CSNbbs

i thought the nuke pregnant gay whales for jesus one was funny. but idk if you all do.

My favorite used to be;

Support Ted Kennedy
A blonde in every pond

"10 out of 10 terrorist's vote democrat"

99Tiger Wrote:

....which is funny as hell since we now have a lower unemployment rate than ANY time during the Clinton Administration. Take heed, Democrats want us to pattern ourselves after European Socialists. Yes, I have plenty of DU threads to back me up. Shall I show you THEIR unemployment rates?

RebelKev Wrote:....which is funny as hell since we now have a lower unemployment rate than ANY time during the Clinton Administration.

Further proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.

The current unemployment rate is 4.5% which is up from the 4.2% Bush started with in January 2001.

The unemployment rate under Clinton dropped from 7.3% when he took office in January 1993 to 3.9% when he left office in December 2000.

If you're going to make things up, try doing it for things that aren't so easily proven wrong.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

So, you're one of those that thinks Clinton was out getting jobs? Not Microsoft, the I.T. sector, or anyone else, right? Clinton was out getting all those people jobs. That what you're telling us? And after the tech bubble burst, which I, as a Cisco-Certified network engineer, was part of, that had nothing to do with the rise in unemployment? The fact that many of us couldn't buy what we used to buy, eat out as much, watch movies, take vacations, etc., that had nothing to do with it, right? Then 9/11 crashed the stock market, but that had nothing to do with unemployment, right? Then Enron, WorldCom, and other companies such as that, that started their shenanigans in the 90's, that had nothing to do with it, right?

Face it, you know dick about economics. A president is very, VERY limited in what he can do to an economy. Nice try though, Junior.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

RebelKev Wrote:So, you're one of those that thinks Clinton was out getting jobs? Not Microsoft, the I.T. sector, or anyone else, right? Clinton was out getting all those people jobs. That what you're telling us? And after the tech bubble burst, which I, as a Cisco-Certified network engineer, was part of, that had nothing to do with the rise in unemployment? The fact that many of us couldn't buy what we used to buy, eat out as much, watch movies, take vacations, etc., that had nothing to do with it, right? Then 9/11 crashed the stock market, but that had nothing to do with unemployment, right? Then Enron, WorldCom, and other companies such as that, that started their shenanigans in the 90's, that had nothing to do with it, right?

Face it, you know dick about economics. A president is very, VERY limited in what he can do to an economy. Nice try though, Junior.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

You know nothing about math if you think 4.5 is lower than 3.9.

Bush is the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs in a four-year term. That is a FACT.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Bush is the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs in a four-year term. That is a FACT.

...and the less-intelligent among us, like you, think all that is his fault. Not 9/11, not the I.T. bubble burst, not corporate scandal, just Bush. Damn, you left-wingers really give the man a lot of power.

BTW, why did you stop at 4 years? Ahhh, so you could cherry-pick the information to make him look like Dr. Evil. You're a joke.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Bush is the first president since Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs in a four-year term. That is a FACT.

...and the less-intelligent among us, like you, think all that is his fault. Not 9/11, not the I.T. bubble burst, not corporate scandal, just Bush. Damn, you left-wingers really give the man a lot of power.

BTW, why did you stop at 4 years? Ahhh, so you could cherry-pick the information to make him look like Dr. Evil. You're a joke.

With a quote like this:

RebelKev Wrote:....which is funny as hell since we now have a lower unemployment rate than ANY time during the Clinton Administration.

you really have no business calling anyone else a joke.

Yeah, I was wrong. See, I admit when I'm wrong. Something I won't bet on you doing.

Good grief people. It's a bumper sticker. I posted it because it's funny, not to incite an economic-knowledge riot.

I didn't take offense to the "...work hard..." bumper sticker even though I work hard, enjoy my life, and am somewhat liberal compared to the many uber-cons on here.

I was too lazy to find a picture of the yellow-ribbon car magnet that says "I support the guy in China that makes these!"

Oh...and I think the economy, as a whole, is beyond the actions of a President. They can do things to encourage growth; but ultimately, we seem to have large growth when opportunities arise for massive numbers of people to become upward mobile (i.e. the tech boom). HOWEVER, political figures are all too quick to steal the glory when things go well...so I guess they get to shoulder the blame when things don't.

While we're on the economy, why is 9-11 blamed for massive numbers of jobs lost? I'm not being critical, but looking for more info. It appears to me (and my single semester of macroeconomics) that as a direct result of 9-11, the country added jobs related to homeland security, airport screening (I know, a subset of the first things I said), and the military. I personally think that it's easy to blame just about everything under the sun on that tragic day, but I think it really was the culmination of the the bubble bursting on the tech industries and the massive corporate scandals that took down many large companies (Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, etc.) and smaller companies that did business with them.

99Tiger Wrote:I was too lazy to find a picture of the yellow-ribbon car magnet that says "I support the guy in China that makes these!"

Something the Fair Tax will limit. As an independent, I'm for FAIR trade, not FREE trade.

RebelKev Wrote:As an independent, I'm for FAIR trade, not FREE trade.

You're starting to sound like a liberal...

Sophandros Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:As an independent, I'm for FAIR trade, not FREE trade.

You're starting to sound like a liberal...

I don't see that as a liberal trait. No way can we compete with a country with a country that pays their workers 2 dollars a day in terms of trade. Their manufacturing costs are at least a 10th of ours.

RebelKev Wrote:

Sophandros Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:As an independent, I'm for FAIR trade, not FREE trade.

You're starting to sound like a liberal...

I don't see that as a liberal trait. No way can we compete with a country with a country that pays their workers 2 dollars a day in terms of trade. Their manufacturing costs are at least a 10th of ours.

Since the before NAFTA, the left in this country have been screaming about fair trade vs. free trade.

Sophandros Wrote:Since the before NAFTA, the left in this country have been screaming about fair trade vs. free trade.

It was a Democratic President that gave us NAFTA, and it hasn't just been the left that's been complaining about Free Trade. Fair Tax proponents are also against free trade. Free trade is a buzz word meant to stir the emotions of freedom-loving Americans. It's not free trade when it costs us so much in terms of yobs. BTW, I was at the Fair Tax rally in Columbia, SC. There were Libertarians and Republicans. The Republican speakers, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, etc., railed against free trade.