I was gonna say that we're not a third world country, but then I realize that I live only 30 miles from DC.
Hatred for Bush?
- Thread starter mnztr
- Start date
- Status
Ouch!
Hahahahaha..That's what I was thinking.quote:
Originally posted by keith:Oh gawd, another sociology student that knows it all[/QB]
Funny how I thought I had it all figured out in college about38 years ago. Then came the dose of the real world.
[ June 01, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Al ]
I realized that you guys are rather prejudice. Maybe I should have said I was older. Maybe then you would give me more credit. Umm. As for the real world, what has it thought you? Have your professors been replaced with a president who spent his college years in a drunken stupor? I am so proud of you. Time to go back to school.
I would say that a prejudice is defined more by judging a person by mistakes he might have made 30 years ago.
I would guess that I've learned more tolerance in the years I have spent post college and grad school. I've learned that anyone can make a mistake.
I've also learned that a lot of very smart people had no formal education and that I could learn a lot from them.
I would guess that I've learned more tolerance in the years I have spent post college and grad school. I've learned that anyone can make a mistake.
I've also learned that a lot of very smart people had no formal education and that I could learn a lot from them.
I agree, but dumb are the ones who blindly follow even dumber politicians. These are the same oxymoronic people who say "God Bless America!" and then defend the current administration's destruction of the environment. (The American environment, if you like it served like that. If you love this country so much, why support the destruction of it's beautiful land????) It does not make sense. Welcome to the Decline of America.
"I agree, but dumb are the ones who blindly follow even dumber politicians."
---------------------------------------------------------
Never underestimate the intelligence of any politician. They each have an agenda to serve their individual purpose, and I mean every one of them.
---------------------------------------------------------
Never underestimate the intelligence of any politician. They each have an agenda to serve their individual purpose, and I mean every one of them.
Getting back to the WWII discussion, it was really Benito Mussolini who defeated the Germans. If Hitler had not saved Mussolini from defeat in Greece, Hitler would have invaded Russia in April not June, and the Germans would have reached Moscow before the fall snow.
Bush?
As time goes on and the Iraq thing plays out, doesn't it just drive you %^^(* as you come to the realization that the French were right all along !?!?
Admittedly the US has had no intelligent long term energy plan compared to the direction that should have been taken (and maintained) in 1979.
Donkeys, elephants, no meaningful difference BUT
I think that 10 years down the road, it will be Bush that stands out in the history books as the president that put the country in harms way by reducing energy conserving rebates and increasing incentives to purchase gas hogs immediately before this generations gas shortage.
As time goes on and the Iraq thing plays out, doesn't it just drive you %^^(* as you come to the realization that the French were right all along !?!?
Admittedly the US has had no intelligent long term energy plan compared to the direction that should have been taken (and maintained) in 1979.
Donkeys, elephants, no meaningful difference BUT
I think that 10 years down the road, it will be Bush that stands out in the history books as the president that put the country in harms way by reducing energy conserving rebates and increasing incentives to purchase gas hogs immediately before this generations gas shortage.
Most politicians are hypocrites. There is no real difference between Republicans and Democrats; they simply pander to different audiences. Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, while spending their grandchildren’s earnings and Democrats ride in chauffeured limousines to $5,000 a plate lunches to show each other how much they care about the homeless and hungry.
It all comes down to picking the lesser of two evils. I wish people would vote for someone independant of these two mainstream parties for once. But, of course, they are called the "throw away votes".
And what was it that Clinton did for the environment in his 8 years. He had a couple of Energy Secreteries (O'Leary/Richardson) who wouldn't have known what a BTU was if it ran over them. As I recall-our energy consumption, and dependence on foreigh oil went up significantly during this erra. Also SUV's exploded during this erra. Yes the Dems did a fine job
I don't support the Democratic party... I don't know where you got that from. Just because I am liberal does not mean I am a democrat. But, Bush has done worse for the environment since he took presidency. Among the many other negative things that happened after he took office. In fact, I want to know what good he has done since he became president.
You mean a monster deficit, a crooked Medicare plan and a massive war without any results or closure aren't good deeds?
I guess we'll just have to point to the chaos that is Iraq as his good deed.
Scott, I want to hear from the people who disagree with our viewpoint.
Originally posted by mnztr:Firstly, Clinton got it to around 4.9%, and most people that understand how the jobless rate is calculated will know that it only represents 1 element of the employment picture, the total number of jobs in the US is still down dramatically from where it was in the Clinton years.
In the Clinton years the rate may have been 4.9% but the majority of those jobs were temporary and part time.How do I know this,because I worked in manufacturing and live in a manufacturing town.Much of the state depends on manufacturing,things were not as good as the liberal spin made them out to be.Look back at old want ads for the Clinton years and see who and what was really hiring,temporary and part time work for factories,thats what.The jobs were as I said,temporary and part time,what futures!This was even mentioned in the national news.The 4.9% sounds good whith the right Democratic/Liberal spin on it but when the real truth shows that the jobs were temporary and part time,things dont look so good.You can spew your liberal mis-information all you want but temporary and part time jobs just dont cut it.As far as the total number of jobs being down,the economy has grown more in the last while than it has in 30-40 years,where are you getting your info from?,Liberal View 'R' Us?
Originally posted by kansaisubaru:
[QB]but after studying sociology, you might learn about the great disparities in our society. It is hard to get a job when you are confined to ghettos where there are no jobs, and if you find one, the pay is often so little, it is very discouraging as it keep you in poverty no matter how hard you try. Find a better job you say? Ok, but how do these poor people find and afford transportation to get to work b/c very little jobs are available in these neighborhoods? How about affording child care? Ever heard of red lining and racial discrimination? Umm, have you ever heard of capital flight? Do you know what these things do to poor people? Go pick up a text book.
If people like you,un-educated,yes I said un-educated,of the real world,would use the real sense they have,they would see that some just don't want to work.Why should they?
they have people like you trying to take from people like me,to give to them.You want to talk disparity?I was raised poor,as many were,in a small town at that.When I got up old enough,I delivered papers.Later I got another job,then another and then another until I got one that paid pretty descent.People in ghettos,large cities,have public transportation,I didn't.People in large cities have subsidized housing,very little here.People in large cities can get work just as I did,if they want it.I had to start at the bottom(minimum wage) and work my way up,why shouldn't they? I had to 'find' a job(it didn't find me),why shouldn't they? I had to buy a cheap car,why shouldn't they?.Your argument just doesn't hold up,if a person truly wants a job,as I and thousands of other poor people did,they can find one.If a person wants to work and doesn't make much money,the state helps pay for child care(know this for a fact).As I said,your argument just doesn't hold up in the real world.There are too many other people that were and are in the same situations as those in the ghetto's that found jobs and started at the bottom.It all comes down to this,if a person wants a job,they will find one even if it is digging ditches,even if they have to walk or ride a bike to get to it.I used to work in a factory and one of the guys rode a bike to work every day.I walked and rode a bike to deliver papers.I had to do this in rain,snow,cold and thunder.If people want to work,they can.Your liberal slant on things only makes things worse.
[ June 01, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: motorguy222 ]
Don't you know that manufacturing a only a small part of the US economy? Yes the economy has shown some life in the last few months, but you need to understand the difference in growth RATES vs Nominal growth. It's quite common for an economy coming out of recession to grow very rapidly as inventories are built up etc....but I don't think we are out of the woods yet. You can't really project what is happening in your state to what is happening across the US. The US is still down almost 3 million jobs from the peak in the Clinton years.
mntzr,no I cant say what is going on in the rest of the country by how my state is doing.My state is actually one of the few that is 'not' hurting as bad.If my state is doing better than others,I can only guess how bad the rest are doing.Manufacturing may only be one part of the economy but it is a larger part than you make it out to be,it's actually a very large part.Orders of durable goods is a large indicator of how the economy is doing.Manufacturing isn't only the making of cars and machinery,it is the making of every thing that you own.The materials needed to build homes,businesses,schools etc. must be manufactured first.Our foods must be processed and packaged,this is also a part of manufacturing.The gas and oil that goes into our cars has to be processed and or packaged.If you think about it,manufacturing is truly the backbone of our economy.New housing may be a high indicator of how things are going but the products to build the houses must me manufactured in a factory somewhere first.I can even go further,the parts and supplies that are needed to repair our jet planes,our auto's and appliances have to be made in a factory somewhere.The technology industry is a large part of our economy but equipment needed for the technology to be used has to be manufactured somewhere in a factory.As I said,manufacturing plays a much larger part in our economy than you give it credit for.As far as jobs during the Clinton years,we may be down in the number of jobs 'BUT' that number is is most likely indicative of the temporary and part time jobs that people had during the Clinton years.The job numbers you keep quoting are not as good as you make them out to be.When a job is only part time and or temporary,as in the 'glorious' Clinton years,it is not something that is a good indicator of how many people are working.While it may look good on paper for any given moment in time,in the long run you have just as now,many without work because there jobs were part time or temporary to begin with.To clarify before you try to make something of the last sentence.The temporary work force involves thousands of people.A temp.,as they are called in the job area,is hired for the allowed amount of time and then is let go.Another temp is then hired for the same job and kept for the allowed time and they are let go.This process goes on for as long as the hiring company wants it to.I worked at a company that used temps,they were here today and gone the next week or month.When a temp is used,the hiring company doesn't have to pay for insurance,workers comp,vacations etc. for the temp that they have to pay for their real employees.Yes,those Clinton years sure were 'glorious.
[ June 02, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: motorguy222 ]
[ June 02, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: motorguy222 ]
Yea, I worked with some real winners during the Clinton years that were obviously only hired because they were a warm body.
As soon as the economy started to slow, guess who got the boot?
- Status