Libs in this forum seem extremely angry

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Also rebutted in one of the threads you're avoiding, the unemployment rate is artificially low since there are so many people who've abandoned hope of finding jobs. Were we to measure it the same way as our peers, the actual rate is reportedly in the 8-9% range.

Who are our peers?

Other industrialized Western democracies.

Like?

I am curious because I know how the EU calculates their unemployment. Maybe if you have another country what is radically different I can look it up.

I can tell you the EU and US are virtually identical, except the EU counts at age 15 vs the US at age 16. Both have a cutoff date roughly the same on when they are dropped from consideration for looking for employment.

This idea we arent calculating the true unemployment rate is a new theory tossed out by the left to try and minimize any positives people can take from the economy. Of course under Clinton that 4.6% was a true number right? None of this behind the scenes 8-9% that reportedly is true.

Sorry, don't recall the details. It was a bit of a tangent to my main point, and I never did drill into it as deeply as the info from BLS (which I therefore still remember more clearly). If you really care, you might search the archives for old threads. Try looking for stuff I posted containing "BLS".

Re. "new theory", I don't believe that's true at all. I remember complaints going back to the recession of the early 80's that the unemployment stats were artificially low. I'm sure Clinton's 4.6% was also low. The difference, however, is that the number of people who have given up is much greater now than it was under Clinton. That's not terribly surprising given how easy it was to get a job during the dot.com era.

There are stats showing what % of the population are actually working. Last I heard(couple years back) even though Bush Unemployment numbers were very similar to Clintons, the actual Persons Employed was actually much lower(2-3% IIRC).

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Genx87

Only the wealthy get immediate income from the market. The rest is retirement accounts. How much does the market hitting 12k mean right now to a guy working at a body shop? Walmart?

You can quantify this how exactly?

Last time I checked, if you didn't have a job you were still considered unemployed. Whether you'd given up looking or not. And REAL WAGES are decreasing which means people are taking lower paying jobs.

Provided you are looking for a job. If you stop looking for a job you are dropped from the rate and rightfully so.

Real wages is a result of inflation not because people are working for less money. If we had a 0% inflation rate "real wages" would have increased nicely.

Real Wage decline info

We?ve a serious problem with wages and inflation, but couldn?t part of that problem be due to millions of unskilled workers flooding us from the south? Then we have employer?s budgets being taxed out from under them and then they seek to balance that budget by not paying people worth a **** and what better solution to them than unskilled labor looking at $5 an hour as a pay raise compared to their home country?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Libs on this forum are angry because that's what their idealogy is based on...things that piss them off.

well said. :thumbsup:

Libs need things to go bad in order for their party to hold power. Libs need to "fix" things, even things that aren't broken. Libs need the economy in the gutter so they can "fix it". Libs depend on and secretly hope for more deaths of american soldiers in iraq, as that will (falsly) add to their argument. Libs depend on doom and gloom - without it, they have no ideology.

With that type of pessimistic outlook, it's hard NOT to be angry.


/me waits for the classic overused "But look at Bush/republicans" rebuttal :laugh:

 

[MIDIman]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MIDIman
A perfect example.... People around here would rather run around screaming and yelling at the top of their lungs towards anyone with an (R) next to their name (which I have *actually* experienced, at work even), than come together and, oh I don't know, maybe find ground that everyone agrees on and get the government to do something about it?

As far as issues for people to unite about - how about you uniting with others to oppose the US legalizaing torture and removing the right to Habeus Corpus?

Because 1) I agree with the bill, 2) The bill can be legally challenged if people don't like it, and 3) I think we should be able to get information that we need to save lives - particularly towards those who would never even think about handling our own people through the laws of the Geneva Conventions.

Regardless, you completely skipped my original posting and focused only on the responsibility comment. Why not reply to the questions I've already posed in the other thread instead of posing your own?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Also rebutted in one of the threads you're avoiding, the unemployment rate is artificially low since there are so many people who've abandoned hope of finding jobs. Were we to measure it the same way as our peers, the actual rate is reportedly in the 8-9% range.

Who are our peers?

Other industrialized Western democracies.

Like?

I am curious because I know how the EU calculates their unemployment. Maybe if you have another country what is radically different I can look it up.

I can tell you the EU and US are virtually identical, except the EU counts at age 15 vs the US at age 16. Both have a cutoff date roughly the same on when they are dropped from consideration for looking for employment.

This idea we arent calculating the true unemployment rate is a new theory tossed out by the left to try and minimize any positives people can take from the economy. Of course under Clinton that 4.6% was a true number right? None of this behind the scenes 8-9% that reportedly is true.

Sorry, don't recall the details. It was a bit of a tangent to my main point, and I never did drill into it as deeply as the info from BLS (which I therefore still remember more clearly). If you really care, you might search the archives for old threads. Try looking for stuff I posted containing "BLS".

Re. "new theory", I don't believe that's true at all. I remember complaints going back to the recession of the early 80's that the unemployment stats were artificially low. I'm sure Clinton's 4.6% was also low. The difference, however, is that the number of people who have given up is much greater now than it was under Clinton. That's not terribly surprising given how easy it was to get a job during the dot.com era.

There are stats showing what % of the population are actually working. Last I heard(couple years back) even though Bush Unemployment numbers were very similar to Clintons, the actual Persons Employed was actually much lower(2-3% IIRC).

Yes, that's one thing we covered in at least one of the threads. The BLS tracks the workforce participation rate, i.e., the percentage of people from 16-65 (maybe, not 100% sure) who are either employed or actively seeking work. That rate dropped several points during Bush's first term, meaning more people had dropped out of the workforce.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Just an observation, the libs in this forum seem extraordinarily hostile lately. I think it's because they are afraid the democrats will lose yet another election. What do you think?

People on the left including most media are predicting victory for the demos. People on the right are saying it's too close to call. Sounds like the '04 elections to me.

I think this is a different set of variables. If I had to guess how it'd turn out right now, I'd say the dems will get control of one side of congress. But the conservative base came out in droves and really upset the lib polsters and their media friends in '04.

Who are you again? Ah yes, no one important. Buh bye troll.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Libs on this forum are angry because that's what their idealogy is based on...things that piss them off.

well said. :thumbsup:

Libs need things to go bad in order for their party to hold power. Libs need to "fix" things, even things that aren't broken. Libs need the economy in the gutter so they can "fix it". Libs depend on and secretly hope for more deaths of american soldiers in iraq, as that will (falsly) add to their argument. Libs depend on doom and gloom - without it, they have no ideology.

With that type of pessimistic outlook, it's hard NOT to be angry.


/me waits for the classic overused "But look at Bush/republicans" rebuttal :laugh:

Don't get me wrong, the republicans haven't got very much going for them either and I don't care much for them either...but from my encounters, yes, libs (not just on this forum, either) like to get really angry and call people evil and greedy and just can' tseem to keep a clear head when arguing. If I argue with conservatives about gay marriage or the war...they don't get mad and start yelling at me...but when I argue with liberals about minimum wage and taxes they grow horns and start expelling fire from their disgruntled face while screaming at me.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Also rebutted in one of the threads you're avoiding, the unemployment rate is artificially low since there are so many people who've abandoned hope of finding jobs. Were we to measure it the same way as our peers, the actual rate is reportedly in the 8-9% range.

Who are our peers?

Other industrialized Western democracies.

My only comment on the whole unemployment argument.

1. Look at Sweden and its unemployment numbers and how they figure them. There is HUGE controversy over there about how and what the "real" numbers should be. So spare me of the ?how other nations? figure their rates. At best the rate is a guess, nothing more.

2. The numbers today are figured out the SAME way they were under Bill Clinton. Now I highly doubt you were pissing and moaning about this data when Clinton was President.

As long as the method we use is the same from year to year then we can use the figure as a barometer of how good the job market actually is.

Maybe the actual number is 2-3 points higher than the figure we are using, but it was 2-3 points higher under Clinton, and Bush 41 and Reagan etc etc etc.

All my post did was compare today?s unemployment figures to those of the 1990s and during Clinton?s term. And compared to those numbers we are doing very well.

BTW: the fact that we have millions of illegals entering the country and sucking up jobs and as a country we can still keep unemployment low is a testament to how good our economy has been for the past 20+ years.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Libs on this forum are angry because that's what their idealogy is based on...things that piss them off.

well said. :thumbsup:

Libs need things to go bad in order for their party to hold power. Libs need to "fix" things, even things that aren't broken. Libs need the economy in the gutter so they can "fix it". Libs depend on and secretly hope for more deaths of american soldiers in iraq, as that will (falsly) add to their argument. Libs depend on doom and gloom - without it, they have no ideology.

With that type of pessimistic outlook, it's hard NOT to be angry.


/me waits for the classic overused "But look at Bush/republicans" rebuttal :laugh:

You are blaming Democrats when they haven't had a chance to do anything in 12 years? Who should they ask to hold accountable if not the Republicans? Usually you blame the people in control and in charge when things go wrong.

Republicans can do ANYTHING they want right now... and yet they haven't accomplished anything... that's the point. If I am wrong, feel free to name their accomplishments.. Immigration, social security, changing oil dependency, ethics reform?

"Libs on this forum are angry because that's what their idealogy is based on...things that piss them off."

The irony is that you are describing the ideology of holding people responsible for their actions.. something that hasn't been done in Congress for many years now.. so in that regard, yeah... people want accountability!

 

[acemcmac]

Fvcking habeas corpus was just suspended yesterday. Of course "liberals" are angry. EVERYONE should be angry!

We have a rubber-stamp congress and a power hungry administration, both of which we need to get rid of as soon as possible.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ayabe You are right about how government is failing us at all levels.

However, it might be a little better if you posted a more neutral article to back up your assertion. Instead you post a Rolling Stone piece, a magazine that has turned way left politically (witness the BS Kennedy "Ohio was stolen" piece)

Also if you click the link and check out their 10 worst list, 9 of them are Republicans (William Jefferson being the only Democrat)

It is kind of ironic that in a thread about angry Libs you post an article by a liberal magazine that attacks the other side. In essence you just reinforced the "libs are angry" argument being put forth in this thread.

Try reading the article and disputing the facts, sure there are little tidbits of op-edness, but the facts are the facts. I wasn't highlighting obvious attack statements, this article is pointing out the lack of oversight, wanton cronyism, out of control spending, and determined efforts by the majority to exclude the minority from the decision making process. This has fundamentally changed the way Congress operates and not for the better. This has been the worst Congress of all time, that is the thesis of the article.

Everyone should be equally pissed off and if you're not, then you're a zombie and you don't have the best interests of America in mind.

period.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Libs on this forum are angry because that's what their idealogy is based on...things that piss them off."

The irony is that you are describing the ideology of holding people responsible for their actions.. something that hasn't been done in Congress for many years now.. so in that regard, yeah... people want accountability!

Sorry, but I prefer people who are optimistic, calm and root for their agenda to succeed, not for the opposing agenda to fail.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"Libs on this forum are angry because that's what their idealogy is based on...things that piss them off."

The irony is that you are describing the ideology of holding people responsible for their actions.. something that hasn't been done in Congress for many years now.. so in that regard, yeah... people want accountability!

Sorry, but I prefer people who are optimistic, calm and root for their agenda to succeed, not for the opposing agenda to fail.

Cause and effect... You are mixing them up. The last 12 years has been enough time for people to see how the current setup in congress has worked and can judge that.. next!

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Cause and effect... You are mixing them up. The last 12 years has been enough time for people to see how the current setup in congress has worked and can judge that.. next!

Okay? I'm not disagreeing with that at all.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Cause and effect... You are mixing them up. The last 12 years has been enough time for people to see how the current setup in congress has worked and can judge that.. next!

Okay? I'm not disagreeing with that at all.

Then what was your post trying to say?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
Fvcking habeas corpus was just suspended yesterday. Of course "liberals" are angry. EVERYONE should be angry!

We have a rubber-stamp congress and a power hungry administration, both of which we need to get rid of as soon as possible.

Sorry but civil rights for terrorists isn't on my agenda. How we treat them under the confines of our own already established non-torture laws is the least of my concerns. Heck, I think it?d be easier if they had been shot in the battlefield where we found them instead.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: acemcmac
Fvcking habeas corpus was just suspended yesterday. Of course "liberals" are angry. EVERYONE should be angry!

We have a rubber-stamp congress and a power hungry administration, both of which we need to get rid of as soon as possible.

Sorry but civil rights for terrorists isn't on my agenda. How we treat them under the confines of our own already established non-torture laws is the least of my concerns. Heck, I think it?d be easier if they had been shot in the battlefield where we found them instead.

The problem isn't with terrists. Its that the law can be applied to anyone that king george designates an "enemy combatant". It could be anyone, even american citizens that are later found to have nothing to do with any of it. Goodbye civil rights.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: acemcmac
Fvcking habeas corpus was just suspended yesterday. Of course "liberals" are angry. EVERYONE should be angry!

We have a rubber-stamp congress and a power hungry administration, both of which we need to get rid of as soon as possible.

Sorry but civil rights for terrorists isn't on my agenda. How we treat them under the confines of our own already established non-torture laws is the least of my concerns. Heck, I think it?d be easier if they had been shot in the battlefield where we found them instead.

The problem is that we are holding a ton of people accused of being "terrorists" and yet many are being held for no reason... To assume that the government will handle everything properly is a foolish assumption... Why do you think we have these laws? To hold those in power in check... To ensure that people wrongly accused have a course to remedy the situation. This is not a perfect world... considering how much we have found out about how things are run within our government, it is even more foolish to assume that everything is handled well...

How would you feel if you were one of these accused terrorists but had done nothing wrong? Our justice systems errs on the side of caution.. we prefer to let criminals free rather than convict even one innocent person... You would know this if you studied the justice system.. to suspend these rights gives our government a blank check to do exactly what other foreign governments have abused.. i.e. Hitler. How is it different from Hitler's secret camps with no due process? Because our leader is "better"? Because the people in charge are "ours" and therefore exempt from corruption?

Sure, if these people are terrorists, it would make sense, but without a right to a speedy trial, presented with the evidence, in a court of law.. there is no check on the system... and to assume that things will go well... well, you need to read some history books...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Cause and effect... You are mixing them up. The last 12 years has been enough time for people to see how the current setup in congress has worked and can judge that.. next!

Okay? I'm not disagreeing with that at all.

Then what was your post trying to say?

He doesn't know, he's too busy hating Liberals because of some deranged homeless guy trying to get free food

Idiot rant

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Also rebutted in one of the threads you're avoiding, the unemployment rate is artificially low since there are so many people who've abandoned hope of finding jobs. Were we to measure it the same way as our peers, the actual rate is reportedly in the 8-9% range.

Who are our peers?

Other industrialized Western democracies.

My only comment on the whole unemployment argument.

"Only" comment? Why is that? What about all the other points raised by myself and others? You're really good about evading everything except a few little nits here and there you think you can refute.

1. Look at Sweden and its unemployment numbers and how they figure them. There is HUGE controversy over there about how and what the "real" numbers should be. So spare me of the ?how other nations? figure their rates. At best the rate is a guess, nothing more.

Which, as I already said, is a tangent to my main points, but thanks for evading.

2. The numbers today are figured out the SAME way they were under Bill Clinton. ...

No, they aren't, which I already pointed out had you bothered to read my response. The fact is that the BLS materially changed their methodology for calculating Employment in either January, 2003, or January, 2004. This is documented in their notes, and resulted in increasing the number of employed by almost one million. Therefore, you cannot directly compare today's employment figures with Clinton-era figures. Further, as I also pointed out earlier, the Employment figure does not measure the quality of jobs, nor does it differentiate between full-time and part-time employment. Not all jobs are created equal.

I haven't verified whether BLS has changed their Unemployment methodology materially or not. We do know, however, that the BLS Unemployment figures ignore those who've given up. Therefore, not all 4.6% Unemployments are created equal either.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Republicans can do ANYTHING they want right now... and yet they haven't accomplished anything... that's the point. If I am wrong, feel free to name their accomplishments.. Immigration, social security, changing oil dependency, ethics reform?

Tax cut.

Has helped people/country and the economy tremendously.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Cause and effect... You are mixing them up. The last 12 years has been enough time for people to see how the current setup in congress has worked and can judge that.. next!

Okay? I'm not disagreeing with that at all.

Then what was your post trying to say?

Checkout ATOT, Blanco expects readers of his posts to psychicly(sp) understand what he really is trying to say. Basically, what he types and what he means might be totally opposite, but the reader is the idiot if he/she can't figure it out.

He somehow found a loophole in Logic where he can say anything and regardless how owned he becomes, the ownage is actually on the owner.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Libs on this forum are angry because that's what their idealogy is based on...things that piss them off.

well said. :thumbsup:

Libs need things to go bad in order for their party to hold power. Libs need to "fix" things, even things that aren't broken. Libs need the economy in the gutter so they can "fix it". Libs depend on and secretly hope for more deaths of american soldiers in iraq, as that will (falsly) add to their argument. Libs depend on doom and gloom - without it, they have no ideology.

With that type of pessimistic outlook, it's hard NOT to be angry.


/me waits for the classic overused "But look at Bush/republicans" rebuttal :laugh:

Do you do anything besides pull sh!t out of your ass and fling it?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Republicans can do ANYTHING they want right now... and yet they haven't accomplished anything... that's the point. If I am wrong, feel free to name their accomplishments.. Immigration, social security, changing oil dependency, ethics reform?

Tax cut.

Has helped people/country and the economy tremendously.

Apparently, you haven't been keeping up with things.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Republicans can do ANYTHING they want right now... and yet they haven't accomplished anything... that's the point. If I am wrong, feel free to name their accomplishments.. Immigration, social security, changing oil dependency, ethics reform?

Tax cut.

Has helped people/country and the economy tremendously.

LMAO. No one but the most ardent partisan hacks have the balls to claim this lie any more. Kudos. :thumbsup: