Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
Closed Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 151 to 171 of 171

Thread: Wow, the BIG ONE! ... THE TRAGEDY OF KATRINA

  1. #151
    BDeskins
    Guest
    >>>O'Reilly and Hannity/Colmes are textbook illustrations of presenting different points of view.<<<<


    BAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA! I won't begin to respond to how ridiculous that fictional statement is!

    >>Sorry, but you dropped it at mid-field with that incautious statement, fella<<<

    O-kay, so explain to me when Maher has two republicans and one democrat on the panel, which is pretty common on his show...how is that not favorite to republicans...please, please know what your talking about before making any more silly responses because like Bush, it's you that has dropped the ball...fella!

  2. #152
    PeteLeo
    Guest
    You find terrorism that funny, do you? Or have there been a number of such incidents inside the U.S. with thousands of lives lost since 9/11 that I somehow overlooked?

    Actually, that was a little more coherent a response than is typical for the, ahem, "loyal opposition."

    A couple of things for GorDoom: If I touch on Clinton's peccadillos (no icky punning intended there), I'm "not letting go of the past," yet when I move to the last Dem pres before Wild Bill (Carter, of course), I'm admonished for picking on the poor guy after a quarter of a century, so . . . which Dem Chief Exec can I take aim at? I mean, I'm old, but I have almost no memory at all of Johnson and none of Kennedy (though I do know from study that the Kennedy/Johnson "win" of 1960 was the most crooked election of the past hundred years or so). The point was to illustrate that if the Republicans were "about to be run out of office," there really wasn't much precedent for such an action on the national scene. In fact, if Nixon hadn't been such a paranoid old crook and Ford such a mental midget, there would be a darned good chance that Slick Willy would be the sole representative of that rarest of creatures -- a Democratic president -- for the past thirty-seven years. Seems everybody hates the Repubs (or so the majority of posters on this thread would have us believe), until it comes time to pull the voting handle.

    Also, is there any way I can compress (?) this page? Due to the cartoons, the posts run well beyond the edges of my screen in both directions, and I wasn't kidding about how "pan and scan" works unpleasantness on my head and stomach (little reminders of various youthful indescretions with pharmaceutical products and closed-fist blows to the cerebrum, probably). PeteLeo.

  3. #153
    BDeskins
    Guest
    I just read where Bush has an approval rating of 39%...that has to be some kind of record, although it does make me smile to see the country finally coming to it's sense's, it's very unfortunate and a shame that so many people has had to die for people to realize what a fraud Bush is. Just think, if Bush hadn't of had brother Jeb running Florida, then Reagan would have been the last republican president, no I forgot old Bush, but thanks to what was the actual most crooked elections in history, little Bush was elected and I didn't think he could have done as bad a job as dad, but it's amazing what kids can do!

    As to your response about me enjoying people dying from terrorism, don't be a fucking moron and make up bullshit! I know it's a common thing for republicans to do, but use some common sense for God's sake!

    Also, you stated in another of your posts that you are not a republican? Well I don't blame you for being ashamed, so much so that you are not willing to admit what everyone else can easily see from reading your threads, but that's where republicans and democrats differ, a democrat will always be a democrat and most of the time proud to admit it even if things are going bad for the party, when things go bad for republicans they all of a sudden are in the middle of the road in their politics, conservative, but liberal about being conservative...please...it's funny, I sure don't hear republicans yapping out at any gas pumps about being conservative, as a matter of fact, the interent is the only place that hear everyday folk say they are republican and even here they won't admit to it...I don't know what that tell's anyone else, but it seems to me that a lot of people are embarressed and ashamed by being a republican!

  4. #154
    PeteLeo
    Guest
    Could it be that you won't respond to that "fictional statement" simply because you can't?
    The shows are there to see: O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes routinely (when I've seen them, anyhow) have two people addressing each major issue on the schedules, one from either side of the matter. What's "unblanaced" about that form of discussion? What's "fictional" about that? What would inspire another completely worthless and empty response like "bwaaahaahaa," or however you spell it? This is beneath you, man. Come on, tell me where I'm wrong about terrorism on our shores or the Fox news shows having legitimate representatives of both sides of their topics. Come up with something before you drown in flopsweat.

    As for the Maher program, you said that tonight's (last night's, technically by now, I guess) show featured Maher, Carlin, a Dem Fem, and a Repub, right? Where's the "second" Repub/Con in that? You're not trying to cast Carlin in the role of a conservative are you? I like old George and he occasionally cracks wise at militantly "do-good" groups like PETA and the "Save the Earth" whackos (Carlin: "It's the height of conceit to think we're capable of doing anything really momentus to the earth. One good global quake, and we're all history."), but Carlin is nowhere near a Republican. Since I don't care to have my ears assaulted by Maher's ridiculously slanted "observations" any more than you would want to waste hours of your lifetime listening to Limburger, I don't watch him these days; but I did tune in fairly frequently when "Politically Incorrect" was aired on Comedy Central and ABC. In those days, the typical line-up was the "unbiased host" Maher, one or two out of the closet Dem pols, a couple of showbiz nitwits (guess which side of the issues they fell on?) and a lone Repub/Con. That was the template I used, and that's hardly as balanced as O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes, now, is it? Once in awhile, he would allow two Cons (usually Annie Coulter and that cute religious gal), but that was rather a rare thing.
    Now, where is that ball I supposedly dropped? Hiding beneath one of the many Dem/Lib talking heads on O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes? It sure as heck isn't being shielded by the "hordes" of conservative spokespeople to be found in the vast majority of the "fair" national media, that's for sure.
    Ready with your next, "Bwaaahaaaahaaa!"? Man, where do you people come up with such incisive, thoughtful responses?
    Adios for the night. PeteLeo.

  5. #155
    BDeskins
    Guest
    Well actually I'm getting tired, nah, bored of responding to someone that I obviously do not like when it comes to politics, but in response to your question about the other republican representation on Bill Maher, well the very first guest that he spoke to last night was a republican that has his own talk show, but I cannot recall his name right of hand, so you see, you don't know half of what you think you do!

  6. #156
    jyoungfan2
    Guest
    Just wanted to give everyone fair warning, Winter is approaching. Time to start complaining about how the lack of flu shots is once again George Bushes fault and thousand will die because of him.

    One question though, among those that died were a score of elderly, sick, and bedridden who were abondoned and eventually drowned. Who responsability is it to see to their evacuation, or at least prepare for the possibility of an evacuation, BEFORE the flood?.

    and finally,


    Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden
    Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
    Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001
    Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism, one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
    Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

    Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

    Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and "detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas,” Ijaz writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.

    These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.

    But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy” Berger failed to act.

    ”I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,” Ijaz writes.

    ”The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

    Thank Clinton for 'Hydra-like Monster'

    ”As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster,” says Ijaz, chairman of a New York investment company and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    Ijaz’s revelations are but the latest to implicate the Clinton administration in the spread of terrorism. Former CIA and State Department official Larry Johnson today also noted the failure of Clinton to do more than talk.

    Among the many others who have pointed out Clinton’s negligence: former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris, the late author Barbara Olson, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iraqi expert Laurie Mylroie, the CIA and some of the victims of Sept. 11.

    And the list grows: members of Congress, pundit Charles R. Smith, former Department of Energy official Notra Trulock, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, government counterterrorism experts, the law firm Judicial Watch, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler, the liberal Boston Globe – and even Clinton himself.

    The Buck Stops Nowhere

    Ijaz's account in the Times reads like a spy novel. Sudan’s Bashir, fearing the rise of bin Laden, sent intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996. They offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or to keep close watch over him. The Saudis "didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.”

    ”In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.”

    That’s when bin Laden went to Afghanistan, along with "Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for al-Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.”

    If these names sound familiar, just check the FBI's list of most-wanted terrorists.

    The Clinton administration repeatedly rejected crucial information that Sudan had gathered on these terrorists, Ijaz says.

    In July 2000, just three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, Ijaz "brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies - an ally whose name I am not free to divulge - approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.”

    This offer would have brought bin Laden to that Arab country and eventually to the U.S. All the proposal required of Clinton was that he make a state visit to request extradition.

    "But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family - Clintonian diplomacy at its best.”

    'Purposeful Obfuscation'

    Appearing on Fox News Channel’s "The O’Reilly Factor” on Wednesday night, Ijaz said, "Everything we needed to know about the terrorist networks” was in Sudan.

    Newsman Bill O’Reilly asked how Clinton and Berger reacted to the deals Ijaz brokered to bring bin Laden and company to justice. "Zero. They didn’t respond at all.”

    The Clintonoids won’t get away with denials, he said. "I’ve got the documentation,” including a memorandum to Berger.

    "This was purposeful obfuscation,” he asserted.

    O’Reilly wondered why the White House didn’t want information about the terrorists. Ijaz said that was for the American people to judge, but when pressed he suggested that Clinton might intentionally have allowed the apparently weak bin Laden to rise so he could later make a show of crushing him.

    Concludes Ijaz in the Times: "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.”





    sooooo, is clinton responsible for the thousands of deaths on 9/11?





    ------------------------------------------------------------

    "Well, there you go again"----Pres Ronald Reagan

  7. #157
    PeteLeo
    Guest

    Okay, One More Reply Before Bedtime

    I see where I've gone from just a "dumbass" to a "fucking moron." It really hurts the Dem/Lib brain to try to come up with words that aren't simple emotion-fired perjoratives, doesn't it?
    Or did you "not" call me that, either? It's fun to rewrite history to fit your ever-weakening stance on the topics, isn't it?
    "A Democrat is always a Democrat"? Sounds more than a little mechanical: "I . . . will . . . vote . . . Democrat . . . must . . . vote . . . Democrat . . . cannot . . . think . . . for . . . myself." (Okay, it's no "Bwaaahaaaahaaaa!", but it ain't bad.) I'm not a Republican not due to any sense of "shame" but because I have this wondrous thing called free will. I vote for whom I feel will best represent me in the political field of action. Sometimes that is a Republican, sometimes a Democrat, sometimes a third party representative (even though I understand that this is probably "wasting" my vote, I do it in an effort to be true to myself). I realize this may be a difficult concept for a one-lane Democratic mind to wrap itself around, but we really can legally use our votes to elect people from all across the rainbow of politics. Wow, huh? Unfortunately for single-gear Dems, the candidate most voters have chosen for the highest office didn't proclaim himself as one of your pod people very often over the past forty years (the desperate, whiny proclamations of a 2000 "fixed election" are pure excretia, and in your heart you know that; talk about "not being able to get over it"; hey, we've had another election since then, or didn't the central Dem mind pass that info on to you?).

    Desperation doesn't become you. Does it ease your fevered impotence to hurl words like dumbass and fucking moron around? Is it really comforting to completely ignore every real point I've presented (or respond with an infantile "Bwaaaahaaaahaa!") and frantically try to redirect the discourse towards people not bragging about their Republicanism at the gas pumps (I didn't know price gougers belonged to any specific party)?

    This is just getting sadder by the installment. Especially on a "non-political" board. Go ahead and call me something else mean, bubula. I can take it, and maybe you'll feel a little better, hmmm? Don't fight the Sandman. PeteLeo.

  8. #158
    jyoungfan2
    Guest
    "George Bush said best himself during one of his fund raisers, which was filled with multi-millionaire oil moguls"


    Tuesday, Aug. 23, 2005 12:37 p.m. EDT
    Clinton Charging $15,000 for Poverty Conference

    If you want to attend ex-President Clinton's upcoming conference on solving global poverty, you better not be poor yourself.

    The web site for the so-called "Clinton Global Initiative" - set for Sept. 15-17 in Manhattan - is hawking tickets for $15,000 a-piece.

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 6:10 p.m. EDT
    Clinton Sex Scandal Ready for Broadway

    A musical based on the sex scandal that turned Bill Clinton into the first elected president ever impeached is set to debut next month on Broadway.

    "American Idol" veteran Frenchie Davis will play the role of Clinton's White House secretary Betty Currie in "Monica! The Musical!" - which premieres Sept. 21 as part of the New York Musical Theatre Festival.
    -----------------------------------------------------------


    WASHINGTON -- Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser who was once entrusted with the nation's most sensitive secrets, was fined $50,000 Thursday for taking classified documents from the National Archives.

    The sentencing capped a bizarre sequence of events in which Berger admitted to sneaking classified documents out of the National Archives in his suit, later destroying some of them in his office and then lying about it.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    Friday, Aug. 12, 2005 11:14 a.m. EDT
    Clinton Lawyers: Mohamed Atta Off-Limits

    A year before the 9/11 attacks, Clinton administration lawyers told a group of military intelligence officers that information they had developed on 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta could not be shared with the FBI, saying of Atta himself: "You can't even touch him - it doesn't matter what information you have."

    Rep. Curt Weldon, who helped develop the military intelligence group code-named "Able Danger," delivered the bombshell revelation in an interview Thursday with WABC Radio host Sean Hannity.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Cisneros Probe Found Clinton IRS Abuse

    Top Democrats are reportedly trying to deep-six the findings of an independent counsel probe into former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros that uncovered evidence the Clinton White House used the Internal Revenue Service to audit political enemies.

    The probe's final report – now in the hands of a three-judge panel – reportedly says that the Clinton IRS "sometimes audited Clinton critics without good cause," according to the New York Daily News.
    ---------------------------------------------------------


    jeez pete, a dumbass and a f** moron. I guess personal attacks are now being allowed.

  9. #159
    Dhalgren
    Guest
    The fact that there have been no attacks on American shores since 9/11 is hardly proof that Bush's "War on terror" has been successful. As everybody knows, Afghanistan is pretty much back to where it was in the Taliban days (Karzai only controls Kabul) and Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11 or any other recent terrorist attacks I can think of. In fact, it has become a training and recruiting ground for terrorists who are killing both Iraqis and American soldiers on a daily basis. Oh, and unless you think the rest of the world doesn't count, you would have to pay at least a little attention to the "collateral damage" suffered Bush's allies in the Madrid and London bombings, as they are most certainly by-products of this ill-concieved and poorly executed "war".

    As for Bush's record on the economy, I suggest you read this:


    Comment

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bush is dead wrong

    Joseph Stiglitz
    Wednesday October 6, 2004
    The Guardian

    Many around the world are surprised at how little attention the economy is receiving in President Bush's re-election campaign. But I am not surprised: if I were Bush, the last thing I would want to talk about is the economy. Yet many people look at America's economy, even over these past three-and-a-half years, with some envy. Annual economic growth - at an average rate of 2.5% - may have been markedly slower than during the Clinton years, but it still looks strong compared with Europe's anaemic 1%.

    But these statistics mask a glaring fact: the average American family is worse off than it was three-and-a-half years ago. Median income has fallen by over $1,500 in real terms, with families being squeezed as wages lag behind inflation. In short, all that growth benefited only those at the top of the income distribution, the same group that had done so well over the previous 30 years and benefited most from Bush's tax cut.
    For example, some 45 million Americans have no health insurance, up by 5.2 million from 2000. Families lucky enough to have health insurance face annual premiums that have nearly doubled, to $7,500. Families also face increasing job insecurity. This is the first time since the early 1930s that there has been a net loss of jobs over the span of a presidential administration.

    Bush supporters ask: is Bush really to blame for this? Wasn't the recession already beginning when he took office?

    The resounding answer is that Bush is to blame. Every president inherits a legacy. The economy was entering a downturn when Bush took office, but Clinton also left a huge budget surplus - 2% of GDP - a pot of money with which to finance a robust recovery. But Bush squandered that surplus, converting it into a deficit of 5% of GDP through tax cuts for the rich.

    The productivity growth that was sustained through the downturn presented an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity: if the economy was well managed, the incomes of Americans could continue to rise as they had done in the 1990s. The challenge: to manage the economy so that growth would be robust enough to create the new jobs required by new entrants to the labour force. Bush failed the challenge, and America lost the opportunity.

    True, the economy was stimulated a little by the tax cuts. But there were other policies that would have provided far more stimulus at far less cost. Bush's objective was to push forward a tax agenda that shifted the burden away from those who could best afford to bear it.

    Bush's failed policies have cost the economy dearly, and have left it in a far weaker position going forward. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office agrees that the deficit will not be eliminated in the foreseeable future - or even cut in half, as Bush has promised. Expenditures on which America's future economic health depends - infrastructure, education, health and technology - will be crowded out.

    Because fiscal policy did not stimulate the economy, a greater burden was placed on monetary policy. Lower interest rates worked (a little), but for the most part by encouraging households to refinance their mortgages, not by stimulating investment. The increased indebtedness of households is already leading to higher bankruptcy rates, and will likely dampen the recovery.

    National debt too has risen sharply. The huge trade deficit provides the spectacle of the world's richest country borrowing almost $2bn a day from abroad, contributing to the weak dollar and representing a major source of global uncertainty.

    There might be some hope for the future if Bush owned up to his mistakes and changed course. But no: he refuses to take responsibility for the economy, just as his administration fails to take responsibility for its failures in Iraq. In 2003, having seen that its tax cuts for the rich had failed to stimulate the economy, the administration refused to revise its strategies.

    In August, I joined nine other American Nobel prize winners in economics in signing an open letter to the public. We wrote: "President Bush and his administration have embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation ... The differences between President Bush and John Kerry with respect to leadership on the economy are wider than in any other presidential election in our experience. President Bush believes that tax cuts benefiting the most wealthy Americans are the answer to almost every economic problem."

    Here, as elsewhere, Bush is dead wrong, and too dogmatic to admit it.

    Joseph Stiglitz is professor of economics at Columbia University and a Nobel prize winner

  10. #160
    jyoungfan2
    Guest
    The fact that there have been no attacks on American shores since 9/11 is hardly proof that Bush's "War on terror" has been successful


    no attacks on American shores since 9/11

    and now you're blaming bush for the london and madrid bombings? If they are by-products of bushs war, then what was the attack on 9/11 a by- product of?



    ----------------------------------------------------------

    the article you state is from oct 2004, here is a more current one.



    RAY SUAREZ: Today's jobs report showed growth throughout the economy. Two hundred and seven thousand new jobs were created in July, the biggest gain in three months, in sectors such as retail, healthcare, education and business services, among others. One weak spot was the factory sector. Manufacturers dropped 4,000 workers last month. The report also showed that average hourly earnings rose 0.4 percent, the biggest rise in a year.
    Here to walk us through all the numbers and what they mean is former Labor Department chief economist Lisa Lynch, now professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. Professor Lynch, what does this month's report tell you about the overall job market?

    LISA LYNCH: Well, Ray, this is a terrific solid report and there are a lot of us that are very happy to see this strong number coming in on the employment side. We are currently averaging close to 170,000 net new jobs per month if you look over a three month moving average for jobs. So this number of 207,000 net new jobs is a good solid number. It addresses the unemployment -- people that are unemployed -- it keeps pace with the growth of the population and it is just a terrific report.

    RAY SUAREZ: Well, with that 200,000 figure for last month and upward revisions for May and June, are there any particular regions of the country or particular sectors of the economy that are real standouts?

    LISA LYNCH: Well, what is -- makes this report stand out, again, is the breadth of the gains of employment. So as you noted, there was increased employment in services and this was across all the services sector. Retail added 50,000 jobs, but we had increased employment in finance insurance real estate, in business services, and in healthcare. And we had continued growth in the construction sector.

    All of these parts of the economy, especially when you look over the past year, have been producing steady net new jobs for the U.S. economy. As you noted, the dark spot is the manufacturing sector. We're down 4,000 jobs from last month and from the peak in employment, the last peak in employment and manufacturing, which was exactly four years ago in July of 2000 were down three million jobs in the manufacturing sector.

    RAY SUAREZ: The overall rate of unemployment is about 5 percent. Is that a tight enough job market to be forcing wage hikes?

    LISA LYNCH: Well, we saw an increase in the wage rate in this month's report, 6 cents an hour on hourly wages. And some on Wall Street got a little nervous about that because they were worried that this might be an indication of inflation to come. But when you look at the wage number over the year as a whole, you see that hourly and weekly wages have increased just by 2.7 percent. So that's just keeping pace with inflation. So you don't see a lot of sort of wage inflationary pressure in this report or in other reports that look at wages and compensation in the U.S. economy.

    RAY SUAREZ: But do you agree with analysts who now expect the Fed to raise interest rates again at the next meeting of the Open Market Committee?

    LISA LYNCH: Well, I don't think there's anybody around who's not expecting the Fed to make a move next Tuesday, that's well priced into the markets. I think what happens with these job reports, they jump around a lot from month to month and there's some concern that if you see a set of months where the employment numbers well over 200,000 and a set of months with rage increases that are very hefty, that that may raise concerns of inflation and the Fed may change the rate of its measured pace of increasing interest rates.

    RAY SUAREZ: The executive outplacement firm Challenger took a look at the job market overall and noted that even while very large numbers of new jobs were being created, announced job cuts for the coming months were also unusually high. Does that tell you anything?

    LISA LYNCH: Well, you know, there's a lot of announcements that get made and then there's actions that happen, and they don't necessarily go hand in hand, but clearly when you have, for example, in the automobile sector this month's report indicated 11,000 jobs lost in the auto sector. You have manufacturers making announcements of proposed job cuts going forward over the next three years that are large. That obviously gives you pause, and especially, I think, in the manufacturing sector is ominous in terms of looking forward for future growth in that sector.

    RAY SUAREZ: When you get further down into this month's statistics, past the new jobs created and the manufacturing jobs lost, what do some of the other numbers look like? In past years, there had been, for instance, troubling statistics about long-term unemployed people and older white collar workers in particular who were out of work for much longer spells before they were able successfully to locate a new job.

    LISA LYNCH: Well, what you see in today's report is that this share of people that have been out of work for six months or more is about 18 percent. So a little fewer than one in five workers has been out of work for six months or more. That number had been higher earlier in the year. So the proportion of workers that are unemployed for six months or more has been dropping.

    Also in this month's report we saw that the number of people that are discouraged for work, while that has stayed around 600,000 over the past year, that that number did not increase. And it had been increasing in previous months. So from that point of view, these are -- these are good indicators in terms of what's happening in the economy.

    RAY SUAREZ: In the past couple of weeks, an economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston reported that what she saw as an unusually large number of workers in prime earning years were leaving the work force and thus not being counted as unemployed. Does that distort the picture a little bit?

    LISA LYNCH: Well, it's interesting. That study from the Boston Federal Reserve Bank showed a lot of interesting dynamics in the labor market. First of all, we see that teenagers and young adults are not in the labor market to the same extent that they had been in the past. But a lot of that seems to be related with people staying on in school or returning to school. So that's a good thing.

    But then when we look at prime age workers, especially women workers, there seems to be some indication that a lot of those workers have dropped out of the labor force in greater numbers given where we are in the recovery than has been the case in the past. But this has been kind of a whacky recovery, frankly, and no one has been able to forecast particularly well the growth and employment numbers from month to month. And I think some of the demographics that we're seeing could very easily change going forward.

    What comes out from that study that's particularly interesting is that people 55 years and older are much more likely to be in employment today than they would have been in the past at this stage of the business cycle. So what is -- seems to be coming out is that as the work force is aging, people are staying on and work longer.

    RAY SUAREZ: Professor, thanks for joining us tonight.

    LISA LYNCH: It's my pleasure, Ray.

  11. #161
    BDeskins
    Guest
    Pete---The reason that I have not went into any kind depth in response to your most recent fantasy claims is certainly not because I can't...it's just a case of "what's the use?" Regardless of what proof you might have before your eyes, you will still defend Bush!

    But back to the original argument…following the tragedy on the Gulf coast, there is a lot of blame to go around for the deplorable way that many in charge performed, which of course jyoung and yourself will ignore the fact that I said “plenty of blame to go around” and just keep on with your argument of saying that I think all blame should go to Bush and Bush alone, no one else but Bush, which is actually rather childish!

    There is no doubt, Kathleen Blanco has blame to answer for, but to try and put blame on the mayor, who was right in the middle of things, is not only ridiculous, but as usual, just a way to deflect blame from Bush, but the person that should take the hardest shot of the blame is George W. Bush! Not because he is a republican and not because I don't like him, but instead because he is suppose to be our leader who does not fumble the ball in something as important as Hurricane Katrina.

    No one is perfect, but the President of the United States most certainly should be pretty close to it! Bush is suppose to, and needs to take charge of a situation such as the tragedy following the hurricane. As the president of our country, he is supposed to hire competent people that truly know how to do their job, no not just that they know how to do their job, they need to be the very best at that particular job, especially something as important as that of FEMA director! But the actual TRUE fact of the matter is that Bush hired someone that was very, very un-experienced and he was put in that position for no other reason except that he was a buddy of Bush...tell me that I am wrong and describe all the qualifications of Michael Brown. The sad, but more so dangerous thing is, there are a good number of positions in government that are filled with the same kind of unqualified people just like Brown with FEMA and the job requirements most certainly should not be based on whether, or not you are a close buddy of the President, and that goes for any president, democrat, or republican!

    Without a doubt in my mind, and in the minds of most Americans, the biggest brunt of the blame should fall onto George W. Bush! First for hiring such an unqualified person to such an important position and next he should receive unlimited criticism for the lack of effort that he and his cabinet put forth for New Orleans in the beginning…that is FACT, no matter how much republicans wish it wasn’t, it is. There has certainly been a lot of help to make it into the area now and things seem to be going pretty good in terms of effort at the moment from the federal government, but it was the first four, or five days that we are talking about. Waiting until September 2 before sending help into the region was not only unacceptable, but it was downright pathetic and that blame most certainly should go to Bush, but I gladly welcome other renditions of why most of the blame should not go to Bush!.

  12. #162
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Al Qaeda & Brownie

    There were no attacks on American shores prior to 9/11, but you'd have to be an ostrich not to know they were coming, still are coming, and will be coming for the next hundred or more years until Islam finishes it's reformation. Moreover, the American megalomanical nutcases that tend to go off on mass shooting sprees might well feel the need to expand their repertoire a bit to match up.

    It's time for the corporate quarterly report morons who run this country to expand their vision but as long as Reps and Dems are satisfied with electing draft dodging state subsidized failed businessmen to the presidency, we're just collectively circling the drain. It starts and ends with the people in this country and the trend is to default their rights to vote, be informed, or be responsible. See Katrina results.

    Good News: Brownie has been recalled from New Orleans back to Washington.

    Bad News: Brownie is planning the next disaster relief!

  13. #163
    Dhalgren
    Guest
    "and now you're blaming bush for the london and madrid bombings? If they are by-products of bushs war, then what was the attack on 9/11 a by- product of?"


    Do you really not know the history of this or are you being rhetorical?

    9/11 was of course a product of festering Islamic hatred of the west. But the Taliban and Al Qaeda as we know them today derive largely from the collaboration of fundamentist Islamists and Straussian neo-conservatives that waged war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80s. Afghanistan became a training ground for fundamentalist terrorists because of the myopic Cold War belief that Russia remained a threat to the west, just like Iraq has become a training ground for future terrorists because of the absurd claim that it represented a threat to the world prior to the U.S.-led invasion.

    This is not strictly a left-right issue, as leaders on both sides have supported morally bankrupt regimes in the past. But it should be noted that many of the same characters crop up again and again, from before Reagan's Presidency and up to the present day.


    As for your article on the economy, well I'm sorry, but that reads more like a transcript from Fox News. The article I posted refers to significant long-term trends and is written by a Nobel Prize winning economist. Certain numbers may have changed very slightly since it was written, but I don't think you'll find any serious economist in the world right now who would argue that the American economy is in a better state now than it was when Bush came into power.

  14. #164
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Louisiana National Guard

    One of the Louisiana National Guard deployments came home yesterday. Most of the troops have had their homes damaged or wiped out and have family members scattered to the winds. This after doing the dirty work in Iraq while wearing big bulleyes and being potshotted and ambushed all year.

    Some things in life just aren't fair.

  15. #165
    PeteLeo
    Guest

    "Fantasy Attacks"

    Ah, come on, you're a big boy. If you won't "address" my "fantasy attacks," you can at least list them, can't you? Was one of them the O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes method of including representatives of both sides of an argument? Guess what? They do! It's right there on your TV, for you and all of the other eyes/minds-closed Bush bashers to see. Where's the "fantasy"?
    Was another the observation that Dem/Libs tend to replace ordered discourse with personal attacks employing really helpful (note the humorous emphasis and choice of words, please) terms like "dumbass" and "fucking moron." Who retreated into his little "Oh, yeah, uh, well, you're a--" mode to spew out those particularly unpleasant syllables? Was it me? I don't think so. Of course, until you begin deleting your previous posts, it's easy enough to see which "side" resorted to that immature, intellectually-weightless attitude. Was that one of my "fantasy attacks," BD, or could it be that you -- like all Dem/Libs, it seems -- like to throw out ugly labels as a substitute for reasonded response?
    Be a pal, show me my "fantasy attacks."
    Can't blame Nagin and Blanco more than Bush? How about these bon mots that the media have reluctantly revealed to us over the past couple of days: Blanco waited antire blasted day to accept quickly-offered Federal help because she either didn't understand or didn't care about the lawful chain of command. The "blameless" political hack wasn't going to allow Federal troops and supplies to aid her drowning, starving, and medically-deprived citizenry until she was assured that she would be in charge of every whit of it. This power grab failed only when her desperate underlings persuaded her that allowing people to die while she played politics might not reflect well in her future public career. That's a day's worth of death on the ledger of your "blameless" little despot.
    Contrary to what I thought and said earlier (yes, occasionally I'll make a mistake), Nagin had 1100, not 500, buses at his command to get his people out of harm's way, and he didn't use one of them because he "didn't know where to send them." There's an advertisement for the superiority of the Dem/Lib thought process over those mean ol' Repubs, huh?
    Tons of food, water, and medicine were ready to pour into the Superdome to help the refugees but were held outside the doors for at least a day by "Blameless" Blanco because she didn't want the injured, assualted, and dying people inside the building to have a reason to stay there! She wanted them to leave just as soon as possible, their health and safety be damned.
    Yet Bush is to blame more than these self-righteous, dangerous incompetents/political hacks? If you ask me, the President should be praised for getting the relief down there as quickly as he did while facing the open opposition of the Despotic Duo.
    But those are mere facts and thus less than minimally important to the Dem/Lib mindset.
    If the war on terror waged from this country is to blame for extra-U.S. attacks since 9/11, who holds the responsibility for all of the deaths and suffering madmen visited on Spain, Italy (at one point in the Seventies, the average Roman cisitizen was more likely to die in a terrorist incident than in a traffic accident), England, Egypt, India, Morocco, etc. etc. etc. before 2001? Somehow I feel certain that you plucky Dem/Libs will find a way to make it our fault.
    Oh, I'm still waiting to hear which "two" threads I started on political topics.
    See now why I was so upset that the hurricane topic was allowed to introduce politics into this board? This happens every time, every freaking time that I'm aware of. I go elsewhere for my political fixes. I come here for fun, talking about boxing and bullshooting with posters of like inclinations. I could throw up my hands and refuse to confront the factually invalid and intellectually dishonest charges that this topic gushes out like Niagara Falls, but that's not my nature. Besides, this is only the first thread to be infected. If the past teaches us anything it is that unchecked partisanism invariably leads to the effective deaths of boards such as this one. And it makes me sad to think about that. PeteLeo.

  16. #166
    kikibalt
    Guest

    Re: "Fantasy Attacks"

    Peteleo
    How can you believe in a dead brain
    president ? ( to much coke )

  17. #167
    PeteLeo
    Guest

    Re: "Fantasy Attacks"

    I respect you, man, and your family (I loved watching them perform in the ring), but seriously, is that the best you can come up with? According to some folks, it's Cheney who's really in charge, anyhow. (Too much heart medication?)
    Gotta go to work again now. PeteLeo.

  18. #168
    BDeskins
    Guest

    Re: "Fantasy Attacks"

    One of the threads in the past that you started was about Penn and Teller and the assumed fictional; "liberal" media and the other doesn't come immediately to mind, but it was about liberals and you were the clueless author who penned it.

    Like I said earlier, as to responding to anything else that you have to say, it bores me, like most republicans do and I have a lot more important things to do rather than listen to your narrow-minded views about the fantasy land that you live in! Besides, I don't have anything that needs to be defended in my political views as it is the republicans that are in the hot seat, and rightly so...and as I said earlier, you and all other republicans will be doing some very, very serious damage control trying to defend and making excuses as well as pleading to the American people that Bush and his cronies really had zero blame in the response to those hit by the hurricane and mostly that it was the "liberal media" that construed everything in a manner to make Bush and the republicans look bad and what we actually watched and read about during the first four, or five days was an illusion similar to something that David Blaine, or David Copperfield might do...we really didn't see Bush choke yet again, it was just an optical illusion!

    Funny, except for what some republicans are trying to say, there is not really one democrat that is being blamed by the American people for the colossal ****-up in the lack of response that was not deployed to the Gulf coast, it’s all a republican thing and sorry, but that isn’t just me saying it, no…it’s pretty much all of America that agrees with me on the situation whereas you are in a very, very, very slim group that thinks otherwise about the performance of the federal government, which I know it must be very tough to be wrong, but you’ll get over it, but then again maybe you won’t as after the upcoming congress elections I can certainly see the democrats winning overwhelmingly many, many of the republican held seats because those voters that were in the middle of the road and believed Bush in his campaign, well I’m pretty sure they have had enough of the bullshit lies that the current administration had been consistent in feeding the country and now the people are sick of it! Things are very ugly for the republicans right now and all I can say is that it couldn’t have happened to a better, more qualified bunch!

  19. #169
    GorDoom
    Guest

    Re: "Fantasy Attacks"

    This is starting to devolve into just personal sniping rather than a serious discussion of a national crisis. I actually blame myself for even letting this thread go on. There IS a reason we don't discuss politics & religion here - & this thread is a perfect example why.

    We've got boxing guys who normally get along just fine really getting heated over this - myself included. So Pete, you end up with the last word on this subject because I'm going to lock this thread so we can't continue posting.

    I really don't want the thing we all have in common - which is boxing & the relationships we've all forged & developed with each other to be damaged.

    Again, I blame myself for the bitterness between guys that this thread has caused & I apologise to all of you ...

    GorDoom

  20. #170
    gregbeyer
    Guest

    Re: "Fantasy Attacks"

    test...

  21. #171
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    NO Mayor securing credit

    The NO mayor is securing credit so that city employees can get paid. There are no tax revenues currently coming in and it will be years before full restoration. I really don't think the American public can grasp the scale of this disaster.

    I understand that some Al Qaeda websites have claimed their prayers have been answered. A famous entreaty asks that you be born in interesting times. These are very interesting times.

Closed Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home