namelesstavern.net

Besides, that's side-stepping the issue.

thats exactly how you're arguing, you didn't agree with something he said, so you took the argument somewhere else (other news agencies, or in bush threads, to clinton)

Actually, dammuzzis, the economy is NOT better than under Clinton. For example, last year, on average, nominal wages grew by only 2.4 percent, a meager gain that was completely erased by an average inflation rate of 3.4 percent. Show me ANY year under clinton where the average wage increase was lower than the inflation rate. The vast majority of the jobs that have been created are low income service sector job, and most of the rest can be attributed to increased hiring by defense industries, which are seeing extra money due to increased defense spending. Basically, the economic "boom" is a sham, artificially created by massive deficit spending, much like Germany did in the years prior to WW2. Also, despite the promises made when he put in his tax cuts, new business investment has increased at a historically sluggish rate since the peak of the last business cycle five years ago, so the money saved is NOT being re-invested in businesses, given that the new investment rate is LOWER than it was during Clinton's era, BEFORE any of the tax cuts were made.

Now here's some scary statistics for this to illustrate the point: According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006.

That's right, boys and girls, Bush, supposed fiscal conservative, has generated more debt than EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY *COMBINED*.... His economic methods are the same that Reagan tried to use, and that his own FATHER slammed as being "Voodoo Economics". The only people really getting any money back from the tax cuts are the top 5% of the wealthiest individuals. While there is marginal returns for other people, those returns are wiped out by the hikes in federal fees, increased state and local taxes, and co-payment charges to needy veterans and families who rely on Medicaid, along with cuts in loan programs to small businesses and college students, and in a wide range of state services.

I know Mindia says Kerry would have been a disaster, but given how bad Bush has been, I find it hard to fathom how ANYONE would have been WORSE. We could've elected a Marx brother or one of the 3 Stooges, and they'd have done a better job. Combine the economic problems, with Bush's repeated cses of ignoring the will of Congress or even ignoring the Constitution, and ruling by fiat.... Well, i have never been more scared for the future of America.

-Arlos

Ginzburgh wrote:Are there any news sources that are "objective"?

FOX News is the most objective out of all of them, imo. Their slogan is all about being "fair and balanced" and that's what they deliver. Can you say the same thing about the other news sources out there? No, absolutely not.

Mindia wrote:

Ginzburgh wrote:Are there any news sources that are "objective"?

Their sogan is all about being "fair and balanced" and that's what they deliver.

I thought that was supposed to be an ironic slogan?

I usually just stick to arts and entertainment anyway.

Mindia, of course individual talking heads are going to be biased, because they're individuals presenting their own opinion. Every single talking head at Fox, with the exception of Colmes, who is about as effectual as the wooden puppet on Howdy Doody if you cut all the strings, is so far right wing they make William F Buckley Jr look liberal. Their reporting is also highly slanted to the right wing; there are numerous reports out there as to how Fox News runs its business, and how they produce their articles. Their reporters are heavily instructed in how to present stories and what to write in them, and all of the senior people in both the news divisions and in senior management are vetted for their conservative leanings before they're hired, they actually get questioned on that during interviews, and they simply don't hire anyone who's moderate or leftist.

I don't watch any of the talking shows on CNN, or any other news channel for that matter, simply because I am not interested in their opinions or personal spins on a situation, I'm interested in the raw news. Thus, I watch the far-more straight news feeds of something like CNN's Headline News channel far more often than I watch the parent CNN channel. I can interpret news myself, thank you, I don't need someone like Bill O'Reilly or Wolf Blitzer predigesting it for me.

-Arlos

Funny how, with Bush inheriting a failing economy from the Clinton administration, unemployment rates in the U.S. are now at an all-time low. Pretty good turnaround from the economic recession and mess Clinton got us into with HIS party's politics.

Mindia wrote:Funny how, with Bush inheriting a failing economy from the Clinton administration, unemployment rates in the U.S. are now at an all-time low. Pretty good turnaround from the economic recession and mess Clinton got us into with HIS party's politics.

You get that from Fox News, chief?

And how much of that employment is at defense industries, who only have all the extra money because of the massive deficit spending? How much of the employment is at places like Wal-Mart, which are dead-end jobs with no real future? What percentage of the new jobs are at minimum wage or close, compared to the job creation and growth during Clinton's years?

Looking at raw employment numberrs tells you very little. You need to look at the KIND of jobs, the wages they're paying, whether or not those jobs have a real career track, etc. etc. etc. I repeat my previous statistic: In 2005, wage growth was a full percentage point below the inflation rate. So even people fully employed for the entire year likely saw their purchasing power go DOWN, not up.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:Mindia, of course individual talking heads are going to be biased, because they're individuals presenting their own opinion. Every single talking head at Fox, with the exception of Colmes, who is about as effectual as the wooden puppet on Howdy Doody if you cut all the strings, is so far right wing they make William F Buckley Jr look liberal. Their reporting is also highly slanted to the right wing; there are numerous reports out there as to how Fox News runs its business, and how they produce their articles. Their reporters are heavily instructed in how to present stories and what to write in them, and all of the senior people in both the news divisions and in senior management are vetted for their conservative leanings before they're hired, they actually get questioned on that during interviews, and they simply don't hire anyone who's moderate or leftist.

I don't watch any of the talking shows on CNN, or any other news channel for that matter, simply because I am not interested in their opinions or personal spins on a situation, I'm interested in the raw news. Thus, I watch the far-more straight news feeds of something like CNN's Headline News channel far more often than I watch the parent CNN channel. I can interpret news myself, thank you, I don't need someone like Bill O'Reilly or Wolf Blitzer predigesting it for me.

-Arlos

What you're talking about here is pure leftist speculation and propaganda. I'd like to see actual proof of some of these claims. And as far O' Reilly is concerned, I don't agree with him all the time, but *most* of the time I do. On top of that, he's very entertaining. That's why he has one of the highest-rated news analysis shows out there.

Zanchief wrote:

Mindia wrote:Funny how, with Bush inheriting a failing economy from the Clinton administration, unemployment rates in the U.S. are now at an all-time low. Pretty good turnaround from the economic recession and mess Clinton got us into with HIS party's politics.

You get that from Fox News, chief?

Ever heard of the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics?

http://www.bls.gov/lau/#data

arlos wrote:And how much of that employment is at defense industries, who only have all the extra money because of the massive deficit spending? How much of the employment is at places like Wal-Mart, which are dead-end jobs with no real future? What percentage of the new jobs are at minimum wage or close, compared to the job creation and growth during Clinton's years?

Looking at raw employment numberrs tells you very little. You need to look at the KIND of jobs, the wages they're paying, whether or not those jobs have a real career track, etc. etc. etc. I repeat my previous statistic: In 2005, wage growth was a full percentage point below the inflation rate. So even people fully employed for the entire year likely saw their purchasing power go DOWN, not up.

-Arlos

I don't need to look at all that spin. The overall unemployment numbers are lower now than under Clinton, period. Any "yeah, but" comments are trivial and insignificant.

Maybe I should start following politics. You guys are going waaay over my head.

Jay wrote:Maybe I should start following politics. You guys are going waaay over my head.

Just start watching FOX News, or going to Foxnews.com on a regular basis. Pretty soon you will become attuned to the political arena. However, I recommend listening to Michael Savage from 3-6 pacific time. He's the most brilliant man I've ever heard grace the airwaves. You can go to http://www.michaelsavage.com and find out which station in your area carries him.

I'd like to see actual proof of some of these claims.

Well, there's a nice catch-22. You've already said you'll only believe news published by Fox news, and Fox news isn't about to publish a article on hwo they only hire conservatives into any sort of management position, now are they?

As for O'Reilly, he's a douchebag. Always has been a douchebag, always will be a doucheag. Same thing with Rush, who is worse, a hypocritical douchebag. (Remember his ranting about anyone who abuses drugs illegally should be locked up and have the key thrown away, while at the same time he's abusing drugs illegally?)

I repeat: I have no interest in anyone telling me what their opinion is of the news. I want the news itself, so I can form my *OWN* opinion, I don't need or want my opinion fed to me by some talking head with a 3000 dollar suit and 3 cent brain, and that applies equally to BOTH sides. I don't listen to Air America for the exact same reason, though I'm far closer politically to Al Franken than I am to anyone at Fox. It's still someone interpreting the news for me, and that's exactly what I don't want.

-Arlos

I don't know politics at all but I like Al Franken and Bill Maher more than Bill O`Reilly on an entertaining level. Also, the stuff the earlier 2 say makes much more sense. Does that mean I'm a democrat or something? All the tests and stuff that I take say I'm a centrist which makes sense for your typical money grubbing corporate asian guy.

arlos wrote:

I'd like to see actual proof of some of these claims.

Well, there's a nice catch-22. You've already said you'll only believe news published by Fox news, and Fox news isn't about to publish a article on hwo they only hire conservatives into any sort of management position, now are they?

As for O'Reilly, he's a douchebag. Always has been a douchebag, always will be a doucheag. Same thing with Rush, who is worse, a hypocritical douchebag. (Remember his ranting about anyone who abuses drugs illegally should be locked up and have the key thrown away, while at the same time he's abusing drugs illegally?)

I repeat: I have no interest in anyone telling me what their opinion is of the news. I want the news itself, so I can form my *OWN* opinion, I don't need or want my opinion fed to me by some talking head with a 3000 dollar suit and 3 cent brain, and that applies equally to BOTH sides. I don't listen to Air America for the exact same reason, though I'm far closer politically to Al Franken than I am to anyone at Fox. It's still someone interpreting the news for me, and that's exactly what I don't want.

-Arlos

I can't stand Rush anymore. I liked him 10 years ago, but now he's just a self-engrossed, arrogant shoeshine boy for Bush. O' Reilly is much better, imo. And I can't stand Al Franken either. Big surprise there. I don't see how you can call O' Reilly a "douche-bag" really. He's tough on both sides of the fence. He asks the hard questions and he doesn't accept spin from either side. Maybe he tends to lean a little bit to the right, but he's pretty objective on the whole.

I don't need to look at all that spin. The overall unemployment numbers are lower now than under Clinton, period. Any "yeah, but" comments are trivial and insignificant.

Insignificant, huh? Sorry, I don't think it's insignificant when people with advanced technical degrees have to work at Taco Bell because they can't find jobs commensurate with their education and experience. I don't think it's insignificant when the richest 5% are making out hand over fist, and the buying power of everyone else in the country is actually going DOWN. I don't consider it insignificant when most of the jobs are dead end service jobs with no potential for advancement, because it means people aren't going to stay there very long, but without job growth in REAL jobs, people are just going to jump from one such job to another, and never be able to climb up the wealth ladder to middle class or higher. I don't consider it insignificant that the job growh pattern is further and further eroding the middle class, creating an increased situation of Haves and Have Nots.

I most ESPECIALLY don't think it's insignificant if many of the REAL jobs being created are solely there because of massive deficit spending on defense and thus inreased hiring by defense contractors. As soon as the spending drops, which it has to eventually, those jobs go away.

Looking strictly at the raw employment numbers is to be willfully blind to the real situation in the country. They do not present anything even close to an accurate picture of what is going on. You *MUST* look at all of the factors, just as in any other issue.

-Arlos

Jay wrote:I don't know politics at all but I like Al Franken and Bill Maher more than Bill O`Reilly on an entertaining level. Also, the stuff the earlier 2 say makes much more sense. Does that mean I'm a democrat or something? All the tests and stuff that I take say I'm a centrist which makes sense for your typical money grubbing corporate asian guy.

Well that's the thing about Al Franken and Bill Maher... they are there for entertainment value, and can't be taken seriously. O' Reilly is there first and foremost for being taken seriously, and he's entertaining as a secondary point.

Jon Voight is totally to the right and when Jon was on the show him and Bill O`Reilly were like Ed and Johnny and totally agreeing with everything each person said. They were like old golf buddies on there.

This thread amuses me.

Sorry, gentlemen, this bait is too weak to tempt me.

arlos wrote:

I don't need to look at all that spin. The overall unemployment numbers are lower now than under Clinton, period. Any "yeah, but" comments are trivial and insignificant.

Insignificant, huh? Sorry, I don't think it's insignificant when people with advanced technical degrees have to work at Taco Bell because they can't find jobs commensurate with their education and experience. I don't think it's insignificant when the richest 5% are making out hand over fist, and the buying power of everyone else in the country is actually going DOWN. I don't consider it insignificant when most of the jobs are dead end service jobs with no potential for advancement, because it means people aren't going to stay there very long, but without job growth in REAL jobs, people are just going to jump from one such job to another, and never be able to climb up the wealth ladder to middle class or higher. I don't consider it insignificant that the job growh pattern is further and further eroding the middle class, creating an increased situation of Haves and Have Nots.

I most ESPECIALLY don't think it's insignificant if many of the REAL jobs being created are solely there because of massive deficit spending on defense and thus inreased hiring by defense contractors. As soon as the spending drops, which it has to eventually, those jobs go away.

Looking strictly at the raw employment numbers is to be willfully blind to the real situation in the country. They do not present anything even close to an accurate picture of what is going on. You *MUST* look at all of the factors, just as in any other issue.

-Arlos

Hey man, I don't like how many of the technological jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries, but that doesn't mean that Joe Blow with a Master's degree has to bend tacos for a living. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. That means you expand your education and skill set. If you have a Master's degree in computer science, and you've been a software engineer for 5 years, and all of a sudden jobs are getting scarce... then it's time to go back to school and learn additional skills. You can get a student loan if you don't have the cash.

I'll tell you what is hot right now, and is predicted to be hot in the future, is the medical field. I'm going back to school in the fall to take Chemistry, Bio, and A&P. Physician's Assistants, Nurses, Radiologists, etc. all make bank, and you can learn all that in 2 years if you already have your general ed out of the way.

For you technical people, a great place to find a job is at http://www.dice.com.

Martrae wrote:This thread amuses me.

Sorry, gentlemen, this bait is too weak to tempt me.

C'mon Martrae, jump in... the water's fine!

Jay wrote:Jon Voight is totally to the right and when Jon was on the show him and Bill O`Reilly were like Ed and Johnny and totally agreeing with everything each person said. They were like old golf buddies on there.

Jon Voight has a hot daughter.

It's not just computer science people though, Mindia. It's across the board. Look at the statistics, the amount of under-employment these days is staggering. Seriously, look at the stats on the jobs created under Bush, and look at how high a percent are in dead-end jobs with no future and low wages. Then, compare those 2 sets of stats to the job growth numbers during Clinton's terms. They're night and day.

And yes, I know about Dice. My resume is up on Dice right now, and has been for a long time. Hell, I even posted it here once, after stripping out my personal information. Not to mention, I'm already doing what you suggested: I'm back in school to get the degree I didn't get my first time around. I agree with the growth of the medical and biotech fields as well. My concentration of study for my CS degree is actually going to be Bioinformatics, which is a new field, and rather hardcore, and involves working with and manipulating genetic databases, in support of research. Basically, research teams at places like Genentech will have a bioinformaticist in each research group. We'll see what jobs there are for when I finish the BS, but it's entirely possible I'll need to go on and get a PhD in the field to be able to find real work, and there's not too many places that offer advanced degree programs in the field, except for major name institutions like Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Cornell, Princeton, etc.

All things being equal, though, I'd much rather be working.

-Arlos