According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 136,181,000 employed laborers 16 years of age while there were 6,647,000 unemployed workers when President Bush took office in January 2001. The unemployment rate was 4.7 percent. Currently there are 139,641,000 jobs for the work force over 16 years old and 7,545,000 unemployed workers. The unemployment rate in September was just 5.1 percent. This is a net gain of about 3.5 million jobs, but it does not take into account the growing population. Notice, however, that while the total number of jobs increased that the unemployment rate has increased 0.4 percentage point.

Unemployment rates at the end of first terms:

Carter 1980 - 7.1 percent

Reagan 1984 - 7.5 percent

Bush I 1992 - 6.8 percent

Clinton 1996 - 5.4 percent

Bush 2004 - 5.4 percent.

These figures are as meaningless as someone saying "its a nice day." Compared to what? Tornadoes? Snowstorms? Extreme heat?

How many of these people are getting more pay for less hours than their last job?

How many of these people are getting better medical benefits? retirement?

The actual figures are meaningless, lastly, because they (the figures) do not even reflect the changes in the PEOPLE WHO ARE NO LONGER EVEN COUNTED IN THE NUMBERS.

Simply, people who have been unemployed or otherwise uneligible for unemployment so long, that they are not counted.


The figures are meaningless for other reasons, not the least of which that since the last two or three administrations, the "rules" about how the figures are computed have changed.

Don't forget "who" is putting those figures out!!!

If the figures are meaningless why do we compile them? As to look at who is compiling them? I believe that is one of the functions of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I can't decide if you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. The net number of people entering the workforce averages about 125,000 per month. The unemployment figures only include those who have not yet exhausted their 26 weeks of unemployment benefits, beyond that the government has no indicator of how many are unemployed. factor these numbers into your idiotic statistics. I still think you are about 16 years old.

Shelly

I guess this information should give Pres. Bush one of the highest job approval ratings in modern history. As a result he should be retained in office by one of the largest margins ever in a presidential election.


Jim.

Huh? The numbers look the same as Clinton's to me. He sure didn't get the highest approval ratings.
Is that Democrat math again?

>Huh?

Since you replied to me I'll say it: It's Sarcasm - "Witty language used to convey insults or scorn".


>The numbers look the same as Clinton's to me. He sure
>didn't get the highest approval ratings.
>Is that Democrat math again?

Clinton left office with "unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president". Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

Pres. Bush won't ever be close. I hope we don't have to wait long to get his final rating.

Jim.

>
>Clinton left office with "unprecedented popular approval
>ratings for his job as president". Source:
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
>
>

I guess they forgot to ask me again.

Nightly Reader

>I guess they forgot to ask me again.

They forgot to ask me, too. But if they had asked both of us, the ratings wouldn't have changed.

Jim.

>>Huh?
>
>Since you replied to me I'll say it: It's Sarcasm - "Witty
>language used to convey insults or scorn".
>
>
>>The numbers look the same as Clinton's to me. He sure
>>didn't get the highest approval ratings.
>>Is that Democrat math again?
>
>Clinton left office with "unprecedented popular approval
>ratings for his job as president". Source:
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
>
>Pres. Bush won't ever be close. I hope we don't have to wait
>long to get his final rating.
>
>Jim.
>
>
There is no doubt that Clinton left office with a good overall record. I have yet to see anyone mention the fact that due to the high tech industry, primarily launched by Bill Gates during Clintons terms in office,contributed to economic growth, coupled with the high employment, which generated high tax revenue intake . And of course we must not forget that Al Gore invented the Internet, and also dont forget the tax increases under the Clinton Presidency, no George Bush will never enjoy the same things that Clinton did,unless another Bill Gates emerges ,with more high tech toys.Just my opinion of course.

Microsoft Windows XP Home
IE Explorer 7.0 2800 1106
330 Intel Celeron Processor
2.66 GHz
256K L2 Cache
533Mhz FSB-60 GB HD

Whoa doggies, that was one wonderful Democratic twist and flail

Somehow you turn, "he should be retained in office by one of the largest margins ever in a presidential election."
Which I used as a predictor of second term election numbers.
You turn that into the popularity of the president as he leaves office.

Let's stick to one thing here.
Clinton never received a huge majority of the popular vote. He certainly didn't EVER get over 50%. Where were those large margins?

As far as actual job approval ratings, Bush has the record there. Or have you forgotten everything about 9-11.

>As far as actual job approval ratings, Bush has the record
>there.

Pres. Bush didn't leave office after 9/11, nor has he left office yet. When he leaves office, he will not be as popular as Clinton was when he left office. Pres. Bush should be extremely pleased that the 22nd Amendment was enacted - but so should Kerry.

Jim.

Clinton wasn't "retained in office by one of the largest margins ever in a presidential election" after his second term either because of popularity. I think he was also popular after his first term and he failed to win with "one of the largest margins ever in a presidential election".

You're twisting
1, where you claim Bush should have one of the highest job approval ratings in modern history (although he already holds that record) because his job numbers are the same as Clinton's.
2, that a job approval rating means largest margins in an election.
3, that you are talking about job approval ratings after they left office.
4, that Clinton's approval ratings were about his unemployment numbers.

Fact, the numbers stated above are the EXACT same for both Clinton and Bush.
That fact alone kind of sinks your original post here.

Fact, as Shelly said, enemployment numbers now mean as little as they did when I lost my job under Clinton. Six months after I lost my job under Clinton I was no longer part of those numbers.
Without looking deeper into those numbers you can't tell what they mean.

>Clinton wasn't "retained in office by one of the largest
>margins ever in a presidential election" after his second
>term either because of popularity.

Of course he wasn't retained in office "after his second term". The 22nd amendment prohibits this.


>You're twisting
>1, where you claim Bush should have one of the highest job
>approval ratings in modern history (although he already holds
>that record) because his job numbers are the same as
>Clinton's.

You don't understand sarcasm, do you. And he does not now, currently, at present, as we speak, have the highest job rating. What he might have spiked to in the past has no relevance on the here and now.

>That fact alone kind of sinks your original post here.

Nonsense.

>Fact, as Shelly said, enemployment numbers now mean as little
>as they did when I lost my job under Clinton. Six months after
>I lost my job under Clinton I was no longer part of those
>numbers.
>Without looking deeper into those numbers you can't tell what
>they mean.

The numbers don't mean anything. That's quite clear. They didn't match reality under Clinton and they don't under Bush. But then perhaps Pres. Bush shouldn't portray himself as the "Jobs" president based on flawed, twisted numbers that don't begin to tell the whole story of employment/unemployment.

Jim.

Hmmm, Bush gets more than 50% of the vote, something Clinton never did.

So? Regardless of the percentages, both got elected/re-elected. The end result is the same.

Do you feel that Pres. Bush has a mandate from the people because of his percentage? LOL

The election is over. Let it go. The individual you supported got elected. Enjoy the glow of victory as long as it lasts - reality will set in soon enough.

I hope the next 4 years don't turn out as badly as I expect them to.

Jim.

"Do you feel that Pres. Bush has a mandate from the people because of his percentage? LOL"

I don't know which rock you've been under, but a percentage of more than 50% is a majority.
That's more than Clinton got and Clinton did treat it as a mandate.
I hope that LOL was at yourself.

"I hope the next 4 years don't turn out as badly as I expect them to."

Take your own advice, "The election is over. Let it go."
But I don't expect you to. You guys sure haven't practiced that the last 4 years.

>"Do you feel that Pres. Bush has a mandate from the people
>because of his percentage? LOL"
>
>I don't know which rock you've been under, but a percentage
>of more than 50% is a majority.
>That's more than Clinton got and Clinton did treat it as a
>mandate.
>I hope that LOL was at yourself.

No, so there's no mistake, it was at you. I didn't ask if Pres. Bush had a majority, I asked if you felt that he has a mandate. LOL
>
>"I hope the next 4 years don't turn out as badly as I
>expect them to."
>
>Take your own advice, "The election is over. Let it
>go."
>But I don't expect you to. You guys sure haven't practiced
>that the last 4 years.

My Gawd you really are blind if you believe that. More LOL.

I've let it go. But I suggest you don't. Make a list of potential Democratic presidential candidates and start compiling the lies and BS now. It will save time in 4 years. Oh, and start preparing more rationalizations for Pres. Bush's shortcomings. There were some very novel ones over the his first term - laughable but novel - so keep up the good work - I could use a good belly laugh at times.

God I feel sorry for the country for the past, almost 4 years and the next 4.

Jim.

As you said, Bush can't run again, why should I rationalize his shortcomings?
Unless of course you're planning on whining about them instantly again.

"God I feel sorry for the country for the past, almost 4 years and the next 4."

Cool, you've started already. I knew you wouldn't let me down.
Way to "let it go".

I'm sooooooooooo pleased I didn't let you down!!!!! But keep on making ignorant statements anyway. Just for the record, I NEVER posted to a single political thread related to either the 2000 and 2004 elections that I am aware of until the right wing extremists among us started their smear BS political propaganda.

What's really sad is not so much that it was done, though that is sad enough, but that many of them really believe the lies they created.

Again I'm soooooooooo pleased not to have let you down. Now just don't let me down. Still more LOL

Jim.

BS political propaganda?

Clinton 1996 - 5.4 percent

Bush 2004 - 5.4 percent.

I guess this information should give Pres. Bush one of the highest job approval ratings in modern history. As a result he should be retained in office by one of the largest margins ever in a presidential election.

BS political propaganda!

If you're going to quote someone, put the quote between "quotation marks", otherwise it may appear as your original thought.

You don't seem to understand sarcasm. Sarcasm is like a good joke in that it loses all humor when it has to be explained in minute detail - so unless you figure it out or someone else explains it to you, you've missed it.

It must irk you that Pres. Bush at the end of his first term is nowhere nearly as popular as Pres. Clinton was at the similar point, Well, get used to it so you don't get disappointed - he's not going to be as popular at the end of his 2nd term either - regardless of what the unemployment rate is at that time.


Jim.

Nowhere near as popular? Seems to me that Clinton NEVER got over 50% of the election, I think 45% was the best he ever did. Seems to me that we just had the biggest turn out since '68. Seems to me that Bush had the most people voting for him ever. Seems to me that the job approval polls I've seen in the last few days has Bush as high as Clinton ever was. Seems to me that Bush has the record approval rating after 9-11.

If anyone is irked, it must be you.
You also seem to be the one who doesn't understand the use of sarcasm. But I've had gay friends tell me that straight people should not be allowed to attempt sarcasm. I'm guessing that straight people in print is even more taboo.

Let it go. You're now twisting my statements, so there's no real point in your going on. Any non-partisan individual could easily understand and accept what I said, but you choose not to. Let it go.

This is going to be a mighty long topic if you think you're going to get the last word in - unless someone locks the thread. LOL

If you understood sarcasm, I'd tell you that, no, other than oppossing Pres. Bush, I have nothing else to do. But you don't, so scratch the previous sentence.

Jim.

LOL, you mean any partisan Democrat could understand and accept what you said. But that's right, the only non-partisans are partisan Democrats. (See that? That's how you convey sarcasm.)

If you'd like to explain what you meant, feel free. Otherwise it was a bunch of BS. In that case I guess we're in for a record breaking thread.

What were you being sarcastic about? That because Bush's numbers are the same as Clinton's that means Bush should break popularity polls beyond Clinton's?
I could see that. Your statement was asinine, but generally when using that type of sarcasm you should use a rolleyes smilie so people know you aren't being serious.

"If you understood sarcasm, I'd tell you that, no, other than oppossing Pres. Bush, I have nothing else to do. But you don't, so scratch the previous sentence."

That jumble of words makes no sense. Have you been drinking since Tuesday or something?

Let it go. You've lost the argument by twisting what I wrote. No point in you going on - you've lost all credibility in this thread when you twist what is clearly written for all to see above.

Jim.

I did not twist what you wrote. If I did you would explain what I twisted, but you won't, just like you won't explain where the sarcasm comes into play.

I'm sorry to inform you but the one who claims "You lost the argument, you lost all credibility" is the one who loses the debate. It's seen as a spoiled brat stomping his feet and throwing a fit.
I could just see a presidential debate ending with one of the candidates standing up and saying that and all the press going along with him.

274 posts to go. I'm up for it but you're going to have to come up with some better comebacks.

Let it go.

I'd reply a lot quicker if I weren't on dialup, since you've lost all credibility on this thread, there is no reason to bother reading your mental meanderings.

Let it go.

Jim

It's hard to respond when all you'll say is "let it go". If you think that's the path towards winning a debate you don't understand what a debate is.

If making a 300 post thread is too much for you, perhaps you need to take your own advice.

If it truly is obvious that you were using sarcasm, that you were correct in making it about whatever you were making it about, or that I am twisting your words, you have nothing to lose by letting it go.

Me, if I let it go I am letting go the chance to be part of another record thread. I'm pretty sure we have to break 300 (I'll have to search, I remember it). If you're not game don't pick up the dice.

I've just won three consecutive games of MS Solitaire waiting for the next opportunity to reply.

Let it go.

Jim.

I haven't played that game in a long time. You should try Freecell instead.

Still not going to explain the sarcasm or tell what I twisted? I didn't think you would.

Let it go.

Jim.

Nah, explain yourself or don't bother replying.
Play FreeCell.

What part of "Let it go" don't you understand. Don't bother composing a response for my benefit - I'm not going to read it. You've lost all credibility in this thread.

Jim.

Explain yourself or don't bother replying.

BUMP.

Let it go.

Jim.

I always held a lot more respect for you than this.
I guess when you don't get your way you turn into one of the cry babies.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Bumpity bump bump.

Oh gawd maybe you've stopped being obtuse and written that you've figured it out - but I've missed it. Nah, not possible.

Let it go.

Jim.

Once again a jumble of words that makes no sense.
They need to make a law against surfing while drunk.

Either explain your claims or don't bother replying. You don't win because you say you won. You win by arguing your point.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Let it go.

Jim.

Let it go.

For every question, there's an answer -- and you'll find it here!Home Links About PCQandA Link To Us Support PCQandA Privacy Policy Acceptable Use Policy In Memoriam
Commissioned Links: Batteries.com Computer Power User Crucial.com 4 Magazines For The Price Of 1 Smart Computing

Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend Subscribe to this topic Bookmark this topic
Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #75408
View in linear mode


Subject: "Job-Loss Myth" Search result list | First match | Next match

Jordan



Member since
Jan 07th 2002
811 posts
#0, Job-Loss Myth
Sun Oct-31-04 01:51 PM

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 136,181,000 employed laborers 16 years of age while there were 6,647,000 unemployed workers when President Bush took office in January 2001. The unemployment rate was 4.7 percent. Currently there are 139,641,000 jobs for the work force over 16 years old and 7,545,000 unemployed workers. The unemployment rate in September was just 5.1 percent. This is a net gain of about 3.5 million jobs, but it does not take into account the growing population. Notice, however, that while the total number of jobs increased that the unemployment rate has increased 0.4 percentage point.

Unemployment rates at the end of first terms:

Carter 1980 - 7.1 percent

Reagan 1984 - 7.5 percent

Bush I 1992 - 6.8 percent

Clinton 1996 - 5.4 percent

Bush 2004 - 5.4 percent.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top




Replies to this topic

RE: Job-Loss Myth, Delar, Oct 31st 2004, #1
RE: Job-Loss Myth, Jordan, Oct 31st 2004, #2
RE: Job-Loss Myth, Shelly, Oct 31st 2004, #3
The "Jobs" president, KJT, Oct 31st 2004, #4
RE: The "Jobs" president, Myk, Nov 02nd 2004, #5
RE: The "Jobs" president, KJT, Nov 02nd 2004, #6
RE: The "Jobs" president, nightlyreader, Nov 02nd 2004, #7
RE: The "Jobs" president, KJT, Nov 02nd 2004, #8
RE: The "Jobs" president, bobw, Nov 02nd 2004, #9
RE: The "Jobs" president, Myk, Nov 02nd 2004, #10
RE: "The Jobs president", KJT, Nov 02nd 2004, #11
RE: "The Jobs president", Myk, Nov 02nd 2004, #12
RE: "The Jobs president", KJT, Nov 02nd 2004, #13
RE: "The Jobs president", Myk, Nov 03rd 2004, #14
RE: "The Jobs president", KJT, Nov 03rd 2004, #15
RE: "The Jobs president", Myk, Nov 03rd 2004, #16
RE: "The Jobs president", KJT, Nov 03rd 2004, #17
RE: "The Jobs president", Myk, Nov 03rd 2004, #18
RE: "The Jobs president", KJT, Nov 03rd 2004, #19
RE: "The Jobs president", Myk, Nov 04th 2004, #20
RE: "The Jobs president", KJT, Nov 04th 2004, #22
RE: "The Jobs president", Myk, Nov 04th 2004, #23
The Jobs president, KJT, Nov 04th 2004, #24
RE: The Jobs president, Myk, Nov 04th 2004, #25
RE: The Jobs president, KJT, Nov 04th 2004, #26
RE: The Jobs president, Myk, Nov 04th 2004, #27
RE: The Jobs president, KJT, Nov 04th 2004, #28
RE: The Jobs president, Myk, Nov 04th 2004, #29
RE: The Jobs president, KJT, Nov 04th 2004, #30
RE: The Jobs president, Myk, Nov 04th 2004, #31
RE: The Jobs president, KJT, Nov 04th 2004, #32
RE: The Jobs president, Myk, Nov 04th 2004, #33
RE: The Jobs president, KJT, Nov 04th 2004, #34
RE: The Jobs president, Myk, Nov 04th 2004, #35
RE: The Jobs president, KJT, Nov 04th 2004, #36
RE: The Jobs president, Myk, Nov 04th 2004, #37
RE: The Jobs president, KJT, Nov 04th 2004, #38
RE: The Jobs president, Myk, Nov 04th 2004, #39
RE: The Jobs president, KJT, Nov 04th 2004, #40
RE: "The Jobs president", Al, Nov 04th 2004, #21



Delar



Charter member
886 posts
#1, RE: Job-Loss Myth
Sun Oct-31-04 02:10 PM
In response to Jordan (Reply # 0)


These figures are as meaningless as someone saying "its a nice day." Compared to what? Tornadoes? Snowstorms? Extreme heat?

How many of these people are getting more pay for less hours than their last job?

How many of these people are getting better medical benefits? retirement?

The actual figures are meaningless, lastly, because they (the figures) do not even reflect the changes in the PEOPLE WHO ARE NO LONGER EVEN COUNTED IN THE NUMBERS.

Simply, people who have been unemployed or otherwise uneligible for unemployment so long, that they are not counted.


The figures are meaningless for other reasons, not the least of which that since the last two or three administrations, the "rules" about how the figures are computed have changed.

Don't forget "who" is putting those figures out!!!



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top




Jordan



Member since
Jan 07th 2002
811 posts
#2, RE: Job-Loss Myth
Sun Oct-31-04 02:33 PM
In response to Delar (Reply # 1)


If the figures are meaningless why do we compile them? As to look at who is compiling them? I believe that is one of the functions of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Shelly



Charter member
29672 posts
#3, RE: Job-Loss Myth
Sun Oct-31-04 02:44 PM
In response to Jordan (Reply # 2)


I can't decide if you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. The net number of people entering the workforce averages about 125,000 per month. The unemployment figures only include those who have not yet exhausted their 26 weeks of unemployment benefits, beyond that the government has no indicator of how many are unemployed. factor these numbers into your idiotic statistics. I still think you are about 16 years old.

Shelly




Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#4, The "Jobs" president
Sun Oct-31-04 02:46 PM
In response to Jordan (Reply # 2)


I guess this information should give Pres. Bush one of the highest job approval ratings in modern history. As a result he should be retained in office by one of the largest margins ever in a presidential election.


Jim.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#5, RE: The "Jobs" president
Tue Nov-02-04 01:37 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 4)


Huh? The numbers look the same as Clinton's to me. He sure didn't get the highest approval ratings.
Is that Democrat math again?



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#6, RE: The "Jobs" president
Tue Nov-02-04 02:01 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 5)


>Huh?

Since you replied to me I'll say it: It's Sarcasm - "Witty language used to convey insults or scorn".


>The numbers look the same as Clinton's to me. He sure
>didn't get the highest approval ratings.
>Is that Democrat math again?

Clinton left office with "unprecedented popular approval ratings for his job as president". Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

Pres. Bush won't ever be close. I hope we don't have to wait long to get his final rating.

Jim.





Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top




nightlyreader



Charter member
1766 posts
#7, RE: The "Jobs" president
Tue Nov-02-04 02:16 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 6)


>
>Clinton left office with "unprecedented popular approval
>ratings for his job as president". Source:
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
>
>

I guess they forgot to ask me again.

Nightly Reader






Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#8, RE: The "Jobs" president
Tue Nov-02-04 02:23 PM
In response to nightlyreader (Reply # 7)


>I guess they forgot to ask me again.

They forgot to ask me, too. But if they had asked both of us, the ratings wouldn't have changed.

Jim.




Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






bobw



Member since
Nov 24th 2001
219 posts
#9, RE: The "Jobs" president
Tue Nov-02-04 03:19 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 6)


>>Huh?
>
>Since you replied to me I'll say it: It's Sarcasm - "Witty
>language used to convey insults or scorn".
>
>
>>The numbers look the same as Clinton's to me. He sure
>>didn't get the highest approval ratings.
>>Is that Democrat math again?
>
>Clinton left office with "unprecedented popular approval
>ratings for his job as president". Source:
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
>
>Pres. Bush won't ever be close. I hope we don't have to wait
>long to get his final rating.
>
>Jim.
>
>
There is no doubt that Clinton left office with a good overall record. I have yet to see anyone mention the fact that due to the high tech industry, primarily launched by Bill Gates during Clintons terms in office,contributed to economic growth, coupled with the high employment, which generated high tax revenue intake . And of course we must not forget that Al Gore invented the Internet, and also dont forget the tax increases under the Clinton Presidency, no George Bush will never enjoy the same things that Clinton did,unless another Bill Gates emerges ,with more high tech toys.Just my opinion of course.


Microsoft Windows 98.4.10.2222A
I E Explorer 5 6.0 2800 1106
288 MB RAM
500 MHZ Processor
40GB Hard Drive






Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#10, RE: The "Jobs" president
Tue Nov-02-04 03:35 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 6)
Tue Nov-02-04 03:36 PM by Myk

Whoa doggies, that was one wonderful Democratic twist and flail

Somehow you turn, "he should be retained in office by one of the largest margins ever in a presidential election."
Which I used as a predictor of second term election numbers.
You turn that into the popularity of the president as he leaves office.

Let's stick to one thing here.
Clinton never received a huge majority of the popular vote. He certainly didn't EVER get over 50%. Where were those large margins?

As far as actual job approval ratings, Bush has the record there. Or have you forgotten everything about 9-11.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#11, RE: "The Jobs president"
Tue Nov-02-04 03:55 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 10)
Tue Nov-02-04 03:56 PM by KJT

>As far as actual job approval ratings, Bush has the record
>there.

Pres. Bush didn't leave office after 9/11, nor has he left office yet. When he leaves office, he will not be as popular as Clinton was when he left office. Pres. Bush should be extremely pleased that the 22nd Amendment was enacted - but so should Kerry.

Jim.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#12, RE: "The Jobs president"
Tue Nov-02-04 04:23 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 11)


Clinton wasn't "retained in office by one of the largest margins ever in a presidential election" after his second term either because of popularity. I think he was also popular after his first term and he failed to win with "one of the largest margins ever in a presidential election".

You're twisting
1, where you claim Bush should have one of the highest job approval ratings in modern history (although he already holds that record) because his job numbers are the same as Clinton's.
2, that a job approval rating means largest margins in an election.
3, that you are talking about job approval ratings after they left office.
4, that Clinton's approval ratings were about his unemployment numbers.

Fact, the numbers stated above are the EXACT same for both Clinton and Bush.
That fact alone kind of sinks your original post here.

Fact, as Shelly said, enemployment numbers now mean as little as they did when I lost my job under Clinton. Six months after I lost my job under Clinton I was no longer part of those numbers.
Without looking deeper into those numbers you can't tell what they mean.




Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#13, RE: "The Jobs president"
Tue Nov-02-04 04:41 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 12)


>Clinton wasn't "retained in office by one of the largest
>margins ever in a presidential election" after his second
>term either because of popularity.

Of course he wasn't retained in office "after his second term". The 22nd amendment prohibits this.


>You're twisting
>1, where you claim Bush should have one of the highest job
>approval ratings in modern history (although he already holds
>that record) because his job numbers are the same as
>Clinton's.

You don't understand sarcasm, do you. And he does not now, currently, at present, as we speak, have the highest job rating. What he might have spiked to in the past has no relevance on the here and now.

>That fact alone kind of sinks your original post here.

Nonsense.

>Fact, as Shelly said, enemployment numbers now mean as little
>as they did when I lost my job under Clinton. Six months after
>I lost my job under Clinton I was no longer part of those
>numbers.
>Without looking deeper into those numbers you can't tell what
>they mean.

The numbers don't mean anything. That's quite clear. They didn't match reality under Clinton and they don't under Bush. But then perhaps Pres. Bush shouldn't portray himself as the "Jobs" president based on flawed, twisted numbers that don't begin to tell the whole story of employment/unemployment.

Jim.




Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#14, RE: "The Jobs president"
Wed Nov-03-04 12:19 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 13)


Hmmm, Bush gets more than 50% of the vote, something Clinton never did.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#15, RE: "The Jobs president"
Wed Nov-03-04 12:30 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 14)


So? Regardless of the percentages, both got elected/re-elected. The end result is the same.

Do you feel that Pres. Bush has a mandate from the people because of his percentage? LOL

The election is over. Let it go. The individual you supported got elected. Enjoy the glow of victory as long as it lasts - reality will set in soon enough.

I hope the next 4 years don't turn out as badly as I expect them to.

Jim.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#16, RE: "The Jobs president"
Wed Nov-03-04 03:21 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 15)


"Do you feel that Pres. Bush has a mandate from the people because of his percentage? LOL"

I don't know which rock you've been under, but a percentage of more than 50% is a majority.
That's more than Clinton got and Clinton did treat it as a mandate.
I hope that LOL was at yourself.

"I hope the next 4 years don't turn out as badly as I expect them to."

Take your own advice, "The election is over. Let it go."
But I don't expect you to. You guys sure haven't practiced that the last 4 years.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#17, RE: "The Jobs president"
Wed Nov-03-04 07:00 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 16)


>"Do you feel that Pres. Bush has a mandate from the people
>because of his percentage? LOL"
>
>I don't know which rock you've been under, but a percentage
>of more than 50% is a majority.
>That's more than Clinton got and Clinton did treat it as a
>mandate.
>I hope that LOL was at yourself.

No, so there's no mistake, it was at you. I didn't ask if Pres. Bush had a majority, I asked if you felt that he has a mandate. LOL
>
>"I hope the next 4 years don't turn out as badly as I
>expect them to."
>
>Take your own advice, "The election is over. Let it
>go."
>But I don't expect you to. You guys sure haven't practiced
>that the last 4 years.

My Gawd you really are blind if you believe that. More LOL.

I've let it go. But I suggest you don't. Make a list of potential Democratic presidential candidates and start compiling the lies and BS now. It will save time in 4 years. Oh, and start preparing more rationalizations for Pres. Bush's shortcomings. There were some very novel ones over the his first term - laughable but novel - so keep up the good work - I could use a good belly laugh at times.

God I feel sorry for the country for the past, almost 4 years and the next 4.

Jim.





Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#18, RE: "The Jobs president"
Wed Nov-03-04 08:18 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 17)


As you said, Bush can't run again, why should I rationalize his shortcomings?
Unless of course you're planning on whining about them instantly again.

"God I feel sorry for the country for the past, almost 4 years and the next 4."

Cool, you've started already. I knew you wouldn't let me down.
Way to "let it go".



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#19, RE: "The Jobs president"
Wed Nov-03-04 10:06 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 18)
Wed Nov-03-04 10:08 PM by KJT

I'm sooooooooooo pleased I didn't let you down!!!!! But keep on making ignorant statements anyway. Just for the record, I NEVER posted to a single political thread related to either the 2000 and 2004 elections that I am aware of until the right wing extremists among us started their smear BS political propaganda.

What's really sad is not so much that it was done, though that is sad enough, but that many of them really believe the lies they created.

Again I'm soooooooooo pleased not to have let you down. Now just don't let me down. Still more LOL

Jim.




Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#20, RE: "The Jobs president"
Thu Nov-04-04 03:15 AM
In response to KJT (Reply # 19)


BS political propaganda?

Clinton 1996 - 5.4 percent

Bush 2004 - 5.4 percent.

I guess this information should give Pres. Bush one of the highest job approval ratings in modern history. As a result he should be retained in office by one of the largest margins ever in a presidential election.

BS political propaganda!




Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#22, RE: "The Jobs president"
Thu Nov-04-04 09:10 AM
In response to Myk (Reply # 20)
Thu Nov-04-04 09:11 AM by KJT

If you're going to quote someone, put the quote between "quotation marks", otherwise it may appear as your original thought.

You don't seem to understand sarcasm. Sarcasm is like a good joke in that it loses all humor when it has to be explained in minute detail - so unless you figure it out or someone else explains it to you, you've missed it.

It must irk you that Pres. Bush at the end of his first term is nowhere nearly as popular as Pres. Clinton was at the similar point, Well, get used to it so you don't get disappointed - he's not going to be as popular at the end of his 2nd term either - regardless of what the unemployment rate is at that time.


Jim.





Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#23, RE: "The Jobs president"
Thu Nov-04-04 02:09 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 22)


Nowhere near as popular? Seems to me that Clinton NEVER got over 50% of the election, I think 45% was the best he ever did. Seems to me that we just had the biggest turn out since '68. Seems to me that Bush had the most people voting for him ever. Seems to me that the job approval polls I've seen in the last few days has Bush as high as Clinton ever was. Seems to me that Bush has the record approval rating after 9-11.

If anyone is irked, it must be you.
You also seem to be the one who doesn't understand the use of sarcasm. But I've had gay friends tell me that straight people should not be allowed to attempt sarcasm. I'm guessing that straight people in print is even more taboo.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#24, The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 04:52 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 23)


Let it go. You're now twisting my statements, so there's no real point in your going on. Any non-partisan individual could easily understand and accept what I said, but you choose not to. Let it go.

This is going to be a mighty long topic if you think you're going to get the last word in - unless someone locks the thread. LOL

If you understood sarcasm, I'd tell you that, no, other than oppossing Pres. Bush, I have nothing else to do. But you don't, so scratch the previous sentence.

Jim.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#25, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 05:34 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 24)


LOL, you mean any partisan Democrat could understand and accept what you said. But that's right, the only non-partisans are partisan Democrats. (See that? That's how you convey sarcasm.)

If you'd like to explain what you meant, feel free. Otherwise it was a bunch of BS. In that case I guess we're in for a record breaking thread.

What were you being sarcastic about? That because Bush's numbers are the same as Clinton's that means Bush should break popularity polls beyond Clinton's?
I could see that. Your statement was asinine, but generally when using that type of sarcasm you should use a rolleyes smilie so people know you aren't being serious.

"If you understood sarcasm, I'd tell you that, no, other than oppossing Pres. Bush, I have nothing else to do. But you don't, so scratch the previous sentence."

That jumble of words makes no sense. Have you been drinking since Tuesday or something?



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#26, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 05:40 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 25)


Let it go. You've lost the argument by twisting what I wrote. No point in you going on - you've lost all credibility in this thread when you twist what is clearly written for all to see above.

Jim.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#27, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 05:57 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 26)
Thu Nov-04-04 06:01 PM by Myk

I did not twist what you wrote. If I did you would explain what I twisted, but you won't, just like you won't explain where the sarcasm comes into play.

I'm sorry to inform you but the one who claims "You lost the argument, you lost all credibility" is the one who loses the debate. It's seen as a spoiled brat stomping his feet and throwing a fit.
I could just see a presidential debate ending with one of the candidates standing up and saying that and all the press going along with him.

274 posts to go. I'm up for it but you're going to have to come up with some better comebacks.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#28, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:02 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 27)


Let it go.

I'd reply a lot quicker if I weren't on dialup, since you've lost all credibility on this thread, there is no reason to bother reading your mental meanderings.

Let it go.

Jim



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#29, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:10 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 28)


It's hard to respond when all you'll say is "let it go". If you think that's the path towards winning a debate you don't understand what a debate is.

If making a 300 post thread is too much for you, perhaps you need to take your own advice.

If it truly is obvious that you were using sarcasm, that you were correct in making it about whatever you were making it about, or that I am twisting your words, you have nothing to lose by letting it go.

Me, if I let it go I am letting go the chance to be part of another record thread. I'm pretty sure we have to break 300 (I'll have to search, I remember it). If you're not game don't pick up the dice.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#30, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:15 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 29)


I've just won three consecutive games of MS Solitaire waiting for the next opportunity to reply.

Let it go.

Jim.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#31, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:31 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 30)


I haven't played that game in a long time. You should try Freecell instead.

Still not going to explain the sarcasm or tell what I twisted? I didn't think you would.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#32, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:32 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 31)


Let it go.

Jim.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#33, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:35 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 32)


Nah, explain yourself or don't bother replying.
Play FreeCell.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#34, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:37 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 33)


What part of "Let it go" don't you understand. Don't bother composing a response for my benefit - I'm not going to read it. You've lost all credibility in this thread.

Jim.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#35, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:39 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 34)


Explain yourself or don't bother replying.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#36, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:40 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 35)


BUMP.

Let it go.

Jim.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#37, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:46 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 36)


I always held a lot more respect for you than this.
I guess when you don't get your way you turn into one of the cry babies.




Attachment #1, (jpg file)




Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#38, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:50 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 37)


Bumpity bump bump.

Oh gawd maybe you've stopped being obtuse and written that you've figured it out - but I've missed it. Nah, not possible.

Let it go.

Jim.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Myk



Charter member
5436 posts
#39, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 06:57 PM
In response to KJT (Reply # 38)


Once again a jumble of words that makes no sense.
They need to make a law against surfing while drunk.

Either explain your claims or don't bother replying. You don't win because you say you won. You win by arguing your point.




Attachment #1, (jpg file)




Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






KJT



Charter member
7092 posts
#40, RE: The Jobs president
Thu Nov-04-04 07:00 PM
In response to Myk (Reply # 39)


Let it go.

Jim.



Alert Printer-friendly copy | Edit | Reply | Reply with quote | Top






Al



Charter member
11718 posts
#21, RE: "The Jobs president"
Thu Nov-04-04 07:24 AM
In response to KJT (Reply # 19)


Yeah,

I remember all those smears...

The ones that came from John Kerry's mouth, from his voting record, from his own campaign literature and from the Congressional Record.

Those smears?

LMAO










Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top




Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #75408 Search result list | First match | Next match


Jump to another forumMain forum listings|-- The PC Q&A Forum |-- The Computer Forum |-- Off-Topic Lounge |-- Grid Team PC911 Lounge


Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright 1997-2003 DCScripts.com


Home Links About PCQandA Link To Us Support PCQandA Privacy Policy Acceptable Use Policy In Memoriam

Have a question or problem regarding this forum? Check here for the answer.

Wow, you're turning into Ed Greene.
If you failed to explain yourself in the thread why do you think copy and pasting a WHOLE thread will explain it any better?

I love this trek into the Democrat mind.
You make a claim that makes no sense. You refuse to explain it. You declare yourself the winner. You claim the guy questioning you needs to let it go and accept your claim without question.
No wonder people like you can buy into politicians like Clinton and Kerry.

I'm going to work shortly. Hopefully you'll sober up by the time I get back.

In case English isn't your first language maybe you'll understand one of these:

Laat het gaan

Laissez lui allez

Laßt ihm gehen Sie

Lasciste esso vada

Deixais lhe vá

Dejáis le vaya

Or, if English is your first language - Let it go.

Jim.

In case you don't understand,
"Let it go" does not explain yourself.
Either explain yourself or stop replying.
You either explain your claims to defend them or you have nothing else to add to the discussion.
Whining "let it go" is just little cry baby tactics that I don't cave into.

It's funny but I don't recall you ever being this dense before.

Let it go.

Jim.

Wow, you're still showing your superior knowledge. I figured you would've sobered up by now.

You're back! I was concerned something had happened to you.

In case you missed it before,

LET IT GO.

Jim.

I'm glad you didn't let me down by saying anything pertinent.
I told you I was going to do some work. I'm getting ready to go back to do some work now.

Would you like to explain yourself yet? Or are you going to stick to the "You lose because I said so" argument?

Let it go.

Unless you just like to read what you have written, you're wasting your time responding to me. As I said quite some time ago, I'm not reading anything you write. I may even have missed an apology, but I doubt it. But if I did, that's just the price I have to pay, because I haven't read a thing you've written since I said I wasn't going to.

Again, let it go.

Jim.

In that case I won't read anything you write either. I'll blindly paste stuff from now on.

Will that prove I'm as smart as you are?

Let it go.

Jim.

Almost thirty wasted posts. For what?

Nightly Reader

Eat me

Let it go.

Jim.

Eat me

Let it go.

Jim.

Eat me

Let it go.

Jim.

Eat me

Let it go.

Jim.

Eat me

You're obtuse
Don't you know.
Face the Facts,
Just let it go.

Jim.

Eat me