/dev/null Posted August 20, 2011 Author Posted August 20, 2011 No disrespect, but I just realized you are a little dense. So if Elma is a little dense And it took you this long to figure out Elma is a little dense How dense does that make you?
Rob's House Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 Private sector jobs always fill the void and you know that. In the long run this is true. For those who think this a ridiculous assertion I would suggest attempting to understand the logic behind it rather than resorting to a reflexive defense of an ideology you've sworn allegiance to prior to having the knowledge and understanding to effectively form and adopt such theories.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 21, 2011 Posted August 21, 2011 Very well stated. I wasn't all that high on president Clinton while he was in office but I'd take him back in a second, right now. That's how bad Obama is, because, so the F would I, and I refused to vote him, twice. Hell, if the Democrats got serious about running Hillary, I would even consider that, depending on if the Republicans nominate a dope. Anybody but Obama. I might even come off the bench and work for a campaign. I might even move, so I can vote in a swing state. That's why the Republicans are breaking tradition and don't already have their candidate locked in. They want to be absolutely sure Obama loses, and, they want Obama to have to blow his money on lots of candidates.
Buftex Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 That's how bad Obama is, because, so the F would I, and I refused to vote him, twice. Hell, if the Democrats got serious about running Hillary, I would even consider that, depending on if the Republicans nominate a dope. Anybody but Obama. I might even come off the bench and work for a campaign. I might even move, so I can vote in a swing state. That's why the Republicans are breaking tradition and don't already have their candidate locked in. They want to be absolutely sure Obama loses, and, they want Obama to have to blow his money on lots of candidates. Not related to anything you posted, but I found this too funny not to find somewhere to wedge it in: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/rick-perry-struggles-to-a_n_934172.html btw- I always wanted Hillary!
ieatcrayonz Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 I've had sex with Rick Perry. I hate to break this to you but sometimes Ennifer dresses up like Rick Perry. You may have been duped. btw- I always wanted Hillary! Umm....gross.
DC Tom Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 btw- I always wanted Hillary! Wanted her to jump off a bridge?
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 In the long run this is true. For those who think this a ridiculous assertion I would suggest attempting to understand the logic behind it rather than resorting to a reflexive defense of an ideology you've sworn allegiance to prior to having the knowledge and understanding to effectively form and adopt such theories. I think its just wrong for several reasons. "Always" is a long time and the economy is "always" changinging. Something like 50% of all jobs in this country, in this economy are government jobs or dependent on government spending. Cutting all/many of those jobs and simply expecting the free market economy to make new ones is reckless and myopic. Actually its ignorant. When all the factory jobs went away it was the government that made up the difference in employment along with an expansion of low wage jobs in the free market. To simply expect new, high wage jobs to come along in industries x, y, and z isn't very intelligent. Automation is and will continue to take jobs away. I'm seeing the poor tech guys get cut because organizations are moving to cloud computing and we just don't need all the equipment we use to. And look at all the jobs that were eliminated by the internet. It touched every field. Competition with low wage labor in other countries doesn't help either.
OCinBuffalo Posted August 25, 2011 Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) Not related to anything you posted, but I found this too funny not to find somewhere to wedge it in: http://www.huffingto...a_n_934172.html btw- I always wanted Hillary! Great. Abstinence-only education fails to stop teen pregnancy. But, in typical liberal, intellectually bankrupt fashion, they forgot to mention: Sex education equally fails to stop teen pregnancy. My high school in NY taught the entire thing, and we had our share of religious opter outers. Regardless, my high school was like attending a porn movie. Kids would get it on in the friggin band practice rooms, for Christ's sake. There were at least 3 pregnant girls in any given class at any given time. Hey, I am not complaining, I am merely telling the truth. Hmmm. So, neither approach does jackshit. Well then, why the F are we still talking about either of of them? Oh, that's right, because the "we want abortion on demand and 10 year-olds to have sex" vs. "no abortions for rape victims and 'ignorance first'" unreasonable and irresponsible assclowns are involved. Who is serious about solving/preventing this problem? People, like Obama, who want to throw $110 million at the problem, but refuse to do anything to the parents of these kids? Certainly not. Certainly not the tool who wrote this article. Certainly not the tool who wrote this article, without attaching their name. There's a good chance that the reason they didn't is because some of the conclusions are sketchy, or based on sketchy data, and their hope is that we won't bother to do the checking. This is standard for this clown website, so that a questionable article can be instantly deleted as soon as it is exposed as sketchy. Unfortunately, I have spent all the time I can on PPP for now, so their hope is accurate. Edited August 25, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Recommended Posts