| Could Jeb and Colin last beyond tsunami relief? |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2005 July 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: tomi (reply) post date: 01.11.05 (8:29 am) Or perhaps it's that your views are not as "mainstream" as you would like to believe. posted by: deshanews (reply) post date: 01.11.05 (9:40 am) Well considering that my "views" are the ones that have won for at least the last 10 years, I would say that they are pretty mainstream. That is, unless you think that mainstream means the minority point of view. In that case, no, we aren't mainstream. We are the majority point of view in this country. Ask John Kerry and every other Democrat not named Bill Clinton to run against those of differing ideologies. posted by: tomi (reply) post date: 01.11.05 (5:35 pm) Reply to: deshanews For the last ten years, except for the six of them that Clinton was President. That leaves four. It may have escaped your notice, but by all measures this country is pretty evenly split right now. I would certainly not say we are better off now than we were four years ago--would you? Let's see how it is four years from now, when you will certainly no longer be able to blame anything on Clinton. posted by: deshanews (reply) post date: 01.12.05 (4:05 am) First of all, I blamed nothing on Clinton now did I? Hmm... And yes, it's been 10 years...not six as you stated. You are obviously not very in tune with politics if you think that the Presidential election is the only one that matters. Since 1994, the Republicans and Conservatives have won the majority of the races in the House and the Senate and they have now won the Presidential election the past two times. Bush won more votes than anyone in the history of our country this past election. As for being better off than we were four years ago, I guess it depends on how you look at it. Before he was elected, we took a blind eye to terrorism. 9/11 happened because of the lack of care for many Presidents before him. When you take 9/11, corrupt CEOs and the economic downturn, it's amazing what he and those in charge have done to make 2004 one of the largest years for gains in jobs. Conservatives have and are continuing to win elections. If you think that the liberal way of thinking is working,,,please keep talking about it. I will be happy to help you. Like I stated before, whenever liberalism is touted, the Conservative movement gets stronger and stronger. posted by: tomi (reply) post date: 01.12.05 (7:03 am) Reply to: deshanews Well, if you're not blaming Clinton, whose "blind eye to terrorism" are you talking about? The Republican-dominated Congress you're so proud of? Perhaps you're right. Perhaps you haven't read the figures correctly, but we LOST jobs--new jobs added didn't keep up with new workers entering the work force. It was a net LOSS. Corrupt CEOs? Like Dubya's buddy "Kenny Boy" Lay of Enron? Yes, I'm afraid more of the same is what we will continue to get under the current administration. Obviously you think that the Gingrich "Contract on America" represented the triumph of conservative views--if so, why did Clinton win in '96? An endless war and a stagnant economy. Oh, yes, the conservative agenda is doing great. Keep up the good work: talk it up. posted by: deshanews (reply) post date: 01.12.05 (9:10 am) Tomi, let me help you out a little here since you seem to be missing every single point: 1. I was not blaming Clinton solely for problems with terror, I was blaming all past Presidents...read a little further before you make assumptions. It helps. 2. So we have lost jobs in the last year? No, we have gained 2.2 million jobs. You want to say that the actual number is a loss? How so? Are you saying that we didn't create any new jobs? What? You are saying that new workers entering the workforce created a negative affect. Let me clue you in a little as to where many of these "new workers" are coming from. They are college grads who weren't ever in the workforce before, they are those who were collecting unemployment checks until the Bush administration got the economy back up and running...now they are finally out looking for employment. Why? Because it is a good economy with opportunity galore. You, my friend, are deciding not to look at the figures correctly. Even your buddies with the Democratic party say that the jobs were added. Their complain is that the jobs aren't good enough. But, then again, you aren't even saying that... Corrupt CEOs like "W's buddy Ken Lay? Did you actually just say that? Ummm, you are obviously not the most intelligent person, so let me lay it all out for you. Ken Lay rose to power under the Clinton administration. Key Lay and Enron (along with Haliburton mind you) received numerous contracts from Clinton's administration. Ken Lay, Worldcom, Tyco and the other large corporations that were frauds all cooked their books during the 1990's...when Clinton was elected. If you want to continue pushing this myopic idea that Bush created all of the corrupt CEOs because he is an "evil Conservative" you go right ahead. You just look highly unintelligent doing so. Yes, Gingrich's "contract for america" was a triumph, but then again, you are too illinformed to read anything on it besides what you see in the NYT or on the Today Show. Tell me something Tomi, when was the last time the Democrats had gains in the House and Senate over the Republicans? Tell me something Tomi, did you not read the fact that I addressed Bill Clinton's Presidential wins in my previous response? You aren't very proficient in reading comprehension are you? Your final comments are very amusing as well. You state that we have an "endless war" and a "stagnant economy". It's funny, but I do believe that most Democrats in Washington were for the ouster of Saddam and a war in Iraq when it started. They just didn't have the backbone to stay with it when times were tough. It was easier for you and the rest to play politics with war. Good job. Stagnant economy huh? Laughable. The Conservative agenda is the only reason we got through 9/11 with having another Great Depression. posted by: tomi (reply) post date: 01.12.05 (7:37 pm) Man, you’ve got to do some homework and tone down the rhetoric. Here’s a little help: >> I was not blaming Clinton solely for problems with terror, I was blaming all past Presidents...read a little further before you make assumptions. It helps. So we’re including Reagan and Bush One in the indictment? Sounds about right. How far back do you want to go? Carter? Ford? Nixon? >> So we have lost jobs in the last year? No, we have gained 2.2 million jobs. You want to say that the actual number is a loss? How so? Are you saying that we didn't create any new jobs? What?” You are confusing “job creation” with “job gain.” Gain means that you added more jobs than were lost through outsourcing, business failure, etc. We didn’t. 2.2 millions jobs were added, but we suffered a net loss because more than that had been lost. >> You are saying that new workers entering the workforce created a negative affect [sic]. Let me clue you in a little as to where many of these "new workers" are coming from. They are college grads who weren't ever in the workforce before… Right—and now they need jobs. The workforce is the total number of actual and potential workers, including the unemployed. It’s the total number of people who want jobs, whether they have them or not. >>…they are those who were collecting unemployment checks until the Bush administration got the economy back up and running...now they are finally out looking for employment. Wrong—those people were already counted. See above. And while they were collecting unemployment they were legally required to be looking for jobs. >>Even your buddies with the Democratic party say that the jobs were added. Right—just not as many as were lost. See above. >>Their complain [sic] is that the jobs aren't good enough. That’s a separate issue. We’re going from a manufacturing nation to a burger-flipping nation. >>Corrupt CEOs like W's buddy Ken Lay? Did you actually just say that? Yes—his business and personal ties to the Bush family go back to the 80’s. >>Ummm, you are obviously not the most intelligent person, so let me lay it all out for you. Ken Lay rose to power under the Clinton administration. Skip the sarcasm, dude—you’re embarrassing yourself. It was under Reagan. Ken Lay has been in the oil and energy business for quite a while. >>Key [sic] Lay and Enron (along with Haliburton mind you) received numerous contracts from Clinton's administration. Ken Lay, Worldcom, Tyco and the other large corporations that were frauds all cooked their books during the 1990's...when Clinton was elected. Yeah, Clinton was no saint—but he had nothing like the cozy ties with the oil industry that the Bushes have. There’s real conflict of interest there. >>If you want to continue pushing this myopic idea that Bush created all of the corrupt CEOs because he is an "evil Conservative" you go right ahead. You just look highly unintelligent doing so. I didn’t say “created”—YOU did. He simply took large contributions from some of them and did them favors. It’s highly unintelligent to criticize me for something I didn’t say. >> Tell me something Tomi, did you not read the fact that I addressed Bill Clinton's Presidential wins in my previous response? You aren't very proficient in reading comprehension are you? Yes—you specifically ruled Clinton out in your comparison of conservative vs. liberal successes. Rather arbitrary, and rather a skewed comparison if you don’t allow us to consider the most politically successful liberal politician in recent history. I have no problem with reading comprehension: when I read nonsense, I comprehend it as such. >> You state that we have an "endless war" and a "stagnant economy". It's funny, but I do believe that most Democrats in Washington were for the ouster of Saddam and a war in Iraq when it started. Yes, but they had no idea how badly it would be bungled. Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, ignored the advice of their career military men, resulting in the current debacle. >>Stagnant economy huh? Laughable. Soaring deficit, net job loss, plunging dollar… I’m not laughing. >>The Conservative agenda is the only reason we got through 9/11 with having another Great Depression. Jury is still out on that one. If we can’t grow our way out of this deficit, we and the world are in some serious trouble. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself a little bit. You can still be a conservative—just be a better-informed one. The combination of ignorance and sneering arrogance does a great disservice to your cause. posted by: tomi (reply) post date: 01.12.05 (7:53 pm) My mistake: The 2.2 million reference is a NET increase for 2004. But for the period 2000--2004, I believe there is still a net loss. Tip of hat to whoisjohngalt. posted by: whoisjohngalt (reply) post date: 01.13.05 (8:15 am) Reply to: tomi Yes, the BLS stats show an increase of 5 million (4.955 million, to be exact) people in the labor force from Dec. 00 through Dec. 04. During--roughly--the same time period, we've had a "net" of ~0 jobs. While things are getting *better*, this is hardly something to cheer about--we're way behind where we should/need to be. Job figures still haven't broken even for Bush's first term. It will be interesting to see if Bush manages to get the ~157,000 jobs in January he needs to do so for his first term. (Though I *believe* a correction--expected to be ~0.5 million jobs, if memory serves me--is going to be factored in at the end of this month. So it will certainly *appear* that way, assuming I'm right about the correction.) posted by: whoisjohngalt (reply) post date: 01.13.05 (8:21 am) Anyone else notice that for the longest time the Republicans were using the household data to show jobs were being added despite the establishment data showing otherwise? I mention this because this 2.2 million figure comes from the Establishment data. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the Household data shows an increase of only 1.7 million.... ;) posted by: deshanews (reply) post date: 01.13.05 (11:08 am) So you mean that, during 2004 when there were no life altering events like 9/11, we actually gained jobs? Awesome! I do think it's funny that Democrats decide to gloss over the fact that since the middle of 2003 the economy has been on a steady rise. Is it better than it was before Bush took office? Well, I suppose that depends on how you look at it. Please tell me something, when the economy was "roaring" in the 1990's under Clinton, were there corrupt CEOs inflating numbers and the stock market? If so, could you by chance think that the economy really wasn't as good as you think it was? Could it be that the economy was really just a fraud considering it was based on incorrect earnings from corrupt CEOs? Would you also be willing to admit that 9/11 had an unbelievable affect on our economy? Would you be willing to admit that 9/11 struck every chord in our economic structure and the effects were devistating? 9/11 and those corrupt CEOs caused a chain reaction that pushed our economy down the wrong path. How were those his fault? All I know is that since those things, the economy has steadily risen from where it was and we are now better off for it. But I wouldn't expect you to pick up on those things. You are too busy looking for reasons to blame everything on the so-called "antichrist" that is GW Bush. |
 
|
