blzrul Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 How does one "stop looking for a job?" I've always been curious about that. Do they just abandon everything they owe money on and move into a cave someplace? If that's the case, how are they able to poll them? Hey everyone. I stopped looking for a job. That's right. I'm just gonna stay home, not eat, not pay my bills, and see how long I can keep that up. There's got to be a breakable record someplace. Everytime someone brings up that idea, I think of "History of the World." Did you bull stevestojan? 18516[/snapback] You could read the report where it describes how they make the determination. I don't make it, the goverment does. If you don't like it, write a letter to the government, explaining your credentials in the area and offer something better. Until then, it is what it is. I expect that a number of people who aren't actively looking are doing odd jobs and other stuff "under the table", living with relatives, babysitting, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Hey everyone. I stopped looking for a job. That's right. I'm just gonna stay home, not eat, not pay my bills, and see how long I can keep that up. There's got to be a breakable record someplace. 18516[/snapback] You forgot government assistance. You know...welfare and such... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 The hurricanes are Bush's fault. From so many blowhards in and around Florida. 17430[/snapback] Having a bad day Kelly? If I remember correctly it was the democratic blowhards who couldnt punch a ballot. Chad you!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 You forgot government assistance. You know...welfare and such... 18621[/snapback] Welfare: Personal accountability's kryptonite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaker Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Well as expected the economy continues to create jobs. In August 150,000 jobs were added and as an extra little bonus, the lower then expected July numbers were revised up by some 60,000. That means that in the past two months the economy has created well over 200K new jobs. All this while the unemployment rate dropped once again, this time to a 3 year low of 5.4%. Now I know that all the ney sayers out there will say that "these jobs are not good jobs", or "this is no indication that things are really better" and other silly comments like that. But don't be fooled. There are more people working right now then at any time in our countries history. I for one can tell you that in my field (manufacturing sector) capital equipment sales have not been this good in nearly 6 years. I have sold more of the automation machines that I sell in the past 8 months then in the previous 18 months. My customers are booming, and hiring as well. Mind you this is in the aluminum die casting business folks...that is about as hard core manufacturing as it gets. Anyway, my main point here is, I am amazed at how kerry and friends can turn good news like this into such doom and gloom. But I guess what really surprises me, is that some people out there actually believe what kerry and his sleezy lawyer friend are pushin. 17266[/snapback] Kerry is right. However, I'll grant you that it's possible to spin the numbers to make Bush look good. For example, if you're only concerned with short-term figures, then sure, the stats look promising. The numbers are at least moving in the right direction. However, if you look at Bush's presidency as a whole, his performance has been poor, as Kerry correctly points out. Since Bush took office: - There are 900,000 FEWER jobs in America than when Bush was sworn in. That figure includes the August numbers. Unless things turn around, Bush will be the first president since the Great Depression to face re-election without creating a single job. - The number of Americans without medical insurance has increased by 5.1 million. - The unemployment rate, while dropping, is still well above the 4.0 per cent figure in August 2000 under Clinton. - Bush has squandered the surplus that Clinton left and is now running a half trillion dollar deficit, the biggest in history. While recent economic indicators are encouraging, you'd have to be pretty naive (or biased because of your political leanings) to think that Bush's performance on the economic front has been anything better than mediocre. In fact, it has been downright poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Kerry is right. However, I'll grant you that it's possible to spin the numbers to make Bush look good. For example, if you're only concerned with short-term figures, then sure, the stats look promising. The numbers are at least moving in the right direction. However, if you look at Bush's presidency as a whole, his performance has been poor, as Kerry correctly points out. Since Bush took office: - There are 900,000 FEWER jobs in America than when Bush was sworn in. That figure includes the August numbers. Unless things turn around, Bush will be the first president since the Great Depression to face re-election without creating a single job. - The number of Americans without medical insurance has increased by 5.1 million. - The unemployment rate, while dropping, is still well above the 4.0 per cent figure in August 2000 under Clinton. - Bush has squandered the surplus that Clinton left and is now running a half trillion dollar deficit, the biggest in history. While recent economic indicators are encouraging, you'd have to be pretty naive (or biased because of your political leanings) to think that Bush's performance on the economic front has been anything better than mediocre. In fact, it has been downright poor. 19171[/snapback] Looky there, yet another partisan parrot continuing to echo the same BS. I'm not going to sit here and debate the overall over-simplification of yet another bad post. Suffice it to say, about the only thing the current Administration is actually responsible for is over spending. That should come as no surprise, as neither party knows a damn thing about controlling themselves - especially when there's a recession going on and they control both the executive and legislative branches. There was no surplus. Repeating that lie over and over again doesn't make it true. What the hell did you think Al Gore was talking about when he kept repeating "lockbox" over and over? Hello? John Kerry has been in Congress for 19 years. He has had ample chance to address the all of these issues by proposing legislation, yet hasn't. Now, he's going to suddenly become an incredibly competent savant. Sure he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaker Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Looky there, yet another partisan parrot continuing to echo the same BS. I'm not going to sit here and debate the overall over-simplification of yet another bad post. Of course not. Far be it from you to actually deal with facts. Much easier to just sit back and wallow in some wet-dream illusion that your half-cocked opinions actually have currency on this board. Spare us your drivel, Darin. When you're ready to say something substantial about Bush's performance on the economic front, please join us in discussion. Until then, don't waste our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted September 5, 2004 Author Share Posted September 5, 2004 I didn't say you were a liar, I said you were dishonest. Telling only half the story is dishonest. Doesn't matter if it's you or LGB doing it. It's still dishonest. 18379[/snapback] Tom, for your insinuation to be true, then you would have had to have some prior knowledge that I intended to deceive. How in the hell could you possibly know that? Calling me dishonest without having anything to back it up is not only wrong, it is ignorant. Just for your information here is the definition of dishonest; 1. not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; untrustworthy. 2. proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent. Again, my statement was true….the growth in jobs was good. (could it be better…hell yes it could have been 20 million jobs created, or it could have been 144,001) in any case my statement was never the less true. With regards to the unemployment rate…same thing…it went down. Where the hell did I lie, or was I dishonest? I have said more then enough times, certainly enough times for you to get it, the link was there for all to read, I was not giving commentary on the whole damn thing, just starting a discussion. Please do me a favor…get the hell over yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Of course not. Far be it from you to actually deal with facts. Much easier to just sit back and wallow in some wet-dream illusion that your half-cocked opinions actually have currency on this board. Spare us your drivel, Darin. When you're ready to say something substantial about Bush's performance on the economic front, please join us in discussion. Until then, don't waste our time. 19232[/snapback] Yeah, I should simply keep repeating the same half-truths and pretending that either of the two main political parties have any interest in making changes. That would make me just like you. There isn't anything substantial to be said for either party on the economy. Neither is willing to simplify regulation, lower unneeded spending, or return the appropriate amount of tax money to the people. Pretending it is some other way is apparently your job. Tell us all again how liberals love free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Tom, for your insinuation to be true, then you would have had to have some prior knowledge that I intended to deceive. How in the hell could you possibly know that? Calling me dishonest without having anything to back it up is not only wrong, it is ignorant. 1. not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; untrustworthy. 2. proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent. 19240[/snapback] No, for my observation to be true, I only have to observe that you omitted the half of the story that's unfavorable to your partisanship, and thus your post was a half-truth... "half truth" [n] a partially true statement intended to deceive or mislead... "deceive" [v] be false to; be dishonest with Ergo, you were dishonest. QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Tom, for your insinuation to be true, then you would have had to have some prior knowledge that I intended to deceive. How in the hell could you possibly know that? Calling me dishonest without having anything to back it up is not only wrong, it is ignorant. Just for your information here is the definition of dishonest; 1. not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; untrustworthy. 2. proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent. Didn't you once say you were stealing cable TV on a monthly basis and proud of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Didn't you once say you were stealing cable TV on a monthly basis and proud of it? 19583[/snapback] Yeah, but in the world according to RiO that's not dishonest or fraudulent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Yeah, but in the world according to RiO that's not dishonest or fraudulent. 19609[/snapback] Because if anyone asked, he could say he had cable, and that's a true statement. Just omit the rest of the story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Didn't you once say you were stealing cable TV on a monthly basis and proud of it? 19583[/snapback] No, he was stealing DirecTV and justifying it by saying he "recommended" all his friends to DTV, so DTV owed him something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted September 6, 2004 Author Share Posted September 6, 2004 No, for my observation to be true, I only have to observe that you omitted the half of the story that's unfavorable to your partisanship, and thus your post was a half-truth... "half truth" [n] a partially true statement intended to deceive or mislead... "deceive" [v] be false to; be dishonest with Ergo, you were dishonest. QED. 19532[/snapback] Once again tom you miss the mark. I did not "omit" half of the story, on purpose or otherwise. I simply made the statement that I did and I linked the story for all to read. How do you extrapolate tht into an effort to lie or decieve someone? If I did not link the story then I could agree with the half truth assertion that you made. My partisanship not withstanding everything that I said in my original post was true. I suggest that you give your thread police routine a rest for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted September 6, 2004 Author Share Posted September 6, 2004 Didn't you once say you were stealing cable TV on a monthly basis and proud of it? 19583[/snapback] No you stupid pin head I never said any such thing. You are in small minded know nothing blow hard who simply is here to spew your hate and rhetoric. I totaly resent the fact that you would accuse me of stealing cable Tv on a monthly basis. It is Direct TV that I am getting for free... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted September 6, 2004 Author Share Posted September 6, 2004 No, he was stealing DirecTV and justifying it by saying he "recommended" all his friends to DTV, so DTV owed him something... 19617[/snapback] Well leave it to you to chime in and spread hate when others are pileing on. Oh well nobody expects anything different from you...especially me. But just as a matter of correction I never justified my free Direct TV by saying something as stupid as "I recommended it to people". That just shows your ignorance of the facts and your plain stupidity. Direct Tv owes me nothing, (and happily so..I owe them nothing) it is actually a pretty good set-up. What was really siad in my earlier post (like two years ago or something like that) it was that I basically only use the Direct Tv to watch Bills games anyway. I do also have Cable TV (which I pay for along with my Roadrunner service) so there actually is no other need that I have for Direct Tv other then to watch Bills games. The system was given to me by someone (pretty well placed in Direct TV) with a special code that allowed the signal to be received. Simple as that. No great consiracy or anything like that. national security has not been breached, and the fall of an empire is not forthcoming. Nope, just the judgement by a few know nothing blowhards who get on this board and routinely blast people who they think they are superior to. Nothing more complicated then that. So continue to have at it pal, you are nothing today, and I suspect that you will be nothing tommorrow. Either way, you are no skin off my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 DirecTV customers who religiously pay their bills for all the services they enjoy are footing the bill for your free football games. They have to pay $120+ a year to get them. The fact that you got the access through an insider just means he's part of the crime as well. There's no difference between what you're doing and colluding with a store clerk to get $50 in change back for a $10 bill, or to look the other way while you steal an occasional six-pack. It's still a crime and the costs are passed along to your fellow Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Well leave it to you to chime in and spread hate when others are pileing on. Oh well nobody expects anything different from you...especially me. But just as a matter of correction I never justified my free Direct TV by saying something as stupid as "I recommended it to people". That just shows your ignorance of the facts and your plain stupidity. Direct Tv owes me nothing, (and happily so..I owe them nothing) it is actually a pretty good set-up. What was really siad in my earlier post (like two years ago or something like that) it was that I basically only use the Direct Tv to watch Bills games anyway. I do also have Cable TV (which I pay for along with my Roadrunner service) so there actually is no other need that I have for Direct Tv other then to watch Bills games. The system was given to me by someone (pretty well placed in Direct TV) with a special code that allowed the signal to be received. Simple as that. No great consiracy or anything like that. national security has not been breached, and the fall of an empire is not forthcoming. Nope, just the judgement by a few know nothing blowhards who get on this board and routinely blast people who they think they are superior to. Nothing more complicated then that. So continue to have at it pal, you are nothing today, and I suspect that you will be nothing tommorrow. Either way, you are no skin off my ass. 19796[/snapback] But of course, since everything in the above is a true statement, we shouldn't assume you're attempting to lie or deceive anyone, and in no way are you the least bit dishonest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Well leave it to you to chime in and spread hate when others are pileing on. Oh well nobody expects anything different from you...especially me. But just as a matter of correction I never justified my free Direct TV by saying something as stupid as "I recommended it to people". That just shows your ignorance of the facts and your plain stupidity. Direct Tv owes me nothing, (and happily so..I owe them nothing) it is actually a pretty good set-up. What was really siad in my earlier post (like two years ago or something like that) it was that I basically only use the Direct Tv to watch Bills games anyway. I do also have Cable TV (which I pay for along with my Roadrunner service) so there actually is no other need that I have for Direct Tv other then to watch Bills games. The system was given to me by someone (pretty well placed in Direct TV) with a special code that allowed the signal to be received. Simple as that. No great consiracy or anything like that. national security has not been breached, and the fall of an empire is not forthcoming. Nope, just the judgement by a few know nothing blowhards who get on this board and routinely blast people who they think they are superior to. Nothing more complicated then that. So continue to have at it pal, you are nothing today, and I suspect that you will be nothing tommorrow. Either way, you are no skin off my ass. 19796[/snapback] You are still stealing the NFL's property. Why not buy the "Sunday Ticket?" There is no justification? Just admit it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts