Beef, have you been in the oval office with Clinton a few too many times?

I am not saying that Saddam gone is a bad thing. At least some good has come of this war. I am saying that the reasons we went over there in the first place were faulty (WMD' s and ties to 9/11). It is very embarrassing, as everyone else in the world knows we had false intelligence now as well. They also know that the CIA and FBI did/do not cooperate with each other and share info and work together as they should. Kerry really does not impress me, I' ll admit. But for right now, he is the lesser of two evils and at least represents that the country wants to change (and it needs to).

Hater of Alleys (and gays), why are you attracted to so called " hot girls" ? What makes hot girls more attractive to you than say, chunky girls? Did you just sit down one day and think " Hmmm... I think I will like thin girls with blonde hair, etc... and I choose not to be attracted to chunky girls" . They' re both girls. Can you control who or what you are attracted to? Or do you just go with what comes naturally to you? People who don' t know much about homosexuality are usually the ones who believe that people just somehow choose to be attracted to members of the same sex... just for fun or something. Oh by the way, homosexual behavior has indeed been observed in most animal communities.

Bush wants to " turn the corner" too. Both competitors are representing change. As for the US reputation under the eyes of the rest of the world, I agree we are an embarassing factor. The same embarassment would be inflicted to any country in a war such as Iraq. Who would' nt think you' re crazy fighting hit-and-run terrorists, fighting an entire NETWORK of terror (ie Iran, Syria, Afghanistan), suffering sudden death?... Bush acted on CIA/FBI intelligence, if anything' s faulty, it' s them, not Bush. What if the CIA and the FBI gave Kerry faulty intelligence that he' s in danger of WMD' s? Wouldn' t he act upon it and suffer what the country is enduring now?

Gay animals have been found to be mentally retarded which is the reason for their behavior.

I agree it sucks that our WMD stuff was bullsh*t, though actually it' s a good thing because if they had it they would have probably used it. We did find weapons they weren' t supposed to have however so they were still defying the UN.

right. we' re tuned to fox news. yep, because we all know that they are a conservative news group because they dont bash Bush. ever notice they dont bash Kerry either. thats called unbiased journalism, something the liberal media apparently doesnt know about. you need to be educated about the things you talk about, and that means not getting your information on a subject from one particular group, wheither it te liberal media, fox news, or rush limbaugh (sp?). just be educated. your smart Beef but you need to listen to everybody and form your own opinion and not let the media or some political party make up your mind for you.

your numbers from CNN (liberal media ;) ). that is a boom in the economy! the very fact that people were out of jobs shows that the economy was down. your numbers mean this- of the total 5,300,000 people out of a job

-3,445,000 (65%) found jobs
-1,060,000 (20%) are unemployed
-795,000 (15%) are out of the work force entirely

now since you dont understand economics let me explain this to you, that 15% that is not even working is not factored into the unemloyment rate or anything because they have no real effect on the economy. so the percetages given were actually wrong, thats a spin the liberal media will put on these things. did the article even mention how many of that 15% were retired people?
so the new numbers would actually be this, of the total 4,505,000 people in the work force
-76% (3,445,000) found jobs
-23% (1,060,000) are unemployed
so roughly 1/3 of the people who lost jobs are now unemployed, that is a huge increase. and the fact that the jobs are lower paying is because these people were hired when the economy was down. you can hire someone for less when the economy is down because things cost less. now that the economy is back up it is those peoples perogatives to go and find themselves a better paying job. the government brought the economy back to a standard we want now it is those peoples responsibility to survive in this economy.

Bush is nervous when he speaks, are you telling me that if you had to speak to millions of people live that you wouldnt mess stuff up? i think you would.

there are no ties between Iraq and 9/11, this is true, however terrorism and 9/11 are not synonomous. 9/11 was an act of terrorism but that doesnt mean that every terrorist faction in the world had a hand in it. there are terrorists in Iraq.

how is Bush bad for his people? how is he bad for society? at least he doesnt lie through his teeth like Kerry. are you telling me you actually want to vote a man into office who lies outright to your face? what kind of society would it be if your president was ok with lying, to you, whom his power is derived from. when you vote for someone on this scale you are essentially giving him power over your life. do you want some one in charge of your life that will lie to you about it just to have his way?

what? our allies didnt want us to go to war? WELL WHY THE HELL ARE THEY OUR ALLIES ANYWAY!? 40 nations! 40! they are all on our side. if by " allies" you mean france and germany, then i dont really see the point anyway, how are they going to help us? send us croissants and the red baron to come help us?

you are assuming that those " young americans with a right to life" dont want to be in the service. guess what, this isnt Nam, there is no draft. anyone in the military is there of their own free will. THEY WANT TO FIGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY! they knew exactly what they were in for when the signed up. these people signed up to protect america and Bush has the responsibility to use them to protect america. using the deaths of these heros to strike out in a political way is horrible. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF! HOW DARE YOU TAKE THE HONOR OF THESE PEOPLE AND TRAMPLE ON IT BY ASSUMING THEY WERE DUPPED INTO MILITARY SERVICE!

Do you honestly believe that Bush, or any other president in history, tells the truth all of the time? NO WAY!

Bush is truthful enough (if not entirely). He did admit to faulty intelligence and he takes questions headon, unlike flip flop horse guy.

i never said Bush doesnt lie. never said it. i said Kerry lies through his teeth.

Call911 - get a decaf.

First of all, I read all sources of information: CNN, FOXNews, BBC, MSNBC, and the 9/11 Commission (bipartisan). Just because the thing that I posted was from CNN doesn' t mean that other news sources didn' t pick it. Come on Call911, you are smarter than that. Did you not read my entire post:

From January 2001 through December 2003, 5.3 million long-tenured workers were displaced from full-time or part-time jobs they had held at least three years, according to a new report released Friday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Yeah, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics is a partisan newsource.

Also, you are misreading the " out of the labor force number" . A percentage of that number could be retirees, but a portion can also be people who cannot find work and have not looked within the last 4 weeks. If you become discouraged by not being able to find a job, you are considered " out of the labor force" , even though you still want a job.

Those military service commercials used to portray joining the Army or Navy as a high-intensity camp. Very rarely do they actually show the possibility of combat. Also, they are targeted at lower income people. You' ll see more people praying for the safe return of the troops in the hood than in the suburbs.

I am not stepping on the troops service or sacrifices. I support them and hope for their safe, quick return. I don' t support the conflict that they are in. There is a difference.

^ All public officials lie.

Bush takes questions head-on because he prescreens them.

oh whoop dee do. yeah, you call that all sources? theres 1 unbiased news source in there and the rest is liberal media. well i guess that means your tuned to your superiors and spouting their filth. rest assured that i read ALL of your posts. you just dont understand things and quote stupid stuff.

i was not implying that all the people out of the labor force were retired, dont misconstue what i say. i am well aware of what the " out of labor force number" is. you however are apparently not. let me explain. you said

" If you become discouraged by not being able to find a job, you are considered " out of the labor force" , even though you still want a job."

if you become discouraged you are not considered out of the labor force, you are considered discouraged. like wise if you say stupid things like " if you become discouraged you are considered out of the labor force" , you will be considered stupid.

now, i' ve had some fun so let me explain something. CNN placing the statistic about how many people were out of the labor force is exceedingly dumb. the fact that people arent working has nothing to do with the state of the economy.

how many people actually go and join the military because of those commercials? practically none. not only that but if you are in the armed forces you know that you will have to fight if your country goes to war. the army fights to protect our country. people die in the military. EVERYONE knows this. to assume that someone would join the army thinking that its like camp would have to mean your dumber than bread.

you believe in their sacrifices but not in the war they are in. thats still just as bad. these people sacrificed themselves for something they believed in, if you dont belive in this war you are effectively saying that these people were wrong in their beliefs and died in vain.

Fox News is liberal media? You said one source was unbiased, and that surely can' t be FOX News. So I am assuming you think they are liberal. Whatever.

You also assume that all troops support this war with irrational comments like:

if you dont belive in this war you are effectively saying that these people were wrong in their beliefs and died in vain.

It is a fact that many troops do not support the reasons for this war. But they are in the service, and when you are in the service you follow orders.

You seem to be getting very defensive, Call911. Using phrases like " Oh whoop dee do" and insinuating that anyone who does not share your views is " dumber than bread" . These comments alone subtract from any credibility your post may have. It' s like a child who starts crying when he can' t have his latest Tinky-winky Teletubby. You' re less likely to listen to that kid' s reasoning when he starts with the badmouthing.

Good post, Joe.

The whole point of a thread and a forum is to get different views and discuss them. If you are not mature enough to accept a difference of opinion - then you need to speak only to the mirror.

I said that I read 4 news sources. CNN and MSN are considered liberal, the BBC is regarded as being down the middle, and Fox News is considered conservative. If that is not a balance, then I don' t know what is. And the stats that I gave were from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. If that is biases, it is conservatively biased because that is President that they work for now.

About being out of the labor force. If someone looks for a job and can' t find one for months, they could become discouraged and not look any longer. These people may go back to school, become home makers, volunteer, etc. But they are not all retirees. They are people who were working and lost their jobs and because the economy isn' t strong enough to provide more opportunities, they stopped looking.

CNN placing the statistic about how many people were out of the labor force is exceedingly dumb. the fact that people arent working has nothing to do with the state of the economy.

You calling other people dumb and then say this is very dumb. How can you say that people who aren' t working doesn' t have an effect on the economy? If they aren' t working, they aren' t making money to buy things. A large percentage of the economy is consumer spending. If you don' t have money to spend, you can' t spend.

You can support troops, but not support the war. Most people who protest the war feel this way. They don' t want their countrymen to die, but they think the reason that they are fighting is not a worthy cause.

alrighty i am now at least 5 IQ points lower for reading both your posts. so that makes what, umm, 80 more posts for you and then we' re on a level playing field.
now,

If that is biases, it is conservatively biased because that is President that they work for now.

WTH are you talking about?!

Joe-
when did i say Fow News was liberal? when? never. you cant find it. i never said it. they are definately unbiased.

i defy you to find a news article on fox news that is biased. do it, then, if and only if you' ve done that, then you can speak to me again.

oh im sorry, im defensive? i think your mixing up defensive and annoyed. i get annoyed at people that dont understand stuff. like Beef. and now you' ve brought yourself under the target reticle, so to speak. your post makes it evident to me that you either
a) didnt read my post
b) didnt understand my post
c) or you are deliberately taking what i said out of context
something you need to understand is that i am straight forward if you try to read into what i say too much you will miss the point. i insinuate nothing.

now why am i annoyed? i am annoyed because despite my best efforts to enlighten Beef as to how the economy actually works he insists on sitting there in closed minded ignorance.

the phrase " whoop dee do" is a dismissal to Beefs earlier post that he gets his info from ALL news sources. 3 of the 4 actual news sources he had there are part of the liberal media.

now the " dumber than bread" thing i said you did quote it out of context. heres what i said

how many people actually go and join the military because of those commercials? practically none. not only that but if you are in the armed forces you know that you will have to fight if your country goes to war. the army fights to protect our country. people die in the military. EVERYONE knows this. to assume that someone would join the army thinking that its like camp would have to mean your dumber than bread.

see, maybe its just me but i dont understand why you would join the army and expect NOT to have to fight for your country at some point. if you join the army you fight for your country and there is the distinct possibility that you might die. that is the way it has worked since man first thought up war. now to assume that someone is stupid enough to be tricked by a commercial, and think that the army is some sort of camp is just so incromprehensibly dumb that... you know what, nevermind. im afraid if think about that too hard i might get a nose bleed.

now if your not going to quote or read my posts properly and then twist my own words and try to bash me for it, then please just dont respond to me at all.

p.s.- my deepest condolences on you not getting your " Tinky-winky Teletubby" . whatever that may be.

Beef,
you can have a difference of opinion all you want, i have no problem what so ever with that. my problem is that you dont understand the fundamentals on which you based your opinon on. i am trying to help you by informing you, so that you can form a better opinion. i dont really care what opinion you come to as long as you are informed about it. and i dont mean by just the news.

I said that I read 4 news sources. CNN and MSN are considered liberal, the BBC is regarded as being down the middle, and Fox News is considered conservative.

who thinks this? since when is BBC down the middle and Fow news conservative. i issue the same challenge to you as i did to Joe. find me a news article from fox news that is biased. show me that and i will apologize and say that you were correct.

now,
you said this-

And the stats that I gave were from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

but you did get the stats from the report from the USBLS, or did you get them from an article written by CNN?

earlier, in the post you had these stats in you said this

His tax breaks are helping the economy? Here are excerpts from a CNN article published today:

" From January 2001 through December 2003, 5.3 million long-tenured workers were displaced from full-time or part-time jobs they had held at least three years, according to a new report released Friday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "

" ...65 percent had found either full-time or part-time work by January of this year, when the BLS survey was conducted. Another 20 percent were still unemployed and 15 percent were not in the labor force..."

" But 57 percent of the group who had lost full-time jobs and found new full-time work reported that they were now earning less than what they earned in their old jobs. Indeed, about one-third of those with smaller paychecks were being paid at least 20 percent less"

now have you actually seen this report? did you write this article for CNN using that report? i dont think you did. i dont doubt that this report exists or that those numbers are in it. i am saying that CNN probably wrote the article to portray things the way they wanted you to see them.

You calling other people dumb and then say this is very dumb. How can you say that people who aren' t working doesn' t have an effect on the economy? If they aren' t working, they aren' t making money to buy things. A large percentage of the economy is consumer spending. If you don' t have money to spend, you can' t spend.

see this here actually gives me hope for you Beef. it is true that if you dont have money you cant spend money. very good, at least you' ve caught onto something. however the number of people not spending money is negligable. there arent enough people not spending money for it to adversaly affect the economy very much. besides not all those people dont have money. if they were working and now arent they can get welfare, and if they' re retired then they dont need welfare because they have enough money saved up and they spend money too.

i defy you to find a news article on fox news that is biased. do it, then, if and only if you' ve done that, then you can speak to me again.

Due to the " reward" involved, I certainly shall not even attempt to visit Fox news.com or watch their television show.

Hey Call911,

Here is the article from the biased US Bureau of Labor Statistics. They took the text almost verbatim from it. Actually, when you read the whole thing, it makes it sound like Bush is doing a worse job. Maybe the biased CNN or MSNBC planted it there. Or maybe I wrote it. So that I can impress idiots like you.

Here is the link: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disp.nr0.htm

Cover your bases before you talk $hi+

Displaced Workers Summary


Technical information: (202) 691-6378 USDL 04-1381
http://www.bls.gov/cps/
For release: 10:00 A.M. EDT
Media contact: 691-5902 Friday, July 30, 2004



WORKER DISPLACEMENT, 2001-03


During the January 2001 through December 2003 period, 5.3 million
workers were displaced from jobs they had held for at least 3 years, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.
The number of displaced workers increased from 4.0 million in the previous
survey that covered the period from January 1999 through December 2001.

Since 1984, the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S.
Department of Labor has sponsored surveys that collect information on
workers who were displaced from their jobs. These surveys have been
conducted biennially as supplements to the Current Population Survey
(CPS), a monthly survey of households that is the primary source of
information on the nation' s labor force.

Displaced workers are defined as persons 20 years of age and older who
lost or left jobs because their plant or company closed or moved, there was
insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift was abolished.
The period covered in this study was 2001-03, the 3 calendar years prior to
the January 2004 survey date. The following analysis focuses primarily on
the 5.3 million persons who had worked for their employer for 3 or more
years at the time of displacement (referred to as long-tenured). An
additional 6.1 million persons were displaced from jobs they had held for
less than 3 years (referred to as short-tenured). Combining the short- and
long-tenured groups, the number of displaced workers totaled 11.4 million,
up from 10.1 million (as revised) in the prior survey. (See Technical Note.)
Results from the January 2004 survey included the following highlights:

-- About 65 percent of the long-tenured displaced were reemployed at the
time of the survey.

-- Forty-three percent of long-tenured displaced workers cited plant or
company closings or moves as the reason for their displacement.

-- Forty-three percent of displaced workers who had worked for their
employer for 3 or more years had received written advance notification
that their jobs would be terminated. Those who had received advance
notice, however, were no more likely to be reemployed in January 2004
than were those who had not been notified.

-- Nearly one-third of long-tenured displaced workers lost jobs in
manufacturing.


-- Fifty-seven percent of long-tenured workers who were displaced from
full-time wage and salary jobs and who were reemployed in such jobs
had earnings that were lower than those on the lost job. About
one-third experienced earnings losses of 20 percent or more.

- 2 -

Characteristics of the Reemployed

About 65 percent of the 5.3 million long-tenured displaced workers were
reemployed when surveyed in January 2004. The proportion unemployed at the
time of the survey was 20 percent. The remaining 15 percent of long-tenured
displaced workers were not in the labor force. (See table 1.)

In January 2004, reemployment rates for workers ages 20 to 24 and those
in the central-age group (ages 25 to 54) were 65 and 69 percent, respectively.
By comparison, reemployment rates were lower for older workers ages 55 to 64
(56 percent) and 65 years and older (24 percent). Large proportions of older
displaced workers were not in the labor force when surveyed.

In January 2004, 68 percent of men were reemployed, compared with 61 per-
cent of women. Men and women had about an equal likelihood of being unem-
ployed, but the share of displaced women who had left the labor force, at
nearly 20 percent, was higher than that for men--nearly 12 percent.

In January 2004, reemployment rates were similar across race and ethnic
groups--whites (66 percent), blacks (62 percent), Asians (63 percent), and
Hispanics or Latinos (65 percent).

Due to the " reward" involved, I certainly shall not even attempt to visit Fox news.com or watch their television show.

A rose by any other name smells as sweet... but let' s see if I can' t call your bluff. You find a biased news article from FoxNews -- that' s a news article, not opinion, commentary, or debate -- and I think I speak for everyone on this side of the issue that we' ll accept your interpretation of what news agencies are biased which ways as the correct and valid read on how the talking heads are leaning.

Beef,

I' d like to point out one immenent flaw in your logic, if I may. You assume that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is biased, by virtue of the fact that they are an agency of the executive branch of the government, just like any government office that is not a courthouse.

If you look at what is really the case, you' ll notice that the people in charge of the BLS are the same ones who were in charge under the Clinton administration. Was the group biased then? If so, are they really so fickle as to flip-flop their beliefs along with changes in administrations?

As I am just joining this conversation, I' d like to point out some realities (pardon me if I am repeating some already stated - I' d rather not go back and read all of the lengthy posts):

1) The unemployment rate right now is 5.5%. The unemployment rate when Clinton was re-elected in 1996 was 5.7%... and everyone was raving about how well the economy was doing. In fact, that was the Democratic Party' s semi-unspoken slogan in both 1992 and 1996: " It' s the economy, stupid."

2) The top 1% of wage-earners in America pay earn 6% of the national income, but pay 10% of the tax dollars that make it to the government - and that' s after their " unfair" tax shelters and breaks.

3) The top 50% of wage-earners in America pay 96% of the taxes - again, that' s dollars counted at the bottom line, after all tax breaks and adjustments.

4) " Tax breaks" given to the bottom 50% of wage-earners through the Bush tax cuts well exceeded 4% of all the tax dollars " refunded." If you' re any good at math, you realize that that means many of the people in that category ended up being " refunded" money they never paid.

5) There are two ways to give tax breaks - to the suppliers, or to the demanders. Generally, this is analagus to either the richer or the poorer.

If you give money to the lower group of wage-earners, they spend more of it, giving the economy a more immediate boost in terms of GDP, however, this boost is short-lived, as for as soon as the money stops being given them, they obviously stop spending the additional amount they no longer have.

However, if you give tax breaks to the upper group of wage earners, indeed, they spend less on final goods immediately, but instead save more of the money in the form of investment - which builds what we call " capital," or the ability to produce - a permanent enhancement to the economy that shifts not current aggregate demand, but long-term aggregate supply - also known as the economy' s " potential output."

Both types have their place, but as the economy was originally sufferring from what was mostly a supply-side issue (oil, specifically, as well as manufacturing will to produce), the latter made far more sense in the case of the recession of 2001 (which lasted only two months, btw... check the definition of a recession in whatever economics books you have lying around).

I see Fox News as unbiased as Call911 sees it. I see both sides gettting bashed and equally mentioned at every campaign trail stop. The whole reason the economy is getting bashed is because of the war. Face it, war costs money, thus affecting the whole country. War in the Middle East runs across problems with the oil industry and that' s only a factor of the war that' s causing more Bush-bashing. It' s actually a good thing that we went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, crunching down on some terrorist activity. Kerry could' ve gone to war with them too with faulty intelligence, and he did say he' d " fight a more effective war." More effective= less lives lost but more money, whoop de doo. On the other hand, if Kerry backed down on terrorism, more of it would come because they' d think we' d back down again, so Kerry' d eventually go to war, LATE! To sum it up, Kerry would delay the inevitable, allowing terrorism to grow and us to slow. And with the history of Kerry, Bush is more straight-forward. So who would be a better president?

Neither! I wish we had better choices on both sides.