Lucky...

The diff is that I define mine in detail, you just, "wow" yours, as if you're at a deficit as for what to say.

Please, oh please tell me what he did to contribe, cause or in any way be responsible for any part of the economic mess. Please be specific and then tell me what he should have done. By whom? Limbaugh, Hannity, etc? 1) He took office the month it was 8.2%. 2) He hasn't raisd taxes, how is it that rich people's money are now being used? 3) China's money was borrowed to pay the mess created by GWB, to fight GWB's wars, etc. It wasn't unexpected, many/most people knew it would crest 10%.

The first was a metaphore for teh second. The point I'm making is that if we have more equity we would likely have fewer of these incidents. Absolutely, Bill, I'm not saying the key to all peace everywhere is to actually give American workers any rights, I'm saying this section of violence, workplace violence could be greatly reduced by allowing the workers to be administratively empowered, hence have no reason to do bad things and are motivated to do positive things. His beef was with a given university and a hate for technology, so either he is brillaint and ahead of his time or just a delluded nut. But that wasn't a classic workplace grudge. Unionize most workplaces. The downside is that it's harder to fire lazy people, upside is that it's harder to railroad people. Take your pick, total free-run for employers or more equity and safety in our workplaces and economic security as well.

Sort of a minor insult, congratulations, I knew you would break your pledge within the hour A stupid movie and not real life? A guy loses his family, house, job, and drives a POS car and lives with his miom and now they won't serve breakfast 1 minute after 10:30? Seriously, I would spend all day here citing real-life examples of that movie, do I need to or will you take judicial notice of that? It's not the loss of a job, it's the way a person was railroaded; they trade 1 misjustice for another misjustice. I have and you have yet do anything but say you disagree. Perhaps you could put your thoughts more in a scientific realm.

wow And when you post the entire passage it become less, "wow". As innovators, we Americans push the envelope in all ways to see where it will take us, so I think confining us in some straightjacket in any way is not how we're wired. Actually I think it makes it worse. Certainly Americans are just as capable as any other nationality of having a discussion with out resorting to insults. In fact avoiding insults altogether during discussions is far more conducive to innovation then the opposite. I stand by my wow. They don't have to be overt insults. Look at the automakers challenging each other, athletes challenging each other; these are what fuels innovation. Funny to hear conservatives hellbent on a free market, free speech now wanting controls; are we switching sides here?

Tell the shooter there's another shooter in the bldg and maybe he'll be scared and run off.

I bet of we poled 1000 males, esp white males, youi would get a 80% empathy rate. That's utopia, but I love your conservative endorsement in there. When you play pretty much by teh rules andd get hammered. you will go one of 3 ways. Of course. It's also never ok to make life suck for another for your own greed, amusement or whatever works. I think you already covered this above. Thank you! Yes, business before people, money before people..... I think we've finally hit on the point I was making; American Capitalism MANUFACTURES THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR WHERE THERE WOULDN'T OTHERWISE BE ANY.

But kinda like the addage: An armed society is a polite society, a society with everyone armed with equal rights is a polite society. The US is probably the worst indust country in regard to workplace rights, so people have choices: - Lump it when the big corps run you and dispose of you - Try to sue, which is usually futile, esp if you are not from a protected class - Go shootin There are adiministrative actions you can take, but most people don't know them or know when it's too late. The playing field is no where near level, and I think that is the root of some of these incidents. Now some people are just born shooters, but I think many are manufactured.

Shooters have to be stopped by all means necc I will get hammered for this, but it would be good to look upstream with individuals like this. What if he was truely railroaded out of a job? WHat if he then lost his family via divorce and he couldn't get reemployed, etc. The downward spiral scenario. We all (at least males) identified with Michael Douglas in, "Falling Down" but then we find it so easy to jump on the bandwagon and want to draw and quarter this guy. I'm not defending this guy and usually these workplace shooters kill and injure people for effect who weren't part of their demise, so that is just ugly in and of itself. I wonder if the worker were more empowered and wass less likely to get railroaded if we would have fewer incidents like this?

Really?

wow And when you post the entire passage it become less, "wow". As innovators, we Americans push the envelope in all ways to see where it will take us, so I think confining us in some straightjacket in any way is not how we're wired.

http://www.wesh.com/news/21541263/detail.html What's this country coming to?

The poll is more rhetorical, addess the issue. Convince me that teh Iranians didn't care of the swwetheart deal, but were afraid of Reagan as all small countries were/are, but then we have been atatcked regardless of who is in office. Well the rhetorical and completely bias poll is still leaning towards 'yes.' Fail. So then, yes, people are foolish? 21 votes, sounds scientific to me Now it's 16:7. Not a scientific poll, but let's say it is. Makes you stop wondering how we've elected garbage like Reagan and GWB 4 times out of 6 elections from 80 to 2004. Thinking radical Arabs are afraid of anyone, esp a US president is as brilliant as thinking tax cuts lead to prosperity; these have all been disproven continually throughout history multiple times, yet people still buy into them. We get the gov we deserve.

Good thing that'll never happen here My cinical side wonders what's behind this from warped, even tho nothing probably is. Could it that since his political party is down, he wants a hug or to not derride the mess his party left? Could be. But to have discourse that is so vanilla ice cream w/o even constructively poking someone to bring some more data and evidence to the table would be like doing solo RW dives with no turns, no tracking, just jump and pull at 3k, land w/o a swoop. As innovators, we Americans push the envelope in all ways to see where it will take us, so I think confining us in some straightjacket in any way is not how we're wired. I know I've been forced to research various data from posters here and it's made me far more intelligent, many of these issues and data were never even touched or not deeply at university, but here they have. So to limit conversation so as to be so delicate as not even come close to hurting someone's feelings and apologetically disagree at most is not how this board is wired. I think this forum is quite moderated and keeps people well within bounds.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet Maybe officially, but not realistically. Unemp ddin't go under 7% until 1985 and never was nearly as low as it was during the Clinton era.

Even easier now, given the runaway spending since your prediction. What's interesting is how many of us denied that there was a recession until there actually was a recession. There's been a recession since Dec 2007. YOU and other righties were in denial well into 2008. Which is one of the reasons that it got (and stayed) so bad. Gee. How neat. Redefine a recession (and call the definition everyone else uses as "erroneous") and then come out in December, 2008 when there is no denial that a recession is in place and say that under our new definition, the recession began a year ago. Seems to me the article you cited was "well into 2008" when released. How heroic to make that stand when even the righties were convinced. You know, John, it's interesting to see that articles like this are out there that prove my point. Another question - since it is so important to you, were tge article's claims peer reviewed? Also, since the recession "peaked" between November 07 and June 08, was the recession over by election time? P.s. Kick ass at my beloved Elsinore. NO REDEFINITION. Maybe you'll take the time to find the official definition of a recession in the USA, since clearly you don't know how they are defined. Even the conservative WSJ acknowledges what you refuse to accept. It DID start in Dec 2007, the GOP WAS in denial, it got far worse than it had to because of denial, and it hasn't officially been declared over. Since overall trends are based on the statistical mode, meaning the macrostructural view, the graph: http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm clearly illustrates a downard trend from mid 2007 until Obama took office, with only 1 quarter defying the trend spanning 1 1/2 years. I think to say Dec 07 is really generous, as it could be argued teh downturn started mid 07. Unlemp started to significantly rise on mid 08, so as unemp lags a year on the front and the back, I say it really started in mid 07 using realistic terms. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

YOU and other lefties were trying to say that is started BEFORE then.... But then again, you have claimed that it is not a recession till the NEBR calls it one.... So how can you and other claim it BEFORE the NEBR when it suits you, yet bitch at others when they don't join you in calling it before the NEBR? Since the mortgage mess was what drove the mess, you could say the stage was set in 04 when all the stolen mortgage money was out there. But technically the recession starter in the 3Q of 08. The 1st Q of 08 was also negative, so there was trouble brewing, but technically since the 2nd Q of 08 was +, that brings the 1st Q out, but realistically we must note it as trouble brewing. See the graph: http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm Actually you can see 2 flat Q's, 3rd Q 06 and 1st Q 07, so that is a sign of a sick economy even tho you can't declare a recession. And really, the GDP peaked in the 3rd Q of 07 and slid down every Q until Obama took office in the 1st Q of 09, so that's how we can say the market trended down from mid 2007.

Bro, ya gotta cite a source, not a RW nutty source, but an objective source. Also, since unemp was 8.2 as he took office, I would like to know when that was said, it sounds bogus to me as he wasn't even pres when it was > 8%. Who's fault is it? He inherited a total mess, is he held to fixing all 3 indicators in 2 weeks? Hell, last Repuiblican mess inherited bya Dem, Clinton, it took him until his 2nd term before the deficit and debt started to turn +, and Clinton's inheritance was a picknick as compared to this mess. Unfortunately Obama won't be able to get donw what he wanted due to having to fix BUSH's mess. If not Buhs's mess, then who's? SUBSTANTIVELY, what has Obama done that's a bad idea? What has he done that's +? Also, ironically Bush inherited a balanced budget, but he drove teh debt up 5T, that wasn;t his fault Clinton inherited 12 years of 250B/yr debt increase, 8 years later left a 236B surplus and the debt had all but leveled off, but that wasn't his doing, it was luck. Reagan inherited a rough economy but a stable debt/deficit, he trippled it, but that wasn't his doing Really? I am with the 1st Bush. Let's see, he reduced spending, esp with the military, increased taxes to try to stop the bleeding from idiot's 8 years of hell, and he was actually the only war hero we've had for decades, so I guess I can't understand how GHWB was a bad pres. Furthermore, he likes to skydive But I like how you pair the 2 Bush's.....hardly rational. I would love to talk candidly with elder Bush, I bet he would say some nasty shit about idiot Bush. I wonder if he'll do a Ford and posthumously leave a doc stating such.

Riiight, if we just cut taxes it would fix everything. Don't understand history well? Hoover cut taxes slightly cut taxes but let the market fix itself. When it fixed itself to the tune of 12 mill dead, he did something + by his Revenue Act of 1932, which raised the top tax brkt to 67%, virtually trippling them and the GDP IMMEDIATLEY started repairing, the Unemp even soon started to drop from 25%. Then FDR raised them a little more and enacted the New Deal(s). People stopped starving, unemp started to drop at a good clip, the GDP soared; so what exactly is your complaint about the handling of the GDP recovery? Obama is not following the lead, instead he is deficit spending rather than jacking taxes to 60-70% as presidents in the past have done; now we coddle our millionaires/billionaires. Actually Kallend cited Reagan, perhaps you lost that in the translation. I could see how that would be easy tho, they are basically the same president. Tax cuts, kill labor rights, Massive historical debt accumulation, ridiculous overspending..... yea, I guess you have a good defense.

You will probably do just fine, in the new Obama government, as a bureaucratic employee, then. That was sarcasm to a typical non-response,, just as yours.

And if it had been on the same rate of increase, it would be measurably higher.

Until then Obama has done nothing + and we would be far better off with tax cuts, my friends.

Sorry I can't respond to that substance, it's gonna take me a solid day to construct a response, pls be patient. First paragraph of the story you rather carefully cited from: WASHINGTON – Companies across the economy are finding ways to do more with fewer workers, dimming hopes that hiring will take off anytime soon. ... Last paragraph: Economists expect the nation lost a net total of 175,000 jobs last month, adding to the 7.2 million lost since the recession began in December 2007. And many expect the jobless rate could rise as high as 10.5 percent before the recovery gains enough steam to start pushing it down next summer. --------- While a slow down in the second order derivative would be a start, we've had those before this year. I'd rather see a month where the net job change is zero as the first point to get excited. Yes, exactly why we need the gov to step in and create more jobs, if even by opening manufacturing facilities. Also, corps who base here for the tax benefit but send job ovewrseas need to be taxed HARD.

If only there were someone armed at the scene of the crime, this would never have happened. . There was, and apparently he killed 12 people. And now 13

Sure, but you know this thread will haunt you for the rest of your DZ.COM days, right?