Page 3 of 4
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:30 pm
by Yamori
I sort of stopped bothering paying much attention to O'reilly when I saw him talking to Newt Gingrich at the Republican convention:
Bill: A major criticism of Kerry here today is his vote against a bill that would give more armor to troops in Iraq. But isn't it the case that congressional bills are very large and have numerous agendas, and he was simply voting against the bill in its entirity?
Newt: No, I don't think so.
Bill: Well, alright.
-
For someone who is alledgedly supposed to be hard hitting and objective - that was pretty weaksauce not to call someone on their obvious bullshit.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:46 pm
by Tacks
I've never once actually seen an original idea from Mindia. He's the perfect definition of a sheep. I don't think the guy could think for himself if his life depended on it. What would you ever do if you didn't have written words to follow your entire life's existance after?
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:05 pm
by Narrock
Tacks wrote:I've never once actually seen an original idea from Mindia. He's the perfect definition of a sheep. I don't think the guy could think for himself if his life depended on it. What would you ever do if you didn't have written words to follow your entire life's existance after?
Oh, where to begin... poor, poor Taxx. Let me ask you something. What is it that makes you think that you're such an independent thinker with no influence from leftist, right-wing, or any other social ideology? By your assertion, anybody who agrees with
any political platform is a sheep, thereby calling yourself a sheep. Oh what a tangled web we weave (-Vonkaar, c. 2004)...
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:19 pm
by Narrock
arlos wrote: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
Again, across-the-board unemployment numbers are lower now than under the Clinton administration. I will agree with you though that there's still a major employment problem that needs to be rectified (yesterday), including the outsourcing tragedy that's occurring. What would you have Bush do in this regard at this point in time? I know that question opens the door to wise-cracks, but I'm being serious.
On a side note, I think you're making a wise decision with your career goal. I don't know what salary expecations are in your particular field but I know that in the Sacramento area, nurses make about $50/hr. on a regular, full-time basis. Radiologic Technicians (formerly "X-Ray Techs") make about $36/hr. on average in the Sac. area. It's too bad you
have to make that kind of wage to make a comfortable living in California. I just hope the market doesn't get saturated with Allied health graduates in a couple years.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:41 pm
by Tacks
Mindia wrote:Tacks wrote:I've never once actually seen an original idea from Mindia. He's the perfect definition of a sheep. I don't think the guy could think for himself if his life depended on it. What would you ever do if you didn't have written words to follow your entire life's existance after?
Oh, where to begin... poor, poor Taxx. Let me ask you something. What is it that makes you think that you're such an independent thinker with no influence from leftist, right-wing, or any other social ideology? By your assertion, anybody who agrees with
any political platform is a sheep, thereby calling yourself a sheep. Oh what a tangled web we weave (-Vonkaar, c. 2004)...
Read any posts whatsoever over the past 5 years here that have dealt with anything political in the least. Then go and read your posts and notice the same idiotic sheep-like answers and mentality that are prevalent all throughout your posts. Of course YOU would never do that because in that fucked up head of yours you are NEVER wrong. Just remember, everyone else is laughing at you, not with you.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:46 pm
by Narrock
Tacks wrote:Mindia wrote:Tacks wrote:I've never once actually seen an original idea from Mindia. He's the perfect definition of a sheep. I don't think the guy could think for himself if his life depended on it. What would you ever do if you didn't have written words to follow your entire life's existance after?
Oh, where to begin... poor, poor Taxx. Let me ask you something. What is it that makes you think that you're such an independent thinker with no influence from leftist, right-wing, or any other social ideology? By your assertion, anybody who agrees with
any political platform is a sheep, thereby calling yourself a sheep. Oh what a tangled web we weave (-Vonkaar, c. 2004)...
Read any posts whatsoever over the past 5 years here that have dealt with anything political in the least. Then go and read your posts and notice the same idiotic sheep-like answers and mentality that are prevalent all throughout your posts. Of course YOU would never do that because in that fucked up head of yours you are NEVER wrong. Just remember, everyone else is laughing at you, not with you.
Keep telling yourself that
Let's see how deep you dig your burial hole...
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:54 pm
by Tacks
Of course YOU would never do that because in that fucked up head of yours you are NEVER wrong
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:07 pm
by Darcler
Mindia admitted "I fucked my 6 year old nephew once then confessed at church and got a handjob by the preacher, so yes I'm a huge flaming fagboat".
haha wtf
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:28 pm
by Narrock
Darcler wrote:Mindia admitted "I fucked my 6 year old nephew once then confessed at church and got a handjob by the preacher, so yes I'm a huge flaming fagboat".
haha wtf
He made that up because I made one up first. I have since deleted mine though.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:09 pm
by Sorina S
It makes me /shiver that you folk even bother to watch FOX NEWS...arrgghh...
OT: Enjoying your homecoming Min? heh rough crowd eh? Taxx is easy to defeat tho, just fein admiration and he wilts like 4 day old flowers. Carry on mate.
SS~
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:15 pm
by araby
I always read your location "right behind you!" and "gasp!" for a sec
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:27 pm
by Lyion
It's not like anyone here every changes their mind based on posts here.
Next year Arlos will be a far left liberal and Mindia will be a far right christian conservative.
Arlos will always see the bad in the Bush Administration. Mindia will usually defend it.
The only constant will be Taxx being a hypocrit.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:32 pm
by Narrock
Sorina S wrote:It makes me /shiver that you folk even bother to watch FOX NEWS...arrgghh...
OT: Enjoying your homecoming Min? heh rough crowd eh? Taxx is easy to defeat tho, just fein admiration and he wilts like 4 day old flowers. Carry on mate.
SS~
It's fun to pick on Taxx because he's such an easy target, although it isn't right... it's just fun.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:34 pm
by Narrock
lyion wrote:It's not like anyone here every changes their mind based on posts here.
Next year Arlos will be a far left liberal and Mindia will be a far right christian conservative.
Arlos will always see the bad in the Bush Administration. Mindia will usually defend it.
The only constant will be Taxx being a hypocrit.
My hats off to Arlos for not attacking me on a personal level. This is kinda fun now.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:34 pm
by Sorina S
lyion wrote:It's not like anyone here every changes their mind based on posts here.
Next year Arlos will be a far left liberal and Mindia will be a far right christian conservative.
yep, Same as it ever was. Taxx though, he's always had the thickest bone. Some folk just never change and that's not always a bad thing.
Oh Araby, see my icon? Right behind you isn't a place you might want me to be. ^,~
SS~
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:48 pm
by Harrison
Jay wrote:Maybe I should start following politics. You guys are going waaay over my head.
They're not even talking about specifics, they're just fighting.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:33 pm
by brinstar
uhh i disagree
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:03 pm
by Captain Insano
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
He makes a good case in this post.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:06 pm
by Captain Insano
arlos wrote:I'd like to see actual proof of some of these claims.
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
Arlos is owning this thread... I agree with the news comment. I don't know of one reliable American news source....well except for myself. You can always believe what I have to say as 100 percent unadulterated truth.
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:17 pm
by Sorina S
captain_insano wrote:Arlos is owning this thread... I agree with the news comment. I don't know of one reliable American news source....well except for myself. You can always believe what I have to say as 100 percent unadulterated truth.
ayup, problem is you been tossin out so many irrational trolls for so long that nobody really cares what you think. Welcome to my world.
SS~
Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:40 pm
by Narrock
Arlos said:
So even people fully employed for the entire year likely saw their purchasing power go DOWN, not up.
And that has to do with... what? That's right, the real estate market and cost of living. It's not Bush's fault that housing (including rent) went up thru the roof (no pun intended) the last couple of years. So, if your dollar doesn't go as far anymore as it did, say, 6 years ago, you cannot blame Bush for that. It has nothing to do with the current unemployment status in America. Unemployment figures are what they are.
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:10 am
by brinstar
Mindia wrote:Again, across-the-board unemployment numbers are lower now than under the Clinton administration.
Mindia wrote:So, if your dollar doesn't go as far anymore as it did, say, 6 years ago, you cannot blame Bush for that. It has nothing to do with the current unemployment status in America. Unemployment figures are what they are.
i'm sorry, i see a disparity here. if, as you say, Bush is immune from blame for the current unemployment rate, why is a comparison to the Clinton-era unemployment rate relevant at all? i am fighting the urge to assume that you are upholding a double standard, in that unfavorable unemployment rates are blameable on a president from one party, but not on the other-- but i would like to hear a better answer. either admit the irrelevance of Clinton-era unemployment figures in comparison to Bush-era unemployment figures, or admit that maybe unemployment figures DO have something to do with an administration's policies.
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:49 am
by Lueyen
I tend to view the majority of polls suspiciously no matter where they come from, while arguing their mathematics will generally lead you to believe their validity it is far to easy to get the answers you want, whatever your particular bias in the way you design the polls. What options you give for answers, the wording of questions, order of questions ect can all be setup to make the resulting responses bend toward whatever result those who create the poll desire.
Mindia you can not boil it all down to simply unemployment rate by it's self. You can reason that things like natural disasters, residual effects from previous administrations, world economy and a host of other things have an effect on the economy that make comparisons between various administrations weak. You can easily take it so far as to make excuses for some bad numbers based on significant unavoidable situations that are outside of everyone’s control.
I'll even take issue with Arlos dismissing the positive factor of low unemployment rate based on quality of new jobs. The bottom rungs of the work force are generally going to be the people raising the unemployment rate on a consistent basis. It is far easier to find a job that you are overqualified for then it is to find one you are under qualified for. Over the long haul it is not the skilled motivated people who are going to be the problem addressing unemployment unless the unemployment rate is significantly higher then it has been. If you want to decrease unemployment, you reach a point of saturation with higher quality jobs, because those are the jobs that will be filled up first generally by the most qualified people. It is the poorer skilled or less motivated people who are going to be the ones having a hard time finding employment over the long term in the vast majority of cases. Because of this, to decrease unemployment rates low skilled bleak or nonexistent future jobs become the necessity increase to put the lowest rung employees to work, the better qualified better performance employees will generally not remain unemployed for long as they have more options for work, even if that work is below their skill level.
That being said the following is to me a smoking gun, and pretty god dammed hard to argue with, it does tend to encapsulate and boil down to a simple tangible factor the general state and performance of the economy as a whole, with all the different aspects accounted for.
Arlos wrote:In 2005, wage growth was a full percentage point below the inflation rate.
That really does paint the most accurate broad clear picture right there, and is a bit of an eye opener for me personally mainly because it is in contrast to my personal experience, as my salary increase last year was well beyond cost of living increase and inflation, apparently the majority of workers were not as fortunate. Admittedly however I shouldn't be surprised I guess because over all in the company I work for my pay increase was the exception, as most peoples raises were right around cost of living increase.
Economy is in my opinion though is not the real reason Bush is losing ground on his support base, nor is it the war, nor is it his poor aptitude in speaking, these things supporters tend to be somewhat forgiving on if not in support of the results. Of course those who don't support him are not going to change their minds if things get even slightly worse or remain the same.
I think his views on handling illegal aliens, and the approach to curbing illegal immigration is really where he is losing his support base for the most part. Although surprisingly not given much attention on this board, this could be a key issue that will lose conservatives elections this next time around, provided liberals capitalize on that weakness.
Quite honestly I don't know that I would see it as a bad thing if conservatives lost elections due to liberals capitalizing on this issue, because any candidate that steps away from the hardened party lines regarding Iraq, and wins by successfully out maneuvering in the landmine filled political realm of illegal immigration, is going to have demonstrated some definite intelligence and ability as well as a good connection with the pulse of the people in my book.
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:14 am
by 10sun
Sorina S wrote:Oh Araby, see my icon? Right behind you isn't a place you might want me to be. ^,~
SS~
I heard she likes anal, so you might be mistaken! oh my!
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:14 am
by mappatazee
