I blame the tax cuts

and how many of those jobs were created to replace higher paying jobs?

How many of these jobs were service sector, non-skilled positions?

How many jobs were lost in Bush's WHOLE tenure?

more cherry picked numbers I would guess, but keep eating up your own vomit guys, im sure it tastes better the second or third time around.

3 eye,
Maybe you should do a little research before spouting off the dailykos talking points like a fool.
Go to BLS.
Net job increase during the Bush Administration, more Americans employed than ever before, wages and compensation higher than ever before.
Read first, then make your insipid comments.

"Read first, then make your insipid comments."

Educate itself with facts...you silly person, perish the thought.

Awww, Bane...

I thought we were getting along so well, you were gonna teach me about accounting, I was going to spoon with you, but now you wanna be a big meanie

Oh, if only John Kerry had been elected in 04. Then the 4.6% would be the best thing ever to happen. And it wouldn't be just burger flipping jobs.

Jeff, I'm assuming that's sarsacm because anyone that only finds burger flipping jobs, isn't looking.
Accountants aren't boring people, we're just really interested in really boring things.

Jeff, I'm assuming that's sarsacm because anyone that only finds burger flipping jobs, isn't looking.
Accountants aren't boring people, we're just really interested in really boring things.

Well done, Bane.

I'll bet Turd Guy Bland would rather just "feel" that jobs are worse now. The fact is more net jobs have been created under this administration than under that of their hero Bile Clinton, and it just eats them up inside.

Chew on real statistics, libby scum!

Hey Bane,
Maybe you could explain how a decline in median household income in each of the last four years, the first time that has happened since the Great Depression,is a good thing?

Oh, and by the way; what about the loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs on this guy's watch?

Ill leave this argument to you guys, personally I know very little about economics, and to be a bit moonbatty, at this point after all the "mistakes" and partial truths ive been fed by this whole administration its just a bit hard for me to swallow any of their numbers at face value, but I love to hear your explaination of the numbers, and I will compare them to other opinions on what they are saying, so thanx for the public service.

one bit of anecdotal contrarianism, if I may. If you think americas economy is getting better, why all the forclosures, seems to me we had alot of people pushed into too-good-to-be-true markets, with variable rate mortgages, and when the fed started raising rates, their incomes were too close to the margins, and now they are getting shafted, and unfortunately after the bankruptcy bill has passed. but thats my own feeling on the subject

Conservative to the core:

yes, I cut myself at the altar of Bill Clinton. Next week is the annual sacrifice of the virgins, BYOB.

You guys crack me up, you assume everyone thought Clinton was some whiz-kid. He was just as slimy a corporate shill as your boy Der Leader, but when he lied about a blowjob, noone had to deliver a flag to someone's widow

Oh, and by the way; what about the loss of 2.8 million manufacturing jobs on this guy's watch?

Oh, and BTW, Saliva, what about the influence of the labor unions? Manufacturing jobs are going to the lowest bidder; you can't get $30/hr to make a widget anymore...

Keefer...shhhh, don't bring reality into these conversations. That doesn't count.

Don't you know everyone is ENTITLED to a job and should be paid $100,000 each and be able to work 30 hours a week and take 10 months off when having a kid, etc, etc.

Don't you know that?

/sarcasm off

Sal,
Please cite your sources, according to the US Census Bureau median income calculated on two-year averages; the last full year being 2004, and the median unchanged from previous years; in 2000 the median (adjusted for inflation) was $45,560 +or- $116, for 2004 $44,436 +or- $160: Statistically the same. Median household income is based on household surveys, and anyone that claims to have 2005 numbers is blowing smoke, or at least is suspect. Oh, and you can thank the Clinton Recession of 2000-2001 for the drop in 2001-2002.

According to BLS, unemployment in Manufacturing is steady @ 4.9%, and wages in manufacturing have risen faster than other industries, and faster than inflation.

Are you still trying to make lemons out of lemonade?

3-eye,
You raise a very good point. So here’s your answer in a nutshell;

1) Interest only loans and creative financing became very popular after the 2000-2001 Recession, the recovery seemed weak as we had war looming and recoveries generally don’t have staying power after the war is ended. (Tax cuts cured that anomaly). As people gathered confidence in the housing market, they began to use the interest only and creative financing (read:variable rate, baloon payments, Prime +1)in risky ways; that is, instead of using the mortgage for a single family dwelling, and using the low interest period to stockpile savings, investors took out loans on rental and investment property. As the rates began to stabilize the income from the properties couldn’t keep pace with the now adjusted rates.
2) Single family purchasers used the IO or adjustable rate loans in much the same way; without using the grace period to stockpile savings when the rates inevitably went up the borrowers are having trouble keeping up.
3) If the creative borrowing trend continues, the situation will only get worse; Americans need to learn to save money. I predict the return of the 30 year fixed or even 50 year fixed. Incomes will continue to rise and the housing market will cool, fixed rates are much more beneficial to the individual homeowner, and leave the creative stuff to the risk takers.

3 eyes,

You admitedly know very little about economics, you bitterly oppose Bush AND Clinton.

SO pray tell what is YOUR solution? A return to the good old days of Sovirt style communism, only this time doing it the right way?

Bane,

I totally agree, its silly we have so many people who are getting into the market when they can JUST barely afford it. Personally, and this is only anecdotal, I think a lot of it has to do with the idea that everyone keeps hearing the markets are booming, and so as not to seem like youre the ONLY schmuck who isnt cashing in, you're outspending your means. I hope we correct this suicidal earn-spend-debt cycle and get back to a more sane ideal of saving 10% a year, but that means less Pepsi, more water, less driving, more walking, less time at the mall, more time at the park...but thats just my view on it.

phnxbmed,

Naw if I knew the answer to your question i'd be a billionaire, obviously im not, so I don't really know. If I were pushing policy i'd be advocating a step back from the brink, cut military budgets in half, invest more in education and infrastructure for renewable energy sources. I'd take away the ability for corporations to take their capital on world-wide vacations when the natives here get restless, and invest in the thing we do best, R&D!. Plus i'd change the color of the money and mandate that the old analog band be sold off for pennies to wi-fi distributors with 50 year leases...plus actually teach kids how to disect media so we aren't teaching our 3 year olds that your sole goal in life is to own a Jaguar, and that its just as good to give up some creature comforts to be able to spend more time with your family, and if you dont like your family, use your extra time to work and buy more video games ;-)

Third eye blind,

Clinton "when he lied about a blowjob, noone had to deliver a flag to someone's widow"

Gee, the Cole come to mind. So does Mogadishu, Somalia. But then the military didn't have much respect for their commander back then. Remember when Helms stated Clinton is so unpopular on military bases in North Carolina that "he better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard." Not the most prudent statement of a Senator, but accurate at the time.

Bob,

Totally man, Clinton was a slime-ball, but the point is still valid, Clinton didn't lie to anyone when he intervened in Somalia or in Serbia, he may have tried to get it done on the cheap, so his numbers wouldn't dip, but he didn't send Colin Powell to the UN with false information, or sick his motley crew on every media outlet that would listen claiming we had "slam-dunk" information when it was all best case scenarios, "curveballs", and duct-tape holding it together.

Clinton was selling us wholesale with NAFTA all the while we were getting fat on the hog, buying into our economic superman complexes, we got lazy, now its time to tighten our belts, stop bombing brown people, and kick the petro habit for good, let the middle east degrade back into the 7th century if they want, I bet the minute oil is 15 bucks a barrel everyone in the ME will be ready to stop shooting their neighbors and start figuring out how to make something out of the hole we have helped them dig. But thats just my opinion

Third Eye Open,

The hypocracy of the left is perfectly exhibited with Kosovo. President Clinton did not have 17 UN Resolutions to back his actions. In fact, he had none. President Clinton did not have a Congressional Authorization for the use of Military Force (President Bush had two Authorizations), yet he bombed Kosovo anyway. Did you know that the "mass graves" didn't exist? The hundreds of thousands Clinton claimed to have died before our "intervention" didn't? Did you know that about 2,500 innocents died in our bombing campaigns, more than had died at the hands of Milosevic?

When you say that the President either lied about the intelligence, cherry-picked intelligence, or was given bad intelligence, you could be talking about Clinton and Kosovo. Yet the left never says a word about him lying to start a war, or being responsible for the deaths of 2,500 innocents.

We intervened to stop a slaughter that wasn't happening. But the MSM and the left ignores the fact.

In Iraq, we know that Saddam had used WMD to murder the Kurds and Iranians. We know that he had attacked two neighboring countries. We know that he had produced and possessed WMD. We know that he was playing games with the UN Weapons Inspectors. We know that he tried to assassinate President George H. W. Bush. We know that he was in Material Breach of the 2001 Ceasefire and 17 UN Resolutions. We know that he had harbored, financed, and trained terrorists. We know that he had raped, tortured, and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. We know that he was a mad-man, had WMD, and had terrorist ties. That is a deadly trio that would have dire consequences if he provided some of his WMD to the terrorists.

We actually are wrong to compare Clinton/Kosovo and Bush/Iraq. Clinton bombed Kosovo without Congressional Approval, killed 2,500 innocents, and US troops are still there without an exit strategy.

Bush had two Congressional Authorizations and the Iraqi Liberation Act, liberated 25,000,000 Iraqis from a mad-man and his sons, sowed the seed for democracy in the Middle East, and has a plan to withdraw the majority of US troops once the Iraqi Security Forces can assume responsibility for the whole of Iraq. I will assume that we will retain troops in Iraq as long as Iraq wants us there, just as there are still troops in Japan and Germany, 60 years after WWII, and troops in Korea, 50+ years after the Korean War. We even have troops in the Phillipines, over 100 years after the Spanish-American War, and troops in Great Britain, over 225 years after we defeated them in our War of Independence.

A-10,

Beat the legacy of Clinton all you want, you won't hear a peep from me, but don't expect me to fawn on the altar of Der Leader, you can't justify his "misunderstandings" of intelligence, and just say, "Oops, we did it, but its ok cuz it was in the best interest of the Iraqis"

You aren't dumb man, you know these arguments will never end, because the right will always fight in the margins and the gray fringes of the reality that existed (kinda funny how the high mighty moral arguments are all the right can swing these days after the threat of WMDs was de-bunked). Ok, we gave false/wrong/misunderstood information to the UN, thats illegal, and it doesnt justify our pre-emptive invasion of another nation, you're treading on the same argument Hitler's henchmen were using in the Hague, vague rhetorical ideas that are worded just right so they can justify just about anything using the idea, "We thought we were in danger" or "We did it for their own good".

I wouldnt recommend staying more than a few more months, the longer we are there, the more hostile the entire ME will get, you really think all this is gonna die down when some Iraqi governing body, who cant even leave the green zone, gets up and running? The police are militia, and we are just another one, its the Mahdi, Badr, and America all fighting turf battles that do nothing more than seed the hatred between ethnicities and the obvious hatred of us. Go to Pakistan right now, and ask about Fallujah, providing your head isnt cut off immediately for just being there, you would find out that Fallujah is seen as a Dresden, its talked about like a fairytale of american imperialism against the muslim brotherhood, hard to fight an idea man, real damn hard!

Third Eye Open,

I'm willing to wait for history to decide if our intervention in Iraq was the right thing to do. If we did nothing, the Middle East would continue to be the breeding ground for world-wide terrorism. At least now, we are giving the people of Iraq and Afghanistan the opportunity to decide their own future and live in peace. It is the terrorist who are fighting against democracy, for they know that if democracy prevails, their days of their reign of terror are numbered. Call it self-centered if you must, but if we did nothing we would have been attacked again. And although there have been terrorist attacks elsewhere in the West, there would have been even more attacks. You see, if the terrorists see weakness, they will attack, as they did on 9/11 after years of weakness on the part of the US in response to their other terrorist attacks against us. They think they can either conquer the weak by force, or get them to surrender to Islamic rule. If they are confronted by strength, they will not risk total extermination by attacking a strong country that will retaliate.

We did the right thing in Iraq. History will prove me right, just as history has proven President Reagan correct about the evil empire.

A-10,

Last statement first since its the most laughable. Reagan got lucky, he was in the right place at the right time, Gorbechov was an abboration to the whole process, if Reagan was facing another Kruschev, we would still be wasting time on military buildups for bogey men who were held behind M.A.D, and building albatross' like starwars. Reagan was a GREAT actor, I loved how he could go from playing hard-liner to Russia, to the next breath paying off Iran for hostages behind closed doors.

I hope while you're awaiting history to make its decision, we don't create a war of civilization, id hate to be sitting here 20 years from now, discussing the viability of wiping out all the muslims...for the world's own good, ofcourse.

Let me present you with another option for Iraq, we get our white-bread asses out of dodge, take our bases, and our ideas of puppet governments who can give sweetheart deals for petro-contracts (Bremer already did that LOL). Lets eat some crow, make nice-nice with the UN, and get a multinational force, with MUSLIM faces on the ground, let them parse out who is Iraqi and who isnt, let them fight it out, I bet a month of watching muslim boys from Turkey get shot at, and there will be every moderate cleric this side of Tim-buk Tu on Al Jazeera finding passages in the Koran to fight these fanatics ideas, let the muslims clean up their fanatics, they kept them in check for a few hundred years, it took petro-dollars in Saudi Arabian coffers, with American protection to incubate a new den of these vipers, I think they can deal with it just fine if we make them, as it stands now they can sit on the sideline, playing both sides, sucking up our petro-cash, and making sure the Wahabi nuts dont overthrow them, you make Jordan and Tukey bear some cost, and they will get it solved quick fast and in a friggin hurry.

5 million JOBS! Wow.

Now, only 15 million more to go to match the numbers that clinton created, even throughout the dotcom bust

Oh, if only John Kerry had been elected in 04. Then the 4.6% would be the best thing ever to happen. And it wouldn't be just burger flipping jobs.

This is what Bush will be doign when the democrats investigate and impeach him and send him home in disgrace and Daddy bush cuts him out of his will for disgracing the family name.

I'm willing to wait for history to decide if our intervention in Iraq was the right thing to do. If we did nothing, the Middle East would continue to be the breeding ground for world-wide terrorism.

-- Oh, I'm sorry, did I miss something? No... you did, you missed the part where Bush admitted there was no terrorist ties in Iraq before we invaded. And you also missed the part where the CIA came forward to admit that there is lots of terrorists there now... thanks to the US occupation.

So how did the invasion help to reduce terrorism again? Theres many times more in the world toady then there was. You just screwed it up and made a problem even worse.

At least now, we are giving the people of Iraq and Afghanistan the opportunity to decide their own future and live in peace.

-- In Iraq,perhaps, in Afganistan you cut and ran and now the warlords and Taliban are returning to resume control. Typical conservative mentality, start a job, then don't finish it, but leave it to someone else to finish it.

You see, if the terrorists see weakness, they will attack, as they did on 9/11 after years of weakness on the part of the US in response to their other terrorist attacks against us.

-- Indeed, like that 19 terrorists with box cutters and no resources could defeat the entire civil air command, norad, the military, NSA and CIA. Those were bush failings though.

We did the right thing in Iraq. History will prove me right, just as history has proven President Reagan correct about the evil empire.

-- History will prove that Iraq was the worst mistake since Vietnam. History will also prove Dubya as the worst president ever. But what else is to be expected from a lifetime long underachiever (George's own words), who even failed to find oil in Texas and had to go bankrupt for goodness sakes. For now, he is the first Ex-CON ever to be elected president.

Third eye

You keep saying Bush lied. Please list these lies.

Thank you

Warriornation,

Uranium. Niger.

Iraq. Terrorists.

You can argue all you want about bad intelligence, but his administration sent people to check out lies, then ignored their reports, He can claim that is is totally ignorant of what the intelligence was saying, but that just proves he isn't fit to be the leader of the free world, so you take your pick.

Wrong Third eye....you said LIES. None of those are lies. Uranium, the British said Uranium and Niger...are telling me the British are lying?

Iraq...what were the lies? Are you saying there were no terrorists in Iraq? Hmm, apparently you haven't been reading the news lately. Not only was Saddam paying terrorists to kill Israelis but he was doing it for decades.

For everyone of these "lies" that you make sound like are slam dunk, no doubt about it...there are counterpoints that disprove your theory.

Why don't you read Stephen Hayes book about Iraq and terrorism BEFORE 2001.

Any moron that believes Congress (opposite to Progress) will waste time and money on impeachment which will take longer than the two years Bush will have left after mid-terms....is dumber than a stump. Politicians are "phishing" for votes like Algerian scam artists...and unfortunately there are always gullable people like these to hook....too bad really.

Bane said: "the last full year being 2004, and the median unchanged from previous years; in 2000 the median (adjusted for inflation) was $45,560 +or- $116, for 2004 $44,436 +or- $160: Statistically the same."

Compare those numbers with average income for those same years (adjusted for inflation) and what does that tell you? Also, you might want to spin the numbers for each quintile. I did it a couple of weeks ago (after the last time we discussed this -- just to see -- it took a long freakin' time, lol!) Unfortunately, I did them on my home computer, and I'm on the road right now and will be for the next couple of weeks, so I don't have the numbers in front of me. But I think you'll find that the two lowest quintiles (the lowest 40% of wage earners) are trending down, the next two quintiles (the 40 - 80% of wage earners) have stayed about the same (which explains why the median hasn't moved much), and the highest quintile has gained well.

Not being an accountant (I'm just a statistics freak) I don't know what assumptions are made in the definition of a "wage earner". Does that include capital gains? In other words, how different is "wages earned" from "net income"? And are you really quoting the former and implying the latter? Because I couldn't find the statistics on income on the BLS, only statistics on wages.

Any moron that believes Congress (opposite to Progress) will waste time and money on impeachment which will take longer than the two years Bush will have left after mid-terms....is dumber than a stump. Politicians are "phishing" for votes like Algerian scam artists...and unfortunately there are always gullable people like these to hook....too bad really.

-- Actually, impeachment is fairly straight forward, after the investigation reveals wrongdoing, the house simply needs to draw up an article of impeachment outlining the charges and then have a simply majority vote to impeach him.

Its the trying in the Senate that will take longer, but Bush would like take the Nixon route and resign, avoiding the risk of conviction.

Matt,

95.4 percent of americans are employed. God bless you President George W. Bush, the greatest president in American history.

Warriornation,

Let me let you in on some commonsense, that apparently isn't all that common for you.

When you're a socialist dictator, you don't really like radical religious views, because ideas are powerful in a society built to control free-flows of ideas. Sadaam was fighting IRan, among many other reasons, just for that reason. Why is the HELL would he be training and harboring terrorists, aside from most definately sending money to their money-men? Al Zarqawi he was hiding in northern Iraq where Sadaam had no reach, so if Saddaam wanted these guys, who obviously hated Israel just as much as Sadaam, why didnt he open them with open arms and a rape-room of his own, you know why, because the Al Qaedas of the world dont like anyone who isnt a reactionary theocrat, which Sadaam most definately wasnt, PUTZ!

Please explain away Wilsons probe into the investigation. You really wanna buy into the administrations excuse that all this hype of 45 minute windows for attack and smoking guns like mushroom clouds wasnt predicated on the idea that Saddaam was making nuclear weapons, or trying to get their components? The story was so obviously false that even the Italians laughed at it. If Bush is getting bad feedback from the British, then thats his fault for buying into BS, again its his administrations, and by extension his fault for what he buys into. Your slam-dunk case has turned into a technical foul, and is about to give away the 7 game series if we dont regroup, and rethink our strategy.

Third eye, you believe what you want to believe and you go as far to say they are lies.

I believe what I have read, the accounts of Tenet, etc, etc and do not see how a sane person can come up to the conclusion they were lies.

Do you think it is at all possible that maybe you are giving a bit more weight then you should because of your hatred for the man? Just asking?

Let's remember, if you are going to accuse someone of a lie two things have to happen.

1) the person "lying" has to know it's a lie and purposely say something that is untruthful. In other words, if I say the Sun is 1,000,000 miles from earth and I believe it then I am not lying if it's a different distance. (I have no idea what the distance is)

2) To accuse someone of a lie, you have PROOF that they were lying. Indisputable proof.

Seems to me you have neither. You have allegations, you have theories, you have conspiraccies, you have someone saying something while others say the opposite.

You hope he lied, but you absolutely don't know. Right now it's just a wet dream for you.

3rd...I'm simply asking for proof. Like a cum stained blue dress. It's not that hard, can you provide proof that there were lies?

I'm not asking much. You throw lie out there like it's a slam dunk. Then provide proof.

Warriornation,

Is it still a lie if you don't provide the WHOLE truth, as you have been presented it?

Let me ask you this, if he has surrounded himself with such obviously ignorant and blockheaded people, tennet for instance, then why does he get a pass, why does he get to pass the buck for the mistake? If you're a CEO and your CFO ismaking mistake after mistake, endangering your employees lives, and your customers lives, dont you think the CEO bears the responsibility for those mistakes?

Wilson went to Niger, he resported back that there was no validity to the claim, yet SOMEHOW this ends up in his speeches, is the president so ignorant that he doesnt check on his own people, you ask all the time for proof from me, and im just trying to make rhetorical points, he has the responsibility to make sure when he is sending men and women to die for intelligence that its accurate, yet on the biggest speech of his political life, hes throwing around assertations and bogus intelligence, noone else gets to fact check, noone else WANTED to fact check, for the leader of the free world? You gotta be kidding me man!

Warriornation,

Read what the people who actually had contact with the administration are all saying:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html

or, how about this nice little piece which can give you some fine examples of how information was stripped from publicly released information about the Iraq siuation which made it far more favorable to the administration.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/intelligence/11901380.htm

you can embrace relativism regarding what he knew and when, but all the info was getting to him, and apparently all his people had the distinct impression Der Leader wanted excuses, not intelligence for war.

http://downingstreetmemo.com/archive/2004-10-31-HoustonChron-Herskowitz/

Third Eye Open,

Wilson went to Niger and reported to the CIA information that strengthened their belief that Iraq had recently ATTEMPTED to procure yellowcake from Niger. Then he wrote an op-ed in the NYT saying the opposite. He has been proven a liar by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The President never said Iraq had recently PROCURED yellowcake from Africa, he said that "the British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". The British government is still maintaining that this statement is true. Recent investigations support this conclusion. So there was no lie. It wasn't an assertation based on bogus intelligence. It was based on intelligence from the British government, which has been proven to be true.

Of course you can continue to ignore facts, as you always do. We on the right will continue to go with the facts.

Oh, by the way, Tenent (please have some courtesy and capitalize proper names) was a holdover from the Clinton Administration. He probably should have been replaces in 2001.

A-10,

thanx for the spelling tutoring, do i owe you anything...cookies, thank-you note, handjob?

Please link me to the quotes that assert Jospeh Wilson lied in the Senate Intelligence Commitee's transcript, i'd love to read them, and if im wrong, then im wrong, but you'll excuse me if I trust and verify.

the information that Bush and hiscronies took for solid evidence all came from Iraqi dissidents and ex-patriots, you're gonna still bank on "curveball". We were paying these guys AND they wanted back into the country, you can play in the grey areas and information relativism, but only for so long, I love how you guys claim everything in the world has clear cut moral yes and no answers, except when it comes to making a decision based on faulty and shaky evidence to break the ideal that seperates us from the barbarians, the ideal that we dont pre-emptively strike nations, but who cares about that ideal anymore, its qaint, isn't it?

my point is still that just because your brother thinks something is true, doesnt mean you get to go assert your will on someone else's property, vigilantism is still illegal, whether on a neighborhood scale, or a world scale. Bush himself asserted all the facts were wrong, but his excuse for staying always remains the same, because, IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO...rules be-damned. You present a case that you went and killed another person because you THOUGHT they were a danger, then come to find out all your evidence was false, you think they are gonna let you slide because you THOUGHT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

P.S. you misspelled "replaced" and instead wrote "replaces", ill keep the hand-job ;-)

Soon, my little chickhawks, soon you will have all the proof of lies and corruption and lawbreaking that your little brains can handle

November is coming, the great day of Reckoning for the Republicans. Time to repent.

PS - I know - hit the "s" key instead of the "d" (they're next to each other) and didn't proof read.

I can understand and accept common typos, but not constant mistakes which reflect on your intelligence and makes in difficult understanding posts. Like not capitalizing "I" and not using an apostrophe when writing I'll. It comes out as "ill", which, of course, has a completely different meaning.

Will get right back to you on the Senate Intelligence Committee cites.

A-10,

Sorry, darlin'. I proofread and type all day long at work and school, so when im having fun here, I don't bother to do such things, I could organize my posts, and even spell-check em, but thats not worth my time, nor the effort, if you guage the intelligence of people by their spelling, you're forgetting this world is full of idiot savants. But I should pay closer attention, you and my girlfriend always bug me about that LOL.

by the way, you gonna throw your response regarding the FISA cases after '78 in there too, I gotta go soon.

From the Senate Intelligence Committee Report: "Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip" (Page 39). Wilson maintained that his wife had nothing to do with him getting the gig. Wilson lie #1.

On page 43, the report details that Niger's was Prime Minister, a businessman with Iraqi connections insisted the Prime Minister meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. Since the Prime Minister interpreted this as uranium sales, he let the matter drop. WIlson has insisted that the Iraqi have never made any inquires into buying additional yellowcake from Niger. Wilson lie #2.

On Page 44, the report details how Wilson's description of his findings differed from what he reported to the CIA. It talked about how Wilson lied about the forged documents he claimed he has seen, when they were not yet in US hands. Wilson lie #3.

For me, three strikes and you're out.

that Niger's was Prime Minister, a businessman with Iraqi connections = that a businessman with Iraqi connections

Third Eye

Tenet was CLINTON's CIA Director moron. He kept him on board with the idea of replacing him but then 9/11 happened and by golly, thought it would be a little disruptive to change CIA director at that time...we had a few things to deal with.

Now, again I ask you where the proof is. The 9/11 report already debunked Wilson and Clarke so I have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

Furthermore, there will be some people that said don't go into Iraq, just as there were many that said to go in. The President of the United States has to way that advice and make a decision.

That doesn't make it a lie, it's called MAKING A DECISION with the INFORMATION YOU HAVE AT THE TIME.

Why you guys continue to make this crap up is insane, but I expect it will never, ever change.

Get back to us when you have PROOF!

Now, again I ask you where the proof is. The 9/11 report already debunked Wilson and Clarke so I have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

I guess thats why Bush, Cheney, Libby and Rove all outted his wife Plame and Brewster Jennings because it was all a lie huh?

Warriornation,

congrats it took you a whole week to actually come up with something I couldn't rebut while sipping on my cup of coffee.

I will reserve my comments until the dems take over the house and begin to actually demand the answers for the HOWs and WHYs and WHENs. I'll remember your comments while we are discussing next year how fruitless you guys think it is to impeach a "war president" LOL!

xoxoxo

p.s warrior/A-10 please get back to me on any of the other issues ive raised regarding FISA warrants or 4th amendment overstepping, or our lack of morals in coddling madmen and murderers for our economic/political gains.

p.p.s thanks for the links A-10, I appreciate the effort

Axis...didn't Wilson out his own wife?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242

Bane,

Let’s go back to the top about job numbers. The unemployment rate is an indicator of those who are unemployed and are receiving benefits. Once the benefits run out, you fall off the unemployment rate statistics. That doesn’t mean you are employed. The real unemployment rate is much higher near 7 to 8 percent, but who’s counting?

The rosey numbers you suggest come from the BLS which if I recall is part of the Executive branch of government. But even the rosey reports don’t completely cover the facts. Fact 1: The nations working population is ever growing. Fact 2: To maintain no growth and be able to absorb the ever growing working population above in Fact 1, the economy need to create 158,000 new jobs a month. Fact 3: Any jobs report less than 150,000 is a month that America lost jobs.

Now the wealth of data to explain just how bad it is is located here: http://zfacts.com/p/320.html

The number of jobs lost during the first four year of the Bush administration with working population growth considered is 7,984,000, nearly 8 million until September 2004. I haven’t run the numbers for 2005, while it was a better year for getting work, in spite of Bush, not because of him, we still haven’t created 8 million jobs.

Download the spreadsheet associated with the graphs and pour through the BLS data yourself and see just how bad it really is.

Some interesting data can be mined from the Excel spreadsheet that can be downloaded with all the BLS data. The fact that as Payroll jobs go down Non-payroll jobs go up. The Non-payroll jobs generally pay less and provide few benefits like healthcare.

So, as you suggested to Third Eye Open, Read first, then make your insipid comments.

Bane,

Let’s go back to the top about job numbers. The unemployment rate is an indicator of those who are unemployed and are receiving benefits. Once the benefits run out, you fall off the unemployment rate statistics. That doesn’t mean you are employed. The real unemployment rate is much higher near 7 to 8 percent, but who’s counting?

The rosey numbers you suggest come from the BLS which if I recall is part of the Executive branch of government. But even the rosey reports don’t completely cover the facts. Fact 1: The nations working population is ever growing. Fact 2: To maintain no growth and be able to absorb the ever growing working population above in Fact 1, the economy need to create 158,000 new jobs a month. Fact 3: Any jobs report less than 150,000 is a month that America lost jobs.

Now the wealth of data to explain just how bad it is is located here: http://zfacts.com/p/320.html

The number of jobs lost during the first four year of the Bush administration with working population growth considered is 7,984,000, nearly 8 million until September 2004. I haven’t run the numbers for 2005, while it was a better year for getting work, in spite of Bush, not because of him, we still haven’t created 8 million jobs.

Download the spreadsheet associated with the graphs and pour through the BLS data yourself and see just how bad it really is.

Some interesting data can be mined from the Excel spreadsheet that can be downloaded with all the BLS data. The fact that as Payroll jobs go down Non-payroll jobs go up. The Non-payroll jobs generally pay less and provide few benefits like healthcare.

So, as you suggested to Third Eye Open, Read first, then make your insipid comments.

Bane,

Let’s go back to the top about job numbers. The unemployment rate is an indicator of those who are unemployed and are receiving benefits. Once the benefits run out, you fall off the unemployment rate statistics. That doesn’t mean you are employed. The real unemployment rate is much higher near 7 to 8 percent, but who’s counting?

The rosey numbers you suggest come from the BLS which if I recall is part of the Executive branch of government. But even the rosey reports don’t completely cover the facts. Fact 1: The nations working population is ever growing. Fact 2: To maintain no growth and be able to absorb the ever growing working population above in Fact 1, the economy need to create 158,000 new jobs a month. Fact 3: Any jobs report less than 150,000 is a month that America lost jobs.

Now the wealth of data to explain just how bad it is is located here: http://zfacts.com/p/320.html

The number of jobs lost during the first four year of the Bush administration with working population growth considered is 7,984,000, nearly 8 million until September 2004. I haven’t run the numbers for 2005, in spite while it was a better year for getting work, we haven’t created 8 million jobs.

Some interesting data can be mined from the Excel spreadsheet that can be downloaded with all the BLS data. The fact that as Payroll jobs go down Non-payroll jobs go up. The Non-payroll jobs generally pay less and provide few benefits like healthcare.

So, as you suggested to Third Eye Open, Read first, then make your insipid comments.

Bane,

Let’s go back to the top about job numbers. The unemployment rate is an indicator of those who are unemployed and are receiving benefits. Once the benefits run out, you fall off the unemployment rate statistics. That doesn’t mean you are employed. The real unemployment rate is much higher near 7 to 8 percent, but who’s counting?

The rosey numbers you suggest come from the BLS which if I recall is part of the Executive branch of government. But even the rosey reports don’t completely cover the facts. Fact 1: The nations working population is ever growing. Fact 2: To maintain no growth and be able to absorb the ever growing working population above in Fact 1, the economy need to create 158,000 new jobs a month. Fact 3: Any jobs report less than 150,000 is a month that America lost jobs.

Now the wealth of data to explain just how bad it is is located here: zfacts.com/p/320.html

The number of jobs lost during the first four year of the Bush administration with working population growth considered is 7,984,000, nearly 8 million until September 2004. I haven’t run the numbers for 2005, in spite while it was a better year for getting work, we haven’t created 8 million jobs.

Some interesting data can be mined from the Excel spreadsheet that can be downloaded with all the BLS data. The fact that as Payroll jobs go down Non-payroll jobs go up. The Non-payroll jobs generally pay less and provide few benefits like healthcare.

So, as you suggested to Third Eye Open, Read first, then make your insipid comments.

Critical.

Wrong, unemployment numbers are from a survey done by the BLS, they have nothing whatever to do with unemployment compensation which varies from State to State. Your ignorance on such a simple premise means all further statistics are suspect.
The BLS accounts for population growth, so your phony calculations are as meaningless as your sobriquet.

:)