or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows. - Page 11

post #401 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
That whole post was very refreshing because you stated your opinion and why. Nice.

Where I disagree with you is this, if islamic extremists take over the world, do you think they care about the environment? You would be beheaded for bringing up their disparities. So I would think that you would care about that.

The 'war on terror' is pointless to begin with. you cannot declare war on an abstract like that. Rather, you CAN, but you cannot fight at a physical war based on it. That's like declaring war on the male sex drive.*

additionally, how much terror do you think has been caused by our interference in iraq? if not from iraqi soldiers who have to go and get killed, then by civilians who have to endure bombs destroying buildings all around them. On top of that, how many people lost everything in this operation, and are now pissed at the US, who better to become a suicide bomber? who better to hate the US and want to do everything in his power to hurt us.

Violence begets violence, when will people get that? you can't fight terror with bombs.

also Islam extremists aren't going to take over the world, if you think so, you might want to consider not watching spy movies anymore. seriously, for that to be your justification for destroying the environment? that's absurd. "we got no time to worry about the planet that supports ALL OF US, there are islam terrorists that could take over the world any minute!" now if you excuse me, while I get my tincan hat



*edit: was "the internet" , changed it to make it even more of an abstract, for emphasis.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #402 of 654
I think LiberalOutsider would be more appropriate name for this board.

post #403 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by msantti
I think LiberalOutsider would be more appropriate name for this board.


I like the sound of that!
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #404 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by msantti
I think LiberalOutsider would be more appropriate name for this board.


At this point it isn't liberal, its rational.
post #405 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Unemployment is based upon people actually taking the time to wait in line and declare it.... it is a bad measure and it always has been, and I believe most people will agree with that. The better measure is actual job creation. You will note explicitly I did not blame anyone for the way the economy is going. I simply stated that it is clear that the tax cuts haven't helped, and it is clear that they haven't. As far as I am concerned 9/11 didn't even show up as a blip on the economic radar screen, shopping was down, yes, but no more so than the usual recession associated decrease in shopping... The event had profound political ramifications but didn't affect the economy one bit it seems.
The president isn't responsible for making jobs. He is responsible for making sure the business cycle doesn't take too many people out with it. All I want to hear is some sort of acceptance that Bush hasn't done a damn thing to help the economy. Pass it off to normal business cycle movements, but any claims that the pres has led us through dark economic times is BS.

As far as the unemployment rate. I remember many debates that focused on that figure. It was a big factor of the Bush Sr. loss. Unemploymet rate has for as long as I can remember been the holy grail of economic numbers.

Do "Goofle search" on "unemployment rate" and tell me I'm wrong.

I know this is a link to the extreme far right NRO but at least consider the data in the article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0311130856.asp

The unemployment rate right now is less than the Reagan years during the phenomenal economy of the 80's.
post #406 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Unemployment is based upon people actually taking the time to wait in line and declare it.... it is a bad measure and it always has been, and I believe most people will agree with that.

Exactly.

See this article from USA Today:
More Job Seekers Just Quit Looking
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #407 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by msantti
I think LiberalOutsider would be more appropriate name for this board.


No Liberal Insider.
post #408 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Unemployment is based upon people actually taking the time to wait in line and declare it.... it is a bad measure and it always has been, and I believe most people will agree with that.

Well it was apparently good enough until Bush Jr.'s tax cuts could be shown to have possibly done some good. Did you even TRY to read that article I posted? Please do! I think it brings up some interesting points.

Quote:
As far as I am concerned 9/11 didn't even show up as a blip on the economic radar screen, shopping was down, yes, but no more so than the usual recession associated decrease in shopping... The event had profound political ramifications but didn't affect the economy one bit it seems.

You're kidding me right?

Quote:
The president isn't responsible for making jobs. He is responsible for making sure the business cycle doesn't take too many people out with it. All I want to hear is some sort of acceptance that Bush hasn't done a damn thing to help the economy. Pass it off to normal business cycle movements, but any claims that the pres has led us through dark economic times is BS.

So you don't believe that giving people extra money in their pockets and restoring national confidence after a major crisis will affect consumer spending? So what exactly DOES then? If you're backing the Dems (which I'm assuming you are) what exactly doe THEY propose to do to "get us through dark economic times" (well besides ride the current positive wave)?
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #409 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Even if you accept SDW's numbers there are still the problems I pointed out...

Here's a little something on this subject that SDW and the rest can chew on : http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news...jobs/index.htm

It doesn't exactly sound like the economy is just fine to me. It looks kind of grim if you're one of those people looking for work.

Also CNN doesn't have conservative ads plastered all over it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #410 of 654
They've changed the way they count the unemployed since Reagan.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #411 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Back patting party? What do you think that site dviant linked to was?

I felt like I'd bought a ticket to Conservoland while I was there.

Are you deft, man?

I referred to these discussions, this thread, this particular group of posts and those like this one. I made no mention of external sources.
post #412 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
They've changed the way they count the unemployed since Reagan.

Spin, spin, spin... spin, spin, spin... shake your booty.
post #413 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you deft, man?

I referred to these discussions, this thread, this particular group of posts and those like this one. I made no mention of external sources.

The link to that place came from this discussion as a point of reference.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #414 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Spin, spin, spin... spin, spin, spin... shake your booty.

Ok I'll print the article so all can read :

-----------------------------------------------------------Payrolls disappoint again

Gain of 21,000 falls far short of Wall Street forecasts; unemployment rate steady at 5.6 percent.
March 5, 2004: 12:31 PM EST
By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money Staff Writer



NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. payrolls grew in February at a far slower pace than the prior month, the government said Friday, in a report that disappointed Wall Street expectations for the fourth month in a row.

The persistent weakness in the labor market means the Federal Reserve will probably hold interest rates at the lowest level in more than 40 years for longer than expected.


But that weakness has also led to the slowest pace of wage growth for workers in 18 years, the longest average unemployment duration in 20 years and could step up the pressure on President Bush as he runs for re-election.

Payrolls outside the farm sector grew by just 21,000 jobs in February, the Labor Department reported, compared with a downwardly revised gain of 97,000 in January. The unemployment rate held steady at 5.6 percent.

Economists, on average, had expected 125,000 new jobs and unemployment at 5.6 percent, according to Briefing.com.

"This is a terrible number," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo. "The economic recovery is almost three years old, and the economy should be producing 200,000 to 300,000 jobs per month."

On Wall Street, stock prices fell initially but turned up later in the morning, as traders looked forward to lower interest rates. Meanwhile prices soared in the bond market, pushing the yield on the 10-year Treasury down to 3.84 percent, the lowest in eight months. Bond prices and yields move in opposite directions.

Related stories

Job boom still a hope, not a fact

M&A gain could mean job pain

Outsourcing: what to do?

Greenspan notes 'unease' about jobs



The nation has lost about 2.35 million jobs since March 2001, when the last recession began, marking the longest stretch of labor market weakness since the Labor Department started keeping track in 1939. More than 700,000 of those jobs have disappeared since the recession ended in November 2001.

Job woes could hurt Bush's bid for re-election. He has promised that tax cuts passed during his administration would create millions of jobs, but that prediction has not yet come true despite stronger economic growth.

"At this rate, the Bush administration won't create its first job for more than 10 years," Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the likely Democratic nominee for president, said in a statement.



Labor Secretary Elaine Chao comments on the latest employment numbers and on outsourcing.


Play video
(Real or Windows Media)



Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, in an interview with CNNfn, pointed to the stable unemployment rate as a hopeful sign. But she acknowledged that the Bush administration was "concerned" about job growth and suggested U.S. workers needed retraining to prepare themselves for other jobs.

She also declined to stand by the administration's earlier forecast that it would create about 320,000 jobs a month this year.

"That was a Council of Economic Advisers report, by one agency in the federal government," she said, adding, "I'm not an economist."

Fed on hold; offshoring could take the blame
Slow job growth will also probably delay any interest-rate hike by the Fed, the nation's central bank, whose target for the fed funds rate, a key overnight bank lending rate, is currently 1 percent, the lowest level in more than 40 years.

Other measures of weakness
Slow payroll growth wasn't the only bad thing about the February employment situation. The details are also painful.

Heading Heading
Number of unemployed 8.2 million
Change in labor force down 392,000
Labor force participation rate 65.9 percent, lowest since 1988
Number of discouraged workers 484,000
Average unemployment duration 20.3 weeks, highest since 1984
Percent unemployed 27 weeks 22.9, near highest since 1983


Source: Labor Department

"The Fed's not seeing any wage pressure, and with sluggish job creation, I don't see how they can possilbly raise rates until mid-2005," said Richard Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research -- who made possibly the lowest payroll forecast on Wall Street after listening to the quarterly earnings conference calls of 207 companies, few of which said they were hiring.

Many economists believe that the robust, technology-driven productivity gains of the past several months will cool off this year and that businesses will need to hire more workers to keep up with demand. But that increased hiring is still a hope, not a reality.

"Businesses seem to be doing everything they can to increase profits without increasing hiring," said Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services. "Unfortunately for the labor market, they appear to be quite successful."

Some observers -- including politicians on the right and the left -- believe a trend towards offshore outsourcing is also crippling the labor market.


Most economists believe the impact of offshoring is small, but it's a growing trend, and weak payroll reports such as Friday's will likely add to the political pressure to enact measures to stop the flow of jobs overseas. The Joint Economic Committee held a hearing on the matter Friday morning.

In any event, some economists doubt consistent employment gains of 200,000 or 300,000 per month are coming any time soon, believing that health-care and other labor costs are discouraging new hiring.

"Firms are still very reluctant to hire," said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates. "I'm looking at gains approaching 120,000 or 140,000 per month by the end of the year, which is barely enough to keep pace with [labor force] growth."

Wage growth still weak; could it hurt the economy?
In its report, the department said service industries such as education and health care added just 46,000 jobs in February.




ALLALAKAZARCACOCTDEDCFLGAHIIDILINIAKSKYLAMEMDMAMIM NMSMOMTNENVNHNJNMNYNCNDOHOKORPARISCSDTNTXUTVTVAWAW VWIWY






Temporary help payrolls rose by 32,000. Typically, temp hiring is a sign employers are gearing up to make permanent hires. But temp payrolls have grown by 215,000 jobs since last April and little job growth has followed.

Construction industries cut 24,000 jobs, the first such loss since February 2003, likely related to bad weather in parts of the country in early February.

Manufacturing shed 3,000 jobs, the 43rd straight month of falling factory payrolls. The sector has lost 3.3 million jobs since early 1998, and many of those jobs are never coming back, having been moved overseas or made obsolete by technological improvements.

YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Economy

Unemployment

Outsourcing

or Create your own

Manage alerts | What is this?



On the bright side, average hourly wages rose 3 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $15.52. Wage growth is crucial for consumer spending, which fuels two-thirds of the economy. But average hourly wages have grown just 1.6 percent in the past year, the lowest level since 1986.

"In principle, rapid productivity should make wages rise, but it seems that until the job market tightens up a bit, all the productivity gains flow to corporate profits," Cheney of John Hancock Financial Services said.

Few economists, if any, believe the labor market is weak enough to trigger a recession. After all, higher corporate profits -- driven in part by job cuts -- have improved stock prices and household wealth. But if the pain lingers much longer, it could increase the chances that the economy's growth rate will slow down later this year.

"Unless the labor market gains some steam and momentum, both real income and confidence of consumers would be hurt," said Sohn of Wells Fargo.

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

Happy now?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #415 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by dviant
So you don't believe that giving people extra money in their pockets and restoring national confidence after a major crisis will affect consumer spending? So what exactly DOES then? If you're backing the Dems (which I'm assuming you are) what exactly doe THEY propose to do to "get us through dark economic times" (well besides ride the current positive wave)?

I wasn't kidding you. Did consumer spending increase? (did it? do you have data?) On the note of the president imbuing confidence, how is consumer confidence? Why would some one trying to increase confidence keep harping on what threats exist to the nation, FDR didn't do it?
I am not saying the Dems have taken us through dark economic times, I just think it is a patently false statement that Bush took got us through dark economic times.

Also, ShawnJ and SDW2001, I went to the bls.gov website and found some interesting things... Jobs have been created yes, at the same time about 3 M people lost their jobs and weren't rehired, meaning the people taking the new jobs are previously non-employed persons. Also of note is that I was right in saying the total number of the workforce has increased by about 5.4 M.
post #416 of 654
I read somewhere that the jobs created to jobs lost ratio was actually pretty close.

I need to find the link to that article I read about 2 weeks ago.
post #417 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
lso CNN doesn't have conservative ads plastered all over it.

Naw they're sneaky about their bias. Nice spin plug for Kerry in there. And I like the way the Bush spokespersons is "concerned", not conerned. Like they didn't belive her. Though the rest of the article isn't so bad, mostly fact reporting and "things aren't as good as we hoped", which means I read as we're doing ok but could be better.

I don't think anyone would say the "economy is fine" as you suggesed we are (please don't put words into my mouth). I'm just saying that positive growth, even if its slow, is still good news considering 9/11 and recession.

I have to read your CNN articles (as if CNN is any less left leaning than Fox is right) with objectivity, have you read mine?

And kudos to your finger pointing skills. You're really good at it. Any solutions from the libercrats yet? So what is mr ready-for-prime-time Kerry going to do to stimulate the economy? Still waiting for you guys to weight on that. Getting tired of addressing these posts that dodge the real issue.

For the record I'm not asking soley to be snide (partially yes heh), but because truthfully I have no idea what he's said about it. I have yet to come across anything regarding Kerry's plans in this area.
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #418 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
The link to that place came from this discussion as a point of reference.

The link was quoted as support of his views on the issue being discussed. Which had nothing to do with my claim that this forum has been basically a democratic back-patting party among it's posters.

You really are a spin machine.
post #419 of 654
Just to note: Spin is efficiently defined at extracting non-information from facts. Stating a fact is not spin. 5.4 M people entered the workforce, roughly 2.5 M found jobs; over the same period about 3 M people lost jobs. Those are facts. This is spin: Bush's economic policies have not secured the job growth necessary to maintain a healthily employed population.

I don't like spin any more than the next person, but facts can stand for themselves sometimes...
post #420 of 654
Naples, it doesn't help your quest for an 'intellectually honest' discussion when all you can do is yell "spin!" whenever anyone posts any information that doesn't agree with your personal agenda.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #421 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Ok I'll print the article so all can read :

-----------------------------------------------------------Payrolls disappoint again

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

Happy now?

What does this article have to do with your claim that the unemployment rate is no longer used since Reagan? Maybe I missed it.
post #422 of 654
post #423 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Naples, it doesn't help your quest for an 'intellectually honest' discussion when all you can do is yell "spin!" whenever anyone posts any information that doesn't agree with your personal agenda.

You guys are getting silly. he said unemployment rate is no longer considered relevant and it has been that way since Reagan, as if because he said it we all should accept it as "in stone" fact.

Prove it.
post #424 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
What does this article have to do with your claim that the unemployment rate is no longer used since Reagan? Maybe I missed it.

His point was that the unemployed are COUNTED differently than they were under Reagan.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #425 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Just to note: Spin is efficiently defined at extracting non-information from facts. Stating a fact is not spin. 5.4 M people entered the workforce, roughly 2.5 M found jobs; over the same period about 3 M people lost jobs. Those are facts. This is spin: Bush's economic policies have not secured the job growth necessary to maintain a healthily employed population.

I don't like spin any more than the next person, but facts can stand for themselves sometimes...

Spin is twisting the truth so that it supports your view = lies.
post #426 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
His point was that the unemployed are COUNTED differently than they were under Reagan.

Where does it say that, I am getting dizzy. Please stop.
post #427 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by msantti
I read somewhere that the jobs created to jobs lost ratio was actually pretty close.

I need to find the link to that article I read about 2 weeks ago.

No need to link, I found the data on the bls website. But this equivalence doesn't include the people entering the work force for the first time and not finding jobs.... If 3M people lose their jobs, 2.5 M people are newly employed, and a total of 5.4 M people enter the workforce, there are something like 6 M people who aren't employed but are in the workforce.
post #428 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Where does it say that, I am getting dizzy. Please stop.

Chu-Bakka: "They've changed the way they count the unemployed since Reagan."

It's on THIS page. Just scroll up.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #429 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Spin is twisting the truth so that it supports your view = lies.

No, it is based upon psuedo-reasoning...not considering all the factors that go into a genuine discussion of a topic. They aren't lies, they are statements using data that only supports your position. Both sides do it. O'Reilly is the king of it (ironically).

But I have said my piece in this discussion. I only wanted to point out that the numbers don't support an argument that GW has helped the economy. That job creation is lagging way far behind where it should be....

I hope someone else who is reasonable can take over from here...
post #430 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
No, it is based upon psuedo-reasoning...not considering all the factors that go into a genuine discussion of a topic. They aren't lies, they are statements using data that only supports your position. Both sides do it. O'Reilly is the king of it (ironically).

But I have said my piece in this discussion. I only wanted to point out that the numbers don't support an argument that GW has helped the economy. That job creation is lagging way far behind where it should be....

I hope someone else who is reasonable can take over from here...

See ya, have a good day.
post #431 of 654
Here's a good article in the Bangor News...

http://www.bangornews.com/editorialn...sconcealf_.cfm

Statistics conceal full truth on joblessness

On Jan. 9 the U.S. government announced the most recent national unemployment figures. The unemployment rate dropped slightly to 5.7 percent but there was no encouragement in this tiny change since it occurred because 300,000 fewer people gave up looking for work.

But, whether the published figure rises or falls slightly is relatively meaningless because the total only serves as a smoke screen hiding the true state of unemployment in Maine and the nation.

Officially, the jobless rate dropped to 5.7 percent in December. By historical standards this does not appear high. But this conceals the true unemployment rate which is now in the range of 10 percent or more.

Nationally, many economists agree that the official U.S. unemployment rate is highly misleading.

One huge factor is the fact that anyone who works even a hour a week is counted as being "employed." We start out with 8.7 million workers who are counted as "unemployed." But there are an additional, uncounted 4.9 million workers who are counted as employed and who are working part time. These workers say they would rather be working full time but can't find full time work. This is the highest number of dissatisfied part time workers in ten years.

There are also more than 1.5 million workers who are out of work but are not counted as "unemployed" because they have stopped looking for work. Most of this group say they have stopped looking for work because they became depressed at the difficulty, if not impossibility of finding work. These uncounted unemployed are called "discouraged workers." Their number has increased 20 percent in the last year and rose again in December.

Put these three groups together and the unemployment rate in the United States jumps to 9.7 percent - a far cry from the close to 6 percent rate of unemployment likely to be the focus of the forecasts and arguments in the months ahead. The continuing political debate simply cannot erase the fact that more three million jobs have been lost since President Bush took office. Of these lost jobs 2.5 million where in manufacturing.

Not even the most optimistic forecaster has been able to look into his crystal ball for 2004 and see anything except a net job loss for Bush's first term. This has not happened to any American president since Herbert Hoover who was defeated in 1932 and left office as the nation moved into the Great Depression.

Not only are the hard numbers of unemployed discouraging but also the total time workers are out of work when they lose a job is also bad. The average length of unemployment has risen to 19 weeks -

the highest level in 20 years.

CONT.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #432 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
I wasn't kidding you. Did consumer spending increase? (did it? do you have data?) On the note of the president imbuing confidence, how is consumer confidence?

Consumer confidence could be better. The spin on the "horrible job situation" surely isn't helping, as unemployment peceptions are tied closely to that. Way to go Dems? Putting their party politics ahead of the country by painting such a bad light on unemployment? What do you think might happen to consumer confidence if people were told that the unemployment rates (traditional indicator) were dropping instead of numbers shell games the Dems are pushing?


Quote:
I am not saying the Dems have taken us through dark economic times, I just think it is a patently false statement that Bush took got us through dark economic times.

Apparently August 2003 was some sort of turning point. Thats where I found most of the articles talking about it. They all read about the same as this:

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/30/ne..._consume.shtml

Also even in Jimmac's CNN Money article they mention wage growth which is a positive effect on consumer spending as well.
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #433 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Spin is twisting the truth so that it supports your view = lies.

What's ironic is that there is spin in this statement.


Spin != lies

at least, not totally. and that's the whole point.

a lie is simply not telling the truth, plain and simple, cut and dry.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #434 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
What's ironic is that there is spin in this statement.


Spin != lies

at least, not totally. and that's the whole point.

a lie is simply not telling the truth, plain and simple, cut and dry.

Tell yourself that if you must.

There are absolutes in this world.
post #435 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Tell yourself that if you must.

There are absolutes in this world.

no, everything is relative
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #436 of 654
During Bush 1 they stopped counting people who had given up looking for work. So the unemplyment rate got a nice drop out of that... and it's true that every President since has in a small way benefitted from that since.

But you can't compare Reagans number with Bush II. They were counted differently. Unless you adjust for those that stopped looking for work.


So who's spinning?
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #437 of 654
Hey Naples like how they ignore the request for how the Dems are going to stimulate economic growth? Its all just "but the GROWTH is slower than it should be". Finger pointing no solutions, typical Deflectocrat thinking.

And why exactly is growth (albeit slow) bad after something like 9/11 and recession? Apparently the Dems could have done better is that it?

*cough* HOW? *cough*
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #438 of 654
http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/relea...2003_0828.html

This is a plan. Even says so in the Headline.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #439 of 654
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/relea...2003_0828.html

This is a plan. Even says so in the Headline.

About time! Damn you would post that right before I need to go to lunch. Bah! Guess I'll read it later this afternoon...
bah!
Reply
bah!
Reply
post #440 of 654
Hehe. I'm smorry.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows.