Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2004 I'm aware. However, I'm talking about degree. Saying I'm more biased than most is like saying... eh, fuck it, I'm not in a metaphorical mood Just sayin', I'm no more or less biased than anyone else who has an opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SideFXs Report post Posted April 3, 2004 It's only what we've been saying would happen around this time for more than a year now, and what everyone with a clue has known was inevitable all along. Guess that demolishes another Democrat talking point. I wonder what they'll seize on next? Oh yeah, we're soft on terrorists... The article sited an increase in claims for unemployment benefits, a lagging indicator. Historically it's the last market indicator to change. The stock market has been in recovery since March 2003 and broke through new yearly high, in June. It has moved from a low of 7200 to 9471, in 6 months. Believe me by November of 2004, this whole bad economy angle the Libs in the media are mind washing Americans with, will be a bad memory. And so many posters, including Tyler, doubted me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2004 The Bush administration promised 306,000 jobs a month the entire year. This is the first month they've matched it. Good sign? Yes. Out of the jobless recovery yet? No. Bush still is on pace to be the first president with negative job growth since Hoover. That's not good for re-election. Hold off your gloating for a few more months. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 3, 2004 The Bush administration promised 306,000 jobs a month the entire year. This is the first month they've matched it. Good sign? Yes. Out of the jobless recovery yet? No. Bush still is on pace to be the first president with negative job growth since Hoover. That's not good for re-election. Hold off your gloating for a few more months. Of course, the odds of new jobs just stopping seems a bit slim. New jobs tends to be the last indicator to change --- positively or negatively. Heck, the economy was in recession in 2000 --- jobs didn't start suffering until 2001. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2004 Indeed, but according to the former labor secretary under Clinton (forget his name, but read this about what he said), the jobs that were created were, for the most part, low paying ones. And you have to create 150,000 or so just to keep up with the population growth. We've had consumer confidence slip a few months in a row, so it's really a bit too early to be gloating. Hell, I'm one of the people in favor of positive job growth; I actually need to grab one when the end of this month rolls around. I'll be mighty pissed if people stop hiring now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 3, 2004 Indeed, but according to the former labor secretary under Clinton (forget his name, but read this about what he said), the jobs that were created were, for the most part, low paying ones. And you have to create 150,000 or so just to keep up with the population growth. We've had consumer confidence slip a few months in a row, so it's really a bit too early to be gloating. Hell, I'm one of the people in favor of positive job growth; I actually need to grab one when the end of this month rolls around. I'll be mighty pissed if people stop hiring now. Honestly, Democrats claim that for any Republican President's job growth (which is a misnomer, considering that the President's impact on the economy is awfully weak), so that is nothing new. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2004 Back on Air America... NADER: ... can you – is this the way you want to start Air America? You want it to be Hot Air America? RHODES: Oh, no, you see ... NADER: ... Log on to the web site votenader.org ... RHODES: Ralph, let me tell you something. If you did get to be president, tell me who you would caucus with. Tell me who you could get to vote for your ... views and visions, and your, your bills! Who is an independent other than Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords? Who are you gonna count on? You ... let's say you win, OK? NADER: You can't win without a huge mobilization of voters ... RHODES: ... let's say ya do ... NADER: ... that would replace many members of Congress. RHODES: ... let's say it's seventy years old, from your house in Connecticut, your little house ... NADER: ... now wait a minute. Now wait wait wait. You're ... RHODES: ... you are, you are ready to do this. NADER: ... listen, listen. Now you're getting nasty. RHODES: I'm not! NADER: You are ruining the first day ... RHODES: I'm not ruining anything. NADER: ... the first day of Air America. RHODES: This is Air America. NADER: ... you're not letting your, you're not letting your guest be, have a chance to speak. You're ... RHODES: I asked you a question. NADER: ... you're not letting your guest have a chance to speak. After some more arguing.. NADER: ... you've got a very bad interviewing technique ... RHODES: ... uh uh uh. I am not ... NADER: ... and you're not going to get an audience by overtalking ... RHODES: ... interviewing you ... NADER: Do not overtalk! RHODES: I am not ... interviewing you! NADER: Do not overtalk! RHODES: I'm mad at you! Don't you understand the difference? NADER: Fine, just close up and start screaming to your audience. RHODES: [laughs] Look. Don't tell me how to do radio; I've done it for twenty years. You screwed up the last election, and now you want to screw up this one, and I'm pissed! NADER: (pause; speechless) You know, you ought to be ashamed of yourself because you ... RHODES: But I'm not! You know you should ... NADER: ... you agree with me ... RHODES: ... be ashamed of yourself! NADER: ... you agree with me on so many issues. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. RHODES: I'm not ashamed of myself. I can't afford you! I guess that answers NoCalMike's question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Some Guy 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2004 I admit I don't like Bush, but I fail to see how that makes me more biased than anyone else. Tyler, don't pretend that you're not. I'm telling you that you are. And it's not a bad thing. Having no opinion on major issues shows a LACK of intellect, not having more of it. -=Mike Was that a backhanded shot at Kerry? Does having opposing opinions on the same issue make you more of an intellectual? About the Nader thing that Jobber just posted: It's funny, the left had no real problem with him when they thought Gore would cruise into the White House and now "he screwed up the last election" and they're starting the tried and true Democrat method of character assasination. No real suprise. Perot gave us Clinton, it happens. Although the vast majority of those who voted for Perot were pissed at Bush for lying about not raising taxes and rebeled. It's really the conservative's fault. As far as Nader voters go, I think most of them actually wanted the guy in the White House. So it's hard to blame people for voting for the candidate that best fits their ideology or someone for running. No one really called out Pat Buchanon for "stealing votes" from Bush that I heard. Perot was a lessen to the GOP to not lie about tax increases, Nader was a lessen that there are a good portion of left wing whackos. In other words the Perot problem could be fised, the Nader problem can't be unless the Dems shift even further left in which case they won't see the inside of the White House unless the President invites them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2004 Back on Air America... I like Ralph. He makes me laugh. Oh, and might I point out the following... NADER: ... can you – is this the way you want to start Air America? You want it to be Hot Air America? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 4, 2004 I admit I don't like Bush, but I fail to see how that makes me more biased than anyone else. Tyler, don't pretend that you're not. I'm telling you that you are. And it's not a bad thing. Having no opinion on major issues shows a LACK of intellect, not having more of it. -=Mike Was that a backhanded shot at Kerry? Does having opposing opinions on the same issue make you more of an intellectual? About the Nader thing that Jobber just posted: It's funny, the left had no real problem with him when they thought Gore would cruise into the White House and now "he screwed up the last election" and they're starting the tried and true Democrat method of character assasination. No real suprise. Perot gave us Clinton, it happens. Although the vast majority of those who voted for Perot were pissed at Bush for lying about not raising taxes and rebeled. It's really the conservative's fault. As far as Nader voters go, I think most of them actually wanted the guy in the White House. So it's hard to blame people for voting for the candidate that best fits their ideology or someone for running. No one really called out Pat Buchanon for "stealing votes" from Bush that I heard. Perot was a lessen to the GOP to not lie about tax increases, Nader was a lessen that there are a good portion of left wing whackos. In other words the Perot problem could be fised, the Nader problem can't be unless the Dems shift even further left in which case they won't see the inside of the White House unless the President invites them. Again, conservative hosts are smart to not mention Air America. They'll implode soon enough. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted April 4, 2004 No real suprise. Perot gave us Clinton, it happens. No. Nader didn't screw up the last election nor did Perot give us Clinton. Both claims are just scapegoating by people who want someone to blame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 4, 2004 No real suprise. Perot gave us Clinton, it happens. No. Nader didn't screw up the last election nor did Perot give us Clinton. Both claims are just scapegoating by people who want someone to blame. I wouldn't call it scapegoating. I think Ralph and Perot, in their respective elections, influenced greatly who our country's president was. Of course, that's how DEMOCRACY works, so hearing people bitch about their presence make me laugh... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
