions of jobs. This is well known. Also Reagan's tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich. In fact those who experienced the biggest tax cuts were in the middle income tax brackets.
I was talking about the Bush tax cuts, not necessarily about Reagan.
And I have yet to see any evidence that supply side economics ever did anything to improve an economy. Both Reagan and Thatcher were lucky that their ideology coincided with good exogenous conditions, otherwise things would have ended even worse than they did.

I am paranoid because you people seek to destroy this country and I'm going to fight in every way I can.
We do?
Oh, and really, my nation says nothing about what I believe or think.

Your credibility has just been shot.
Slow down. Good on you for doing work at uni.
But I'm so sick of "Economics Majors" telling people they know things. If you are in third year, you would have done a number of subjects on Political Science, a few subjects on Urban Development, and a few subjects on Economics (presumably at some sort of business school - I don't know whether your uni has an actual faculty of Economics).
You hardly know more about the subject than I do. How far are you? Introduction to Macroeconomics?

You think your credibility's been dodging bullets tonight, Mesa?

At least I'm not the one trying to use my education as a platform for debate. I didn't even bring education up.. he did.

It is also commonly used at least by my lecturers...

So you just bow before them and treat them as infallible? I question my professors and do research on my own.

I was talking about the Bush tax cuts, not necessarily about Reagan.
And I have yet to see any evidence that supply side economics ever did anything to improve an economy. Both Reagan and Thatcher were lucky that their ideology coincided with good exogenous conditions, otherwise things would have ended even worse than they did.

Bush tax cuts were also across the board, whether you want to admit it or not. And it did avert a recession (as a recession is defined as two quarters of contraction), and many investors and economists agree with me on that point. They weren't lucky. They contributed to a turn-around and solidified it.

We do?
Oh, and really, my nation says nothing about what I believe or think.

It shows your beliefs in policies... doesn't it? Don't you implement economic policies that you believe in? Well at least I do.

But I'm so sick of "Economics Majors" telling people they know things. If you are in third year, you would have done a number of subjects on Political Science, a few subjects on Urban Development, and a few subjects on Economics (presumably at some sort of business school - I don't know whether your uni has an actual faculty of Economics).
You hardly know more about the subject than I do. How far are you? Introduction to Macroeconomics?

Hold up. Stop. Who was the one who brought up their education background into this? I certainly didn't. I don't believe I need to. You were pushing it in my face, arrogantly. Yes I already completed quite a few classes on political science... I'm done with lower division.. I'm in upper division now for everything. I still have a few general education classes to do (ugh). But don't bring up my education in this.

i know a lot more then you do. You can't ****ing say I hardly know more then you do. In fact I haven't really said much on this forum. Don't insult my education please.

At least I'm not the one trying to use my education as a platform for debate. I didn't even bring education up.. he did.

That's not what I'm talking about, and I'm at least half-certain you already knew that anyway.

Why are you labouring under the impression that 'anti-Americans' are out to bring America down and get soldiers killed in Iraq, all the while toasting each other's keen wit and laughing at the US?

At least I'm not the one trying to use my education as a platform for debate. I didn't even bring education up.. he did.
Your reply implied that I didn't know what I was talking about.
I do though, and I pointed that out. No reason to get offended. So far you were the one taking shots.
If I did say anything that overly offended you though, I am sorry.

Your reply implied that I didn't know what I was talking about.
I do though, and I pointed that out. No reason to get offended. So far you were the one taking shots.
If I did say anything that overly offended you though, I am sorry.

You went after my education and you called me "little". Uh huh... and then you said... "you hardly know more then me". How is that when I've taken perhaps... more classes then you have? I'm already in upper division, buddy. I don't know how they do it in your country.. but i'm done with all the basic classes.

So you just bow before them and treat them as infallible? I question my professors and do research on my own.
So do I. But I don't question their vocabulary.


Bush tax cuts were also across the board, whether you want to admit it or not. And it did avert a recession (as a recession is defined as two quarters of contraction), and many investors and economists agree with me on that point. They weren't lucky. They contributed to a turn-around and solidified it.
And arguably even more economists disagree with you. Really nothing in Economics is a clear-cut thing.


It shows your beliefs in policies... doesn't it? Don't you implement economic policies that you believe in? Well at least I do.
I can't make my own policies, I can only answer questions. I furthermore don't think that free education can make an economy "fragile", but the game does.
Just for future reference, don't assume you know a person's political ideals by looking at their nations. If you have to, look at their scores on the political compass (I don't know if you can see my signature)


- You were pushing it in my face, arrogantly.
i know a lot more then you do. You can't ****ing say I hardly know more then you do. In fact I haven't really said much on this forum. Don't insult my education please.
Sorry about that then.
Well, now you are insulting my education, and you are starting to swear.
Anyways, what I am saying is that because you are doing a comparatively more diversified degree, you are bound to have completed less courses in actual Economics than someone who has done an Economics only degree. (At this point I feel obliged to mention that I am in fact doing a dual degree Economics/Business Management.... :D )

Anyways...I think we've gotten off to the wrong start here. We don't need to insult each other, and you don't need to be overly defensive.
Rather we should debate things civily. But not today. I'll have to leave in a few minutes.

And arguably even more economists disagree with you. Really nothing in Economics is a clear-cut thing.

Even more? Give me a break. Lets say: Rather few disagree with me.

I can't make my own policies, I can only answer questions. I furthermore don't think that free education can make an economy "fragile", but the game does.

Eh there are other factors.

Just for future reference, don't assume you know a person's political ideals by looking at their nations. If you have to, look at their scores on the political compass (I don't know if you can see my signature)

You are misintrepreting what I said..


Well, now you are insulting my education, and you are starting to swear.
Anyways, what I am saying is that because you are doing a comparatively more diversified degree, you are bound to have completed less courses in actual Economics than someone who has done an Economics only degree. (At this point I feel obliged to mention that I am in fact doing a dual degree Economics/Business Management.... :D )

It was wrong you even brought up education and that is why I got a littl bit steamed. A bit more angry. Ummm, don't question what courses I have or have not taken. I didn't mention them. And I won't. I also think you still don't have any credibility to stand on. Your own biases cloud your judgement.

Anyways...I think we've gotten off to the wrong start here. We don't need to insult each other, and you don't need to be overly defensive.
Rather we should debate things civily. But not today. I'll have to leave in a few minutes.

You went after my education and I got defensive. That's my right. And in fact I'm sure many will agree with me on this forum.

Oh honestly...

It was wrong you even brought up education and that is why I got a littl bit steamed. A bit more angry.
You'll see, sometimes it happens. If one is going to argue for a certain point of view, one sometimes underlines one's knowledge in the area. I know at least one other person here who just loves doing that...but you're more likely to agree with him than with me.

I also think you still don't have any credibility to stand on. Your own biases cloud your judgement.
Suit yourself. I was looking forward to a debate. If you don't want to, I can't force you. I outlined my qualifications, and I made fun of yours (for which I am sorry, as I said). They are there, and you can't argue against that.

But as far as biases are concerned, you're gonna have fun on these forums...
:D

You'll see, sometimes it happens. If one is going to argue for a certain point of view, one sometimes underlines one's knowledge in the area. I know at least one other person here who just loves doing that...but you're more likely to agree with him than with me.


Suit yourself. I was looking forward to a debate. If you don't want to, I can't force you. I outlined my qualifications, and I made fun of yours (for which I am sorry, as I said). They are there, and you can't argue against that.

But as far as biases are concerned, you're gonna have fun on these forums...
:D

Your qualifications mean nothing to me. I didn't bring up my education. Furthermore, I think knowledge can be attained from different ways other then the classroom.. a lot is self taught.

I don't think I'm going to post here all that much.

I have a degree of economics w/ honours from UNSW, for anybody to imply that the current US government is doing a good job as an economics manager is simply laughable to anybody with an education. Exibit 1:

IMF economic statistics (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/01/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=1990&ED=2005&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=156-158-132-112-134-111-136&S=NGDP_RPCH-NGDP_D-NI_NGDP-NGS_NGDP-PCPIPCH-PCPI-GGB_NGDP-GGSB_NPGDP-GGD_NGDP-GGD-GGND_NGDP-GGND-BCA_NGDPD-FLIBOR6&CMP=0&x=106&y=12)

Exibit 2:

US real unemployment rate tops EU (http://www.thinkandask.com/news/jobs.html)

Ofcourse this is just scratching the surface, for example the poverty rate in the USA is approx. 8%, whilst in Western Europe this number is neg. Europe is also beating out the USA in both GDP and NIEG. What the USA has right now is an overvalued, false economy. The CAD is especially a worry, and theres no point in economic growth if inflation grows with it ...

Europe is nearing recession.. it isn't all rosy as you want to claim. The US isn't in a recession. Thinkandask has a very anti-Bush bias to it.. careful. That's not a credible source.

Europe nearing recession? Says who? Fox News or the right wing baggarts in Washington? If anything the USA should be trying to emulate economies such as Norway, the EU, Ireland or the UK, becuase the current system is showing its weaknesses. I really couldnt care what they say, as an economic observer it is clear that it wont matter as the USA sinks itself deeper and deeper into a recession, I doubt the republican supporters will even admit to it once Greenspan start mass selling treasury bonds. The think and ask article makes perfect sense, I would never reference a political article, yet their economics are fairly sound. And if you cant accept this the IMF statistics are raw and there absolutely no chance you can reject those. The longer the USA stays on its high horse the harder you're gonna hit the ground when it dies. Also, once you factor in inflation into GDP growth there is very little between Europe and the USA. Oh and one more thing:

2005 GDP
(nominal)
millions of USD

1 European Union 13,926,873
2 United States 12,438,873

Europe nearing recession? Says who? Fox News or the right wing baggarts in Washington? If anything the USA should be trying to emulate economies such as Norway, the EU, Ireland or the UK, becuase the current system is showing its weaknesses. I really couldnt care what they say, as an economic observer it is clear that it wont matter as the USA sinks itself deeper and deeper into a recession, I doubt the republican supporters will even admit to it once Greenspan start mass selling treasury bonds. The think and ask article makes perfect sense, I would never reference a political article, yet their economics are fairly sound. And if you cant accept this the IMF statistics are raw and there absolutely no chance you can reject those. The longer the USA stays on its high horse the harder you're gonna hit the ground when it dies. Also, once you factor in inflation into GDP growth there is very little between Europe and the USA. Oh and one more thing:

Typical from someone of the left. You don't even recognize any problems that the EU has. A aging population. A horrible welfare state in many of the larger countries in the EU. Countries that don't agree on anything. How can the artificial EU last? If anything the EU should try to emulate the USA. The US is based on a very solid system. The think and ask article has problems with credibility as do you. You can't possibly have sound judgement on this. The US is not going to sink itself deeper and deeper into recession. Only Europe will do that to itself.

Get off your damn biases. I'm not even American. I'm from Spain (born in Madrid to be exact) and I think the EU as a whole is doomed.

There is very big difference between Europe and the US. The US economy is growing solidly, with good growth. The EU.. is... nil.

And I'm off to bed. 2AM already here.. and I'm still not in bed. Well anyways, I probably won't get a reply back because I'm going on a trip with my boyfriend.

You = Location: Los Angeles, California ... dont make me laugh

One last time, I'm not of the left wing, I'm an economist and I've worked for 2 major US firms doing this (JP Morgan and Chase Manhattan if you must know), you can carry on like every other ignorant american and pretend like Europe is near collapse and the USA is still Economic top-tog and great performer (none of which are even near truth).

However, unlike you, it is not in my interest if the US economy regresses, I want the US economy to be successful and prosper, as this reflects on the whole world, and we cant have this so long as these so called "republicans" are running around claiming idiotic and unbased facts (who lets face it, blew out the US CAD and BOP in the past 4 years). The issues you refer to are being adressed to some success by the EU, the problems with the US economy are not.

But you dont have to take my word for it, people afterall seldom listen to economic advice, however the IMF link I provide should be plenty.

He, Freistaat... Es heißt "top-dog"... :p

:p I spend on average 1-2 months in Europe per year, most of that im Frankfurt or visiting Familie im Dresden ... ich bin "oberer Hund" ... hrmmm doesent really translate the way I want it but u get the point :fluffle:

*Dodges economics arguments flying every which way*

I voted in favour of Bush. Though he's on the soft side ("compassionate conservatism"? come on), he's better than the alternatives the Dems put up against him. I'd give him a solid 7 or 7.5 out of 10.

Terror is good for my business, Bush creates Terrorists there by creating business. I like Bush.

I am paranoid because you people seek to destroy this country and (...)That's funny... I thought Leonstein was German... :rolleyes:

That company went out of business a long time ago.

Maybe it's because not too many conservatives know how to work a computer. :D

Oh oh, that's a good one.

I really dislike him.

It's kind of strange, for someone who watched the 2004 elections so anxiously, I prayed and I'm not even religious, I have no idea how my own country is run.

Hohum.

The fed is raising rates slowly, buddy.

Grumble. I meant GB's. I should be shot for making late night posts. The world economy is intertwinned, and lots of areas are showing weakness, and that poses bad news for the already on the edge US markets.

Anemic not at all. That's false. Totally. Utterly. Wrong!

http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_912724.html

LONDON, July 11 (newratings.com) – Analysts at First Berlin express their optimism regarding the US economy and believe that it would witness GDP growth of 3.7% in 2005.

In a research note published this morning, the analysts mention that US factory orders improved significantly on a month-on-month basis in May this year. A series of data, including the June Consumer Price Index and the July Consumer Sentiment Index, is scheduled to be released in the current week.
Handled already. GDP is a poor indicator of growth, especially when it is being unrealistically fed by consumer debt and bubbly housing prices.

My father had the same problem, although he was higher figure in the IT Business, although some Australian xenophobia was part there too.

What he ended up doing was to just stop trying and started his own business. Maybe that's the best thing for you to do as well?

start my own business? doing what and with what start-up money?

Your reply implied that I didn't know what I was talking about.
I do though, and I pointed that out. No reason to get offended. So far you were the one taking shots.
If I did say anything that overly offended you though, I am sorry.

What are you apologizing for? From what I have read, if anyone is owed an apology, you are. You have been the target of a lot of unfair personal attacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesatecala
- You were pushing it in my face, arrogantly.
i know a lot more then you do. You can't ****ing say I hardly know more then you do. In fact I haven't really said much on this forum. Don't insult my education please.



Sorry about that then.
Well, now you are insulting my education, and you are starting to swear.


Hey, pot...meet kettle!! Does my memory decieve or was not the very person now guilty of swearing, and personal attacks accusing ME of the very same things?? Wow, is the hypocrasy thick in here. At least I wasn't making personal arttacks in spite of what my accuser would like to believe, but, as to cussing, I plead guilty as charged.

But I seem to remember the same person who is now, themselves cussing...complaining about ME cussing! Pot, meet kettle. And Leonstein, I have no idea why you have apologized to this guy, when he is the one who should be apologizing to YOU.

NOT ANOTHER BUSH THREAD.

He's probably had more threads than creation vs evolution and gay marriage put together.

He should become the poster child for the forum!!!

I have a degree of economics w/ honours from UNSW, for anybody to imply that the current US government is doing a good job as an economics manager is simply laughable to anybody with an education. Exibit 1:

IMF economic statistics (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2005/01/data/dbcoutm.cfm?SD=1990&ED=2005&R1=1&R2=1&CS=3&SS=2&OS=C&DD=0&OUT=1&C=156-158-132-112-134-111-136&S=NGDP_RPCH-NGDP_D-NI_NGDP-NGS_NGDP-PCPIPCH-PCPI-GGB_NGDP-GGSB_NPGDP-GGD_NGDP-GGD-GGND_NGDP-GGND-BCA_NGDPD-FLIBOR6&CMP=0&x=106&y=12)

Exibit 2:

US real unemployment rate tops EU (http://www.thinkandask.com/news/jobs.html)

Ofcourse this is just scratching the surface, for example the poverty rate in the USA is approx. 8%, whilst in Western Europe this number is neg. Europe is also beating out the USA in both GDP and NIEG. What the USA has right now is an overvalued, false economy. The CAD is especially a worry, and theres no point in economic growth if inflation grows with it ...


Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you...so much for these links!! They are EXACTLY what I need to make my case to these know-it-all smart-assed EMPLOYED conservatives who call me lazy or "unskilled" because I am unemployed and cannot find decent work.

My skills in data entry and processing are among the best...and yet, I cannot find a job. So, I am relegated to the doing the temp thing, hoping against hope to ride out the rest of GWB's rotten fucking Presidency, get his ass out of there, and get someone in who will do something for the common man, instead of rich crony assholes.

goddam, these freaking conservatives really piss me off! They act as if what happened to me couldn't POSSIBLY happen to them too...and worse, they won't admit that THEY VOTED FOR THIS SHIT!!

I love to hear about it when one of these smart-ass know-it-alls loses their job. I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. The first question I ask anyone who bvitches about not being able to find a job is...WHO DID YOU VOTE FOR??? And if the answer is Bush, I just tell 'em....well, you got what you voted for, enjoy it!

Terror is good for my business, Bush creates Terrorists there by creating business. I like Bush.

Spoken like a true conservative.


May I translate??

Translation: I got mine, I got my money, my business is booming, and who gives a fuck about all the victims of terror, and who gives a shit about all the victims of the recession? In short, I got mine, and fuck you.

That's my official translation of what was written above.

Yeah. I had very little post-high school education. Would you like to know WHY?!?!
I never had the OPPORTUNITY to go to school beyond high school. I couldn't get grants or loans, because my father was an alcoholic bum who could only manage to get work and be paid under the table, and he refused to disclose his income for fear of the IRS.
And, because I was under 24, and still living at home at the time (because I could not possibly support myself AND go to school at that age) I could not get access to either loans or grants.

So the opportunity wasn't THERE for me back then.

I'm glad YOU were so fortunate that YOU could choose your parents, and your heritage, and make sure YOU got taken care of so you could go to post-highschool education. I only WISH I could have.

Again, you don't know what other people's circumstances are...you just automatically assume "lazy" like the typical know-it-all conservative that has ALL the answers...except, of course, ones that fit the circumstances...which is why conservatives PISS ME OFF!!

It's always someone else's fault, isn't it? College isn't the only kind of education there is. It's so darned easy to go to tech school at night, that it's obvious you've wasted a good number of years just feeling sorry for your self. Well don't worry, someone else will make it all right, if you just complain long enough.

I'm pretty sure the republicans have manipulated this poll in some way to make Bush look good...*suspicious look on face*

Dude the poll is independent. I am doing an experiment by comparing these results to those of CNN's poll. That's all, but if you believe that I guess I can't change your mind.

Handled already. GDP is a poor indicator of growth, especially when it is being unrealistically fed by consumer debt and bubbly housing prices.

No it is not. And also, another thing... all the other indicators show solid growth (whether it be consumer spending, the housing market). I don't see a housing market bubble. I see a cooling off. Like what is happening in China after years of hot growth (even excessive growth). Cooling off period.

Lyric:

Hey, pot...meet kettle!! Does my memory decieve or was not the very person now guilty of swearing, and personal attacks accusing ME of the very same things?? Wow, is the hypocrasy thick in here. At least I wasn't making personal arttacks in spite of what my accuser would like to believe, but, as to cussing, I plead guilty as charged.

But I seem to remember the same person who is now, themselves cussing...complaining about ME cussing! Pot, meet kettle. And Leonstein, I have no idea why you have apologized to this guy, when he is the one who should be apologizing to YOU.

All I said is you should stop feeling sorry for yourself and take responsibility. Stop blaming Bush. Blame yourself. Get into a career college of some sort. Stop blaming other people for your errors. I'm on the center-right because we typically take action and don't blame others. I'm getting my masters. So don't criticize me.

I shouldn't be apologizing to leonstein because he brought up my education. I didn't.

Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you...so much for these links!! They are EXACTLY what I need to make my case to these know-it-all smart-assed EMPLOYED conservatives who call me lazy or "unskilled" because I am unemployed and cannot find decent work.

Get training... dude, I'm giving you some helpful advice. Data entry and processing is just not in demand.

So, I am relegated to the doing the temp thing, hoping against hope to ride out the rest of GWB's rotten fucking Presidency, get his ass out of there, and get someone in who will do something for the common man, instead of rich crony assholes.

Always because of the president.. hey.. I didn't screw it.. it is all Bush's fault because he's Bush. There is no reason for it. I posted all these facts about how the economy is doing very well under Bush, and you still want to blame him for your own problems. I mean for goodness sakes, go into a career college like my friend. It isn't too hard. It'll take him a year. I've been in university for my third year now.

goddam, these freaking conservatives really piss me off! They act as if what happened to me couldn't POSSIBLY happen to them too...and worse, they won't admit that THEY VOTED FOR THIS SHIT!!

Voted for what? Voted for solid economic growth and US security? That's what I voted for.

I love to hear about it when one of these smart-ass know-it-alls loses their job. I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. The first question I ask anyone who bvitches about not being able to find a job is...WHO DID YOU VOTE FOR??? And if the answer is Bush, I just tell 'em....well, you got what you voted for, enjoy it!

If we lose our job, we go out and get another one. We don't live with our parents until we are what.. 30? I lost my job some time ago because this one store I worked at went out of business... guess what? I found another job.

I got economic growth and security for the US.

don't forget that, besides the fact that this survey isn't remotely scientific, you don't have to be american to participate in this survey :)

you don't have to be american to participate in this survey :)You don't have to be american to say that Bush is an idiot.

Exibit 2:

US real unemployment rate tops EU (http://www.thinkandask.com/news/jobs.html)

Ofcourse this is just scratching the surface, for example the poverty rate in the USA is approx. 8%, whilst in Western Europe this number is neg. Europe is also beating out the USA in both GDP and NIEG. What the USA has right now is an overvalued, false economy. The CAD is especially a worry, and theres no point in economic growth if inflation grows with it ...

Old statistics from before the job creation in 2004.

Unemployment in June 2005:

Germany:10.3%
France: 10.2%
Italy: 8.6%
Eurozone: 8.8%
United States: 8.2%

Our augmented unemployment now is at the same levels it was with Clinton in 1997 in his 5th year. Furthermore, the data is meaningless because there is always around 2.5-3% of the population that does not want to work. Even at the height of the 90's boom, augmented unemployment was 6.5% (headline rate 3.9%).

Economic GDP Growth 2005 Projection:

Germany:0.9%
France: 1.4%
Italy: 0.0%
Eurozone: 1.2%

United States: 3.7%

Budget Deficits:

Germany: 3.4% GDP (About $400 billion when converted to the size of US GDP, and 364 billion in 2006 provided the economy doesn't slow)
France: 2.9% GDP (About 350 billion, and 317 billion in 2006)
Italy: 4.3% GDP (About 505 billion in US terms)
US: 2.7% GDP (333 billion)

All of them are running deficits higher than the US, and Italy's is bigger than any of ours have ever been.

Per capita GDP:

United States:40,100
Germany: 28,700
France: 28,700
Italy: 27,700

Even when adjusted for PPP, the US still leads by over $7,000
Our standard of living is 11,200 dollars better than the three countries.

European poverty is smaller on an individual nation basis (mainly in the Scandinavian countries), but is almost equal when southern Europe is averaged in.

Hello everyone.
-snip-
I agree that the EU has its' issues. Nonetheless, it is a good idea and should be supported.
The current crisis in countries like Germany and France will work itself out over time. In my opinion, we really just see Globalisation hitting home hard. So we'll specialise in what we do best, and we'll be fine.
Whatever economic policies will be implemented might have some importance, but you can't really defeat the market forces in a thing like this...

-snip-
As for our Spanish-American friend - I appologised because I like to keep things civil (and because it makes me look good... ;) ), and maybe I was a little too arrogant in my response.
Nonetheless, I don't see why education is such a delicate issue, I prefer it when I know that my "opponent" has some sort of qualification, rather than risk saying stupid things about, say Biology, and then finding out that person is a seniour professor of Molecular Biology at the MIT...
I also think that you really need to calm down when it comes to the US. Not everyone who disagrees with you, or with Bush, is an anti-American, and even if they are, that says nothing about their opinion of terrorism.

-snip-
As for Business, that is a tough one. My father used the money left from when we sold our house in Hamburg...I guess it's a matter of having a good idea and then getting people to get on board.
Not sure whether those "entrepreneurship" courses could help...

Hello everyone.
I agree that the EU has its' issues. Nonetheless, it is a good idea and should be supported.
The current crisis in countries like Germany and France will work itself out over time. In my opinion, we really just see Globalisation hitting home hard. So we'll specialise in what we do best, and we'll be fine.
Whatever economic policies will be implemented might have some importance, but you can't really defeat the market forces in a thing like this...

I'd say the German and French models will collapse; they can't support themselves other than by raising taxes, which leads to more unemployment and higher costs.

They need to follow the Sweden/Scandinavian model, because it combines high growth, market freedoms, and export-geared industry. These and the lack of subsidies more or less offset the high taxes needed to support their social programs (which are much better designed and accountable than the France/Germany model). Then their social programs will survive and their economies recover.

Edit: I was trying to refute their playing with the data more than anything. The US economy is much stronger than the Eurozone.

I'd say the German and French models will collapse; they can't support themselves other than by raising taxes, which leads to more unemployment and higher costs.
I think they will reform themselves more than collapse. I don't think a philosophy can just be erased like that.
And at least in Germany, people are quite proud of what is called the "Social Market Economy", and was for many years probably the best economic model on the planet, combining economic growth with equality, health care and social security.
Apart from that you might even have to change the constitution a little bit.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html
I point to Article 14 especially.

The reforms are happening, at least in Germany (I don't know much about French politics), and by the way the US has its' own structural problems that are not being addressed at all and might come back to haunt you one day.
That said, in the long term, things will sort themselves out anyways.

And I wonder why nobody has mentioned this...the primary problem for Germany is the low domestic consumer confidence. Germany is currently raping all past export records, the biggest exporter on the planet.
Hamburg alone does 400 million tons a year.

I give...three thumbs down!

No, wait, that one's a toe...