Lucky...

I knew when I read that article this morning that someone on here would try and claim over half a million jobs being lost as a victory. I bet those half a million people would disagree with your leg humping. Even in the best economies, say under Clinton in 98-99-2000, there were still many new unemp filings. The monster has 2 heads; lower the new unemp filings an start job creation. Considering the mess we had, which you mitigate to a bad week, having the fewest new filings since Obama took office from your turd is a hige victory, now we need to sustain that and create new jobs. I really apologize that Obama is succeeding.

Sorry I can't respond to that substance, it's gonna take me a solid day to construct a response, pls be patient.

The really stupid irony here is that if Obama had done a tax cuts my friends, things would have gotten worse and then you would blame him for not doing enough or not doing the right things. As it is, the early indicators are great and fast, so all you do is whine about the cost. And if he could have fixed the whole mess for free and it took 2 weeks, you find something new to bitch about.

How did it work when your party ruined the economy the only time worse? Hoover cut taxes, my friends and 12 million died. The market wasn't about to correct, other than to reduce the number of people in America by way of starvation. Unem,p drove to 25% and was climbing, the GDP had several Q's of negative growth with no leveling. So if you think this majoc wand of self-correction then you must also allow your car to repair itself rather than fixing it yourself or taking it to the shop. It's old, cliche and flat errant to let something of the proportion we were just in "Correct itself." I almost wished tax cuts my friends would have been elected, that way we could go thru what they did in the early 30's and be guaranteed Dems for the next 20-30 years. Your claim is w/o any support, I have supported mine with historical reference, I don't expect the same from you.

How quickly we forget the peanut farmer Most of the entire 70's were a POS fiscally. OPEC was teh biggest driver of all that crap, but at least Carter didn't cut taxes from 70% to 50% and ultimatley to 28% driving us into massive debt. Reagan's reaction to those horrible economic times was errant.

he's wrecking the economy on purpose. No, it was wrecked when he got here, how can you say he's further wrecking itt when his actions have pulled teh GDp out of the gutter? He's doing a pretty shitty job trashing the economy, maybe he should give GWB a call or see if he can summon Reagan's ghost.

Priorities. Exactly what real crisis would you have had him push to the back burner so he could find a pet for his kids; Iran, Iraq, the economy? If it took him that long to pick a dog, no WONDER it's taking him forever to figure out what to do about the war. He pulls out, he alienates trash like Lieberman, who appears to be down on HC anyway, but if they threaten his chair positions he should roll - then Obama pulls out after HC and Lieberman feels betrayed - that's what will happen. Then the tax increases, my friends. Job'll be rollin and the sun will be shining

I think a lot of times people have unrealistic expectations of how quickly something that may have taken 20 or more years to put in place can change over night. I think that Obama himself fell a bit into this category when some of his time tables for change were unrealistically short and he's now had to face the facts and play a bit of a longer game on some things, but I also feel that by the time his first term is up, he will have met most of his goals. Patience is a virtue and a lot of people just aren't all that virtuous right now. Most importantly if he was to radical for change he would scare away even his party; people are afraid of change. So he's waiting for HC to pass, then I believe it's a new man; he'll be radical with taxes and Iraq. Do you hear him in contemplation about Iraq/Afg, esp Afg? That way he can pull the plug post-HC and not appear to be too undecided. Politics are whacky and you have to play the game, his intentions are great and 2 things are kicking his ass right now: - Great Recession - HC Hopefully we can be done with those by next summer and he can then move to other things.

HC - on the brink Economy -----GDP fixed -----Market fixed -----Unemp bleeding stopped People are so critical of Obama, but refuse to note taht he inherited such a mess and that has distracted from his agendas. After HC we'll see what he's about in regard to Iraq, taxes and the rest. But he can't shake things up too much or HC will fail, which is why he's not pushing other issues. At teh same time, what has he vetoed in regard to the issues to which you refer?

That's because their expectations were rediculous. The GDP has had 2 enormous consecutive gains, the market is sailing and new unemployment claims are the lowest since he took office. Let's look at Reagan; tax cuts my friends and money supply contraction, which led to 10.8 unemployment and a prolonged mess. It's unfortunate that GWB's mess wasn't realized sooner and we had a year or so of the GD so we could see, not by numbers but by effect, how bad this was. We were insulated from the depth of this mess by Obama/Congress' quick and correct actions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy Good news, the 3rd and final rung has already started to bottom. After HC I think Obama and staff will be working on jobs creation even more than they have, but you have to stop the bleeding first. In years forward as we retrospect on this recovery and realize how horrible these times were, Obama and this congress will be thought of as a brilliant strategist(s). Some still say FDR was horrible, even tho he recovered much worse, of course those same people won't accept that it was their party, Hoover who finally, in his last year trippled the top tax bracket leading to recovery. It took Clinton longer to flip the economy that was already in recovery, but Clinton ditched the HC agenda so that freed him up. Obama is great!

Which way wasn't it true? And what if they would have stayed in the 1500's forever? So what, isn't it their right? Many cultures today are quite behind us, we think they want to modernize but can't, other side is that they just don't want to modernize. Ok... true in EVERY way. The question is not whether or not it happened. It would be great if they would have stayed in the 1500's if they so chose, no argument. Nothing is stopping the Amish from living without most all modern technologies. You just don't see Native Americans following the same choice to fore go modern advances. But what you call modern advances and think it's a great thing, me too for the most part, are what they call loss of culture. The word, "ethnocentric" come to mind and Americans, inc me are guilty of it. I guess since we've won most wars or tired of some and walked away we feel superior and that since we win wars and have the highest GDP in teh world that we can make our culture/ethnicity central. The ugly truth is that we are alos the biggest debtor and have pretty bad care for our poor, unlike what we would call 'lesser' nations. So the wakeup call won't come from a war loss, it will come from a fiscal asskicking and then we'll have to admit our culture isn't the best.

Just give em metal detectors, IED's do have a trace of metal, right? Probably too late by the time you get a reading. Aren't a lot of IED's manure? I wonder if amethane detector would help? It would seem that a truck with a platform 50 ft long, just a foot off the ground in front that detected whatever IED's were constructe dof would work. But yea, these guys were idiots before us and they will be after we're gone, Darwin says just let nature take its course.

So you agree then, Hannity and crew are far more radical than even Newt.

Which way wasn't it true? And what if they would have stayed in the 1500's forever? So what, isn't it their right? Many cultures today are quite behind us, we think they want to modernize but can't, other side is that they just don't want to modernize.

Today Hannity had Newt on and Hannity chided Newt over his endorsement of her. Case in point; keep listening to teh radical whacks, R electorate.

You mean the gay guys aren't tying to boof the other gay employees? No way, gays are all sexual deviants, right?

Next thing you'll tell me is that I was born white

It is repulsive to think about. We don't want our children or grandchildren thinking it is OK. Except it is ok and I think all kids need to be raised knowing that. Not in my family. Good, keep them naive so when they're in college they can look reallt stupid when simple issues of sexuality come up

It is repulsive to think about. We don't want our children or grandchildren thinking it is OK. Oh my god no . Shield them: never was slavery, never American Indian ethnocentricity only after the stealing of their country and 6M dead, dropping 2 bombs on Japan's women and children after they agreed to a conditional surrender - only to accept a conditional surrender, Japan-American internment of 110k US citizens only to have many of them die for the country in Europe showing how American they really were and on, and on, and on..... Now we're going to let kids know that sometimes people of the same sex like each other sexually and want a relationship with them . Oh the humanity.

What part of, cite your link, do you have trouble with? Are you immune to posting a link? Are we supposed to scour Rasmussen hping to find WTF you're talking about? Also, why didn't you address my post? Runnin like the wind....

[Reply] Good lucky, righties - you'll need it. Why the hell are you so damned terrified? Isn't it odd that you point to thinning ranks in a political party while mentioning that the same party may pick up wins against the opposition party? The GOP losing members is not a problem for Dems unless Dems are losing them more quickly. If the GOP gains seats, any argument you can try about how they're losing power is objectively falsifiable. I'm not worried, just pointing out, once again, the right is failing The right is gaining seats... so they're failing... Only you could tie those two things together. And only you could think winning *some* of the Governor seats is a win. Esp since you couldn't even hold Charlotte. umm yes. generally speaking, i consider a win to be a win. Yea and a loss is a loss, as with Charlotte.

Why are you unable to see exageration to illustrate your, "That depends on what the defintion of, "is" is. Why haven't you done that to your 20 degree timed turn mess, that really isn't 20 degrees, it varies but they call it that because it's a common language? 20 degrees for a PP would spark, in most PP's, the idea that ice is more likley; IT'S ON THE FUCKING FAA WRITTEN.

I'm not, I'm likening your form of argumentation to that of Clinton when he was caught with his pants down. Quit being the forum Clinton. Uh, er, 20 degrees, oh shit, I was thinking of some silly turn, uh, er, let's see.....I know I can split a hair. Dude, it's on the FAA PP written. I could see you arguing with the administrator of that test over semantic details and getting tossed. Again, I won't be a tool and try to argue that your 20 degree misstep of a turn wasn't on the money, it was a generalization, but tat's ok, that's how I roll. You have different rules. those which don't pertain to this society/planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded Here's a radio interview with Obama, well maybe it's Limbaugh doing an impression, you decide. It doesn't even sound like him......come on man.