- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,384
- 24,019
- 2,290
A major part of 'social justice' is that no one should have more than another - and no country should have more than another.
Social justice is just a way of saying "Equality of Outcomes - and Misery".
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A major part of 'social justice' is that no one should have more than another - and no country should have more than another.
A major part of 'social justice' is that no one should have more than another - and no country should have more than another.
Social justice is just a way of saying "Equality of Outcomes - and Misery".
1. We are well into economic recovery from the brink of collapseObama and his democraps brought it up to double digits. nice work democraps
OOOH, colors! Well I'll use blue.
The recession that caused those double digits started during the Boooosh administration, genius. Are you going to blame the Carter recession on Reagan now?
And not only has the increase in unemployment now started dropping, but every other economic indicator, from GDP growth to Wall Street, has gone up, up, up.
I'll be green the color of money. Numbers are not your friends
Republican white house, republican congress
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
Republican white house, democrat congress
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
Democrat White House, Democrat Congress
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7
Any questions?
JUST LIKE REAGAN DID WITH THE START I TREATY.
Wow, that Reagan must have been a horrible president!
No because Reagain didn't agree to all the rediculous terms Obama did, like no testing. Also, Reagan never gave up on the missile defense shield
COLOR="Blue"]What part of Health Care was "taken over" by the Health Care Reform bill, specifically? Hmmmmm?[/COLOR]
Other than thousands of IRS agents being hired in order to force americans to buy Obama's mandated health insurance?
Like incorporating the help of Pakistan in strength, and capturing dozens of Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You must have missed the memo, Pakistan was already an ally.
It's not the job of the government to run car companies. They should have filed for bankruptcy and reorganized.Really? Bush bailed out the Auto Industry? Wow, so Rush-Bo has been LYING all this time? Surprise surprise!
The Bush administration originally intended all the money to the banks to be in the form of loans, which the banks could then default on, or avoid paying back in other ways. The Democrats decided to advance the funds in the form of investments, that would draw dividends, thus the profit.
The bank crises was the single biggest Obama economic disaster. He scared the banks so much that it's virtually impossible to get credit.
Guess what businesses need to survive, especially in a bad economy? Credit.
Small firms would hire you, if only they could get loans | McClatchy
I could go on, would you like me to?Yes.
Sweet, I shall:
7. Set an end date for the disaster that is Iraq, leaving us more leeway to concentrate on the actual War on Terror.
Great so now Al Qaida terrorists know to lay low, and when Obama surrenders, they will go in and take over the government. Great work Obama
You mean the waterboading that was used only on 3 arch terrorists, and without using the waterboarding two major terrorist attacks in America would have happened, murdering thousands of Americans? That one? Oh yeah, great work Obama, for caring more about Al Qaida terrorist rights than american lives8. Ended the use of torture techniques from the Bush administration.
Darn right SewerWorkerWinger. My comments in red.
Inane insults don't prove your inane points. You know that, right?
I treat people as they treat me. Respect goes two ways.
Exactly.A major part of 'social justice' is that no one should have more than another - and no country should have more than another.
Social justice is just a way of saying "Equality of Outcomes - and Misery".
No, that would be "Communism". Why are you Anarchists always using hyperbole?
No, that would be "Communism". Why are you Anarchists always using hyperbole?
You would benefit from understanding the underlying objectives of the nonsense you promote.
Republican white house, republican congress
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
Republican white house, democrat congress
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
Democrat White House, Democrat Congress
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7
Any questions?
No because Reagain didn't agree to all the rediculous terms Obama did, like no testing. Also, Reagan never gave up on the missile defense shield
Other than thousands of IRS agents being hired in order to force americans to buy Obama's mandated health insurance?
You must have missed the memo, Pakistan was already an ally.
It's not the job of the government to run car companies. They should have filed for bankruptcy and reorganized.
The Bush administration originally intended all the money to the banks to be in the form of loans, which the banks could then default on, or avoid paying back in other ways. The Democrats decided to advance the funds in the form of investments, that would draw dividends, thus the profit.
The bank crises was the single biggest Obama economic disaster. He scared the banks so much that it's virtually impossible to get credit.
Guess what businesses need to survive, especially in a bad economy? Credit.
Great so now Al Qaida terrorists know to lay low, and when Obama surrenders, they will go in and take over the government. Great work Obama
You mean the waterboading that was used only on 3 arch terrorists, and without using the waterboarding two major terrorist attacks in America would have happened, murdering thousands of Americans? That one? Oh yeah, great work Obama, for caring more about Al Qaida terrorist rights than american lives
I treat people as they treat me. Respect goes two ways.
Republican white house, republican congress
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
Republican white house, democrat congress
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
Democrat White House, Democrat Congress
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7
Any questions?
Hmm, that's a toughie, well let's look at your "numbers" in depth, shall we?
From their best point in 2007 (4.4%) there was a 3.8% increase in unemployment until Obama's first full month in office in Feb of 2009 (8.2%).
Since that time, the trend continued until December, when it peaked at 10%, for a total 1.8% increase in unemployment since Obama took over. It has since decreased by .3%.
Advantage Obama. Looks like my assertion was correct.
Now let's compare that to a similar situation, say, for instance, Ronald Reagans first 2 1/2 years in office. Here, I'll use the same source as you:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3
1984 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.3
Notice how it starts at 7.4% in his first month of office, rises to 10.8% In December of 1982, almost 2 years into his Presidency, and is still above 10% by June of 1983.
That's an increase of 3.4%. Obama's still winning.
Not really.
The month before Obama took office unemployment was at 7.4%, it got to 10.1%.
That means unemployment rate went up about 40% under Obama
Now it did go down to 9.7% so the uemployment to the present went up about 35%.
Let's go from the time the democrats took over congress. At that time unemployment was at 4.4%, from that time, Obama took it up 130%, and to the present 120%
In any case to summarize
Right before Obama took over until Sept. 2009, the unemployment rate increased 40%
Right before Obama took over until last month, until now the unemployment rate increased 35%
From the time the democrats took over congress until Sept. 2009, the unemployment rate increased 130%
From the time the democrats took over congress until last month the unemployment went up 120%
.No because Reagan didn't agree to all the rediculous terms Obama did, like no testing. Also, Reagan never gave up on the missile defense shield
You mean the missle defense shield that never worked? Wow, there's an important difference. And why would we need further testing of our nuclear weapons?.
Apparently, the Ruskies thought it worked. They have been terrified of it.
To not implement a device that would stop a nuclear weapon from hitting the US, even if it was fired by accident, is utterly rediculous.
And that has to do with government controlling the actual health care process, how?
That's like saying the government controls the auto industry because they require people to get auto insurance.
Not even close. To be required to get auto insurance you have to own a car and have a drivers license. To be required to get Obama's health insurance you have to just exist. There is a vast difference.
That's strange, because I could have sworn that Pakistan was harboring terrorists.
Now, what was it George Bush said were the stated goals of the war on terror back right after 9/11?
Yeah, that means Pakistan wasn't really an "ally" at all, doesn't it?
Your premise is wrong. There are terrorists hiding in Pakistan, that doesn't mean Pakistan is harboring terrorists. In fact, Pakistan helped George Bush locate and kill terrorists.
Pakistan Raid Start Of Concerted Bid To Hit Al-Qaida : NPR
That would have been GREAT for the recovery, to have a major portion of the American industrial complex just disappear, wouldn't it? Great plan.
Who said that they would dissapear? They would declare bankuptcy, and reorganize. They would probably screw some creditors.
And it became the job of the government to insure the taxpayers money once they lent them tens of billions of dollars.
And look, the car companies are doing MUCH better now, aren't they?
That's why the government shouldn't take over car companies. Are they? GM is still having tremendous losses.
For a short time, there was a credit crunch, but the situation has much improved since then, thanks to large infusions of lending capital from the Fed. Which is why Wall Street is booming, as Toro pointed out the other day. Of course, the formation of a possible bubble as a result may or may not be a bad thing. We'll have to wait and see on that one.
And, as for being a disaster, far from it. The banks are doing quite well, and are slowly making the investments into a profit for the taxpayer.
This is not about the banks not having enough money, it's about Obama scaring the banks into lending money. Businesses can not get credit and that is the main reason unemployment has been so high.
Bailout watchdog: Credit crunch alive and well - May. 7, 2009
Great so now Al Qaida terrorists know to lay low, and when Obama surrenders, they will go in and take over the government. Great work Obama
Al Qaeda in Iraq? First of all, it didn't exist in Iraq until Bush invaded, and second, there doesn't seem to be any credible Al Qaeda threat in Iraq at the moment. Is there something you know that I don't?
Who said that Al Qaida didn't exist in Iraq until Bush invaded? That military genius Obama?
Hussein and Al Qaida had ties that went back a decade.
This is testimony from the CIA director to the Senate Intelligence committee
Behind Closed Doors
Levin: And relative to Iraq, a couple other questions: Do we--do you have any evidence that Saddam Hussein or his agents played a role in the September 11th terrorist attacks or that he has links to al Qaeda?
Tenet: Well, as I note in my statement, there is no doubt that there have been contacts and linkages to the al Qaeda organization. As to where we are in September 11th, the jury's out. And as I said carefully in my statement, it would be a mistake to dismiss the possibility of state sponsorship, whether Iranian or Iraqi, and we'll see where the evidence takes us. But I want you to think about al Qaeda as a front company that mixes and matches its capabilities. The distinctions between Sunni and Shia that have traditionally divided terrorist groups are not distinctions you should make anymore, because there is a common interest against the United States and its allies in this region, and they will seek capability wherever they can get it.
More of CIA Director Tenet's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee
Let me be clear. Saddam remains a threat. He is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War. Today he maintains his vice grip on the levers of power through a pervasive intelligence and security apparatus, and even his reduced military force, which is less than half of its pre-war size, remains capable of defeating more poorly armed internal opposition and threatening Iraq's neighbors.
As I said earlier, we continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorist activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It has also had contacts with al Qaeda. Their ties may be limited by diverging ideologies, but the two sides mutual antipathy towards the United States and the Saudi royal family suggest that tactical cooperation between them is possible, even though Saddam is well aware that such activity would carry serious consequences.
...Iraq continues to build and expand an infrastructure capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad is expanding its civilian chemical industries in ways that could be diverted quickly into CW production. We believe Baghdad continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities that exceed the restrictions imposed by U .N. resolutions. With substantial foreign assistance, it could flight- test a longer-range ballistic missile within the next five years.
We believe that Saddam never abandoned his nuclear weapons program. Iraq maintains a significant number of nuclear scientists, program documentation, and probably some dual-use manufacturing infrastructure that could support a reinvigorated nuclear weapons program. Baghdad's access to foreign expertise could support a rejuvenated program. But our major near-term concern is the possibility that Saddam might gain access to fissile material.
Case Closed | The Weekly Standard
The above link quotes a Department of Defense memo that has over 50 contacts between Al Qaida and Iraqi intelligence.
You mean the waterboading that was used only on 3 arch terrorists, and without using the waterboarding two major terrorist attacks in America would have happened, murdering thousands of Americans? That one? Oh yeah, great work Obama, for caring more about Al Qaida terrorist rights than american lives
I treat people as they treat me. Respect goes two ways.
Really, did I refer to you by a derogatory name? I don't seem to recall doing that.
Did I call you by a derogatory name? I did call democrats democraps.
Obama has signed a treaty today that in all respects handcuffs us and won't allow us to test new nuclear weapons systems. Boy...you could tell the Russians were happy about that.
So let me get this straight....we can't drill, we can't test new weapons systems, we soon won't be able to take heavy payloads into space because he's canceled any new shuttle programs.
What is this guy doing? Does he want us to fall behind everyone else. It seems Obama is trying to turn us into a 3rd rate world power...purposely setting us years back in advancements in science and technology.
Is Obama selling us down the river just so he can justify his Nobel prize?
If I were a competitor of the United States I would be doing cartwheels right now.
I'll be green the color of money. Numbers are not your friends
Republican white house, republican congress
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
Republican white house, democrat congress
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
Democrat White House, Democrat Congress
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7
Any questions?
No because Reagain didn't agree to all the rediculous terms Obama did, like no testing. Also, Reagan never gave up on the missile defense shield
Other than thousands of IRS agents being hired in order to force americans to buy Obama's mandated health insurance?
You must have missed the memo, Pakistan was already an ally.
It's not the job of the government to run car companies. They should have filed for bankruptcy and reorganized.
The Bush administration originally intended all the money to the banks to be in the form of loans, which the banks could then default on, or avoid paying back in other ways. The Democrats decided to advance the funds in the form of investments, that would draw dividends, thus the profit.
The bank crises was the single biggest Obama economic disaster. He scared the banks so much that it's virtually impossible to get credit.
Guess what businesses need to survive, especially in a bad economy? Credit.
Small firms would hire you, if only they could get loans | McClatchy
Great so now Al Qaida terrorists know to lay low, and when Obama surrenders, they will go in and take over the government. Great work Obama
You mean the waterboading that was used only on 3 arch terrorists, and without using the waterboarding two major terrorist attacks in America would have happened, murdering thousands of Americans? That one? Oh yeah, great work Obama, for caring more about Al Qaida terrorist rights than american lives
I treat people as they treat me. Respect goes two ways.
Thanks Mike for the stats-- It's interesting to note that after the worst attack on American soil -- 9-11 unemployment rose to only 6% in 2002. Of Course, Bush did across the board tax cuts to keep it that low. This year we are going to lose those tax cuts which will essentially be a tax hike on middle America during the worst recession in memory. Stupid.
Not really.
The month before Obama took office unemployment was at 7.4%, it got to 10.1%.
That means unemployment rate went up about 40% under Obama
Now it did go down to 9.7% so the uemployment to the present went up about 35%.
Let's go from the time the democrats took over congress. At that time unemployment was at 4.4%, from that time, Obama took it up 130%, and to the present 120%
In any case to summarize
Right before Obama took over until Sept. 2009, the unemployment rate increased 40%
Right before Obama took over until last month, until now the unemployment rate increased 35%
From the time the democrats took over congress until Sept. 2009, the unemployment rate increased 130%
From the time the democrats took over congress until last month the unemployment went up 120%[/COLOR]
Apparently, the Ruskies thought it worked. They have been terrified of it.
To not implement a device that would stop a nuclear weapon from hitting the US, even if it was fired by accident, is utterly rediculous.
Not even close. To be required to get auto insurance you have to own a car and have a drivers license. To be required to get Obama's health insurance you have to just exist. There is a vast difference.
Your premise is wrong. There are terrorists hiding in Pakistan, that doesn't mean Pakistan is harboring terrorists. In fact, Pakistan helped George Bush locate and kill terrorists.
Pakistan Raid Start Of Concerted Bid To Hit Al-Qaida : NPR
OK, I'm back, so I ask again, what specific legislation did the Democratic Congress enact between Jan 2007 and Jan 2009 that might have raised the unemployment rate?
Let's go by right-wing standards, just for the heck of it.
Did they raise taxes? No.
Did they enact some large package of environmental regulations? No.
Did they somehow convince the Fed to raise the interest rates? No.
So, what was it, exactly?
OK, I'm back, so I ask again, what specific legislation did the Democratic Congress enact between Jan 2007 and Jan 2009 that might have raised the unemployment rate?
Let's go by right-wing standards, just for the heck of it.
Did they raise taxes? No.
Did they enact some large package of environmental regulations? No.
Did they somehow convince the Fed to raise the interest rates? No.
So, what was it, exactly?
waiting..........
did they all go to sleep?
OK, I'm back, so I ask again, what specific legislation did the Democratic Congress enact between Jan 2007 and Jan 2009 that might have raised the unemployment rate?
Let's go by right-wing standards, just for the heck of it.
Did they raise taxes? No.
Did they enact some large package of environmental regulations? No.
Did they somehow convince the Fed to raise the interest rates? No.
So, what was it, exactly?
waiting..........
did they all go to sleep?
As is typical of liberal thought. You presume government action is necessary to solve problems. If the government had rejected derivitives and expansion of the home loan programs, we could have avoided a great deal of this.
The Fed actually kept interest rates at artifically low levels to keep economic growth going. This created a false bubble which was going to have to correct at some time. It did.