Promises Promises
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
What part of above did you miss--
"The jobless rate remains at 9.6 percent. That is the 14th consecutive month that unemployment has been over 9.5 percent, a situation not seen since the Great Depression."
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
He has 2 choices -taking responsibilty for his closed door stimulus failure--healthcare fiasco--lawsuit against Arizona--adding more debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined--
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/72404
or he can continue with the grift--
IT WAS BOOOOSH
Believe Nov will prove only easiest led sheep are still grazing on that grass--How about you?
I believe we'll see most opting for - "Change" :SIB
You're just embarrassing yourself now Dogs.
Any and all incumbents, regardless of party, are vulnerable on Nov. 2nd, and rightfully so. But if you think a mandate for change represents a vote of confidence for the Republican Party, you're kidding yourself.
--just noticed I forgot to address your dow theory--
a little walk back in time--if I may
Election date in 08 was Nov 4th--
Market closed @ 9,625 - investors waiting for elections results next day.
Gumby Wins--reads the headlines next day
Market fall bout 500 points and free falls over 2000 points 12 days following election to close @ 7,552
liberals claim--
IT WAS BOOOOSH
On a more serious note--I understand with being for hike in taxes on divs and capital gains--your apparantly not an investor--
However many things move markets temporarily. Wasn't long ago investors always looked forward to interest rate cuts as it was surest way to predict good market afterwards as would be good news for business as very important factor in their quest for profits--and gov could usually use it as instant boost to market.
Past year or so company profits have been good as they have operated with near zero interest rates--reduced expenditures (less employees-little expansion-little inventory) in fact many have had greater profit with less revenue.
The prob lies in adverse effects of zero interest rates especially over extended period of time--and what happens when they can no longer hold them @ zero. Would you believe we are buying the same treasuries we are selling?
No doubt there will be big transformation of power in Nov but IMO it won't make much diff anymore--one good thing they can kiss carbon tax goodby so might be a chance of salvaging things but I am not optimistic--I am just thankful I grew up in time period I did and time to put it on cruise.
a little walk back in time--if I may
Election date in 08 was Nov 4th--
Market closed @ 9,625 - investors waiting for elections results next day.
Gumby Wins--reads the headlines next day
Market fall bout 500 points and free falls over 2000 points 12 days following election to close @ 7,552
liberals claim--
IT WAS BOOOOSH
On a more serious note--I understand with being for hike in taxes on divs and capital gains--your apparantly not an investor--
However many things move markets temporarily. Wasn't long ago investors always looked forward to interest rate cuts as it was surest way to predict good market afterwards as would be good news for business as very important factor in their quest for profits--and gov could usually use it as instant boost to market.
Past year or so company profits have been good as they have operated with near zero interest rates--reduced expenditures (less employees-little expansion-little inventory) in fact many have had greater profit with less revenue.
The prob lies in adverse effects of zero interest rates especially over extended period of time--and what happens when they can no longer hold them @ zero. Would you believe we are buying the same treasuries we are selling?
No doubt there will be big transformation of power in Nov but IMO it won't make much diff anymore--one good thing they can kiss carbon tax goodby so might be a chance of salvaging things but I am not optimistic--I am just thankful I grew up in time period I did and time to put it on cruise.
I don't have a Dow theory.
I was merely correcting your obvious attempt to once again make it appear that Obama inherited a Bull market and a booming economy.
By any chance, were you in a coma between Sept. 15, 2008 and January 20, 2009, or have you recently experienced any blunt trauma to the head?
I'm concerned.
..................................................................I don't have a Dow theory.
I was merely correcting your obvious attempt to once again make it appear that Obama inherited a Bull market and a booming economy.
By any chance, were you in a coma between Sept. 15, 2008 and January 20, 2009, or have you recently experienced any blunt trauma to the head?
I'm concerned.
Yeh Bush & Cheney pretty much made sure everything was in the total dumper before they left. It really was third grade stuff.
No wonder Bush and Cheney dont show their faces much nowadays. Sitting home counting their trillions in Swiss banks and such.
The only thing embarrassing--is replying or giving the time of day to "0's" ---(nameless/faceless/jobless cyber trolls)
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
<FORM id=formBrowseFullsize method=post name=formBrowseFullsize action=/mediadetail/ sizcache="0" sizset="113">
</FORM>
Your splitting hairs--lets compromise
replace my initial economy (with jobs) then answer the questions--
Do you think pelosi's
"worst job record since great depression" after 4.4 job report is not as bad if not worse--for some reason?
You do understand -that you are defending Pelosi for above statement -while at same time chastising me for being incorrect on my assessment-
You really need to ponder that for a while Chad
I'm not splitting hairs. And to compromise, your suggestion is to change the actual comment, which is par for the course. I am chastising you for being incorrect in your assessment because my point is that you are being incorrect in your assessment. Clear enough?
:0corn
The alternative is that you are purposely misrepresenting the comment to use it repeatedly in multiple threads as some kind of actual statement. Either way, the comment you are making is not factually true. That is my point.
Furthermore, I am not defending Pelosi's statement. I was - and have been - pointing out that she had not said what you have repeatedly said she, and democrats, said. There's a big difference. I am not trying to argue several points here. I'm arguing one. Which I maintain I have proven, which negates countless posts made by you in this and other threads.
Now, to your NEW comment about her statement, I will consider that point you are making and comment when I can review the new assessment you are making.
Maybe this is worth spending more time on. Since you asked, I've found more on this, and apparently there is quite a bit more to find to back it up. Let's start here, with National Labor Department Statistics in a chart for Presidents:
Again, I'm not saying it's fact, I just spent 5 minutes on it... but interesting, no? Seems the Bush name is definitely famous in this category.
Again, I'm not saying it's fact, I just spent 5 minutes on it... but interesting, no? Seems the Bush name is definitely famous in this category.
Can't wait to see DTB's explanation for these statistics.
It oughta be a better performance than this one... :142smilie
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
I see doggie is getting more and more desperate. No facts to stand on he simply twists the truth. When will it end? doggie spins you right round, right baby right round. What a loser.
....................................................................
doggy goes around in circles
doggy flys high like a bird up in the sky ....
doggy goes around in circles
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/un63LEAN22E?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/un63LEAN22E?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Maybe this is worth spending more time on. Since you asked, I've found more on this, and apparently there is quite a bit more to find to back it up. Let's start here, with National Labor Department Statistics in a chart for Presidents:
Again, I'm not saying it's fact, I just spent 5 minutes on it... but interesting, no? Seems the Bush name is definitely famous in this category.
Shheez Chad we have standard employment #s everyone uses (Bureau of Labor Statstics) without the ropa dope tricks-
Is there no lengths liberals will take to try and lead everyone away the the standard facts that everyone else uses because it doesn't fit their agenda.
You are one of my fav people Chad but let me say this--
The prob is teachers are tied to liberal element via the unions. Which leads them to be purveyors of opinions vs teachers of historical facts.
As a teacher when you present our children historical employment stats are you going to use those that everyone else go by (below) or will you seek out others as you did here to specifically deviate from standards with ropa dope charts to try and prop up your political views.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P.S. any time you see charts with derogatory remarks on either party--you can figure it was tainted by the other party--and you won't find this chart in bureau of statistics.
You might have taken time to look at your source of origin--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/469156610
Maybe not best choice considering thread
Keep this one for reference please--in case "our children" ask :SIB
from Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
Last edited:
Shheez Chad we have standard employment #s everyone uses (Bureau of Labor Statstics) without the ropa dope tricks-
Is there no lengths liberals will take to try and lead everyone away the the standard facts that everyone else uses because it doesn't fit their agenda.
You are one of my fav people Chad but let me say this--
The prob is teachers are tied to liberal element via the unions. Which leads them to be purveyors of opinions vs teachers of historical facts.
As a teacher when you present our children historical employment stats are you going to use those that everyone else go by (below) or will you seek out others as you did here to specifically deviate from standards with ropa dope charts to try and prop up your political views.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P.S. any time you see charts with derogatory remarks on either party--you can figure it was tainted by the other party--and you won't find this chart in bureau of statistics.
You might have taken time to look at your source of origin--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/469156610
Maybe not best choice considering thread
Keep this one for reference please--in case "our children" ask :SIB
from Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
I agree that the teachers union and teachers in general are supportive of the democratic party. That's no secret. Of course the democratic party has always been supportive of funding education, by the same token, compared to the other side of the fence that has other issues more dear to their heart, and that's fine too. To criticize teachers and teacher unions for supporting the party that best reflects and supports their needs makes no sense, but no matter. Much like big oil, energy (not green), defense companies, and many others favor republicans. Point being?
I am very comfortable with showing my future students a balanced view. I think I'm going to be a good steward of what they receive from me in my class, more so than most. I've seen the liberal lean in many instances in my college classrooms, but for the most part the professors I've had have explained that both sides have an agenda, and we need to be careful and examine what we are being told. I know you don't want to believe that, but again, no matter.
As for my chart and where it came from? You say we can use the numbers from the source this chart came from, but we should disregard the chart that reflects the numbers from the respected source because it comes from a side you don't agree with. I've produced a chart showing that Pelosi's comment (which you've continually misrepresented, BTW) is accurate. Somehow, I doubt that a person in her position would doctor the numbers from YOUR approved source to be incorrect since she's making such a public statement. But I do invite you to tell me what is wrong with them, or the chart. Until you do, which I invite, this stands as proof of her comment (which you've continually misrepresented). That would make you wrong initially, and her right all along, and Bush being proven to having the worst record in JOB CREATION of any President since before Eisenhower.
And if I ever need to show the students information on unemployment rates - which is a different subject than I'm talking about, and Pelosi and Kerry were talking about, then your link would definitely be appropriate to show.
Thankfully, as a future teacher, I either seem to know how to show students subject matter that deals with the subject at hand, or plan to show them accurate information and not information that is not applicable to the subject matter to try to sway their opinion on a subject. Maybe that's why I'll be a teacher, and you're in the insurance business, eh?
I think if I were you, I'd start a new thread on unemployment statistics. That seems to be a subject you are more informed on. :kiss:
By the way, as for the "derogatory remarks" comment, how is what was shown in that chart derogatory if it is true? And I'm guessing those numbers are fairly accurate, being taken from YOUR source, which is the foremost reference for those numbers. I've yet to see any links anywhere - and I would assume the right would have many lookers after the comments and chart that could disprove them.
Perhaps you should take one of my future English classes, Wayne. I can teach you the correct use of the word derogatory...
P.S. You know I'm just having fun with some of this, Wayne (the personal zingers). I don't share some of the other zealots view of ripping others for ripping sake. But my main points on this - I think, at least - make a lot of sense.
Perhaps you should take one of my future English classes, Wayne. I can teach you the correct use of the word derogatory...
P.S. You know I'm just having fun with some of this, Wayne (the personal zingers). I don't share some of the other zealots view of ripping others for ripping sake. But my main points on this - I think, at least - make a lot of sense.
Wasn't ripping you for ripping sake Chad--and my early morning version was a lot worse than my edited version.
Before I even checked the source (pelosi) I could tell something was way out of kelter.
A: we know GW's employment figures were better than Clintons--then
B: look at Pelosi graph depicting both.
No surprise the troll section (Tramp-trench and Scott) took the bait--
In the future you might watch for "speculative" stats/charts. As you get BS like this or Gumby reading off telepromter about jobs gained or saved when as unemployment hits double digits.
On the english--I'll be happy for the English tutoring and will help you out with any common sense/logic classes you may have.
--but please --try to reframe from rewriting history as many in education field do.
--and would be proud to have you teach any of my children if I had any--but I'm sure you already know that.:0074
Before I even checked the source (pelosi) I could tell something was way out of kelter.
A: we know GW's employment figures were better than Clintons--then
B: look at Pelosi graph depicting both.
No surprise the troll section (Tramp-trench and Scott) took the bait--
In the future you might watch for "speculative" stats/charts. As you get BS like this or Gumby reading off telepromter about jobs gained or saved when as unemployment hits double digits.
On the english--I'll be happy for the English tutoring and will help you out with any common sense/logic classes you may have.
--but please --try to reframe from rewriting history as many in education field do.
--and would be proud to have you teach any of my children if I had any--but I'm sure you already know that.:0074
