Obama is smooth...

[Ineeda SM]

Obama's a war criminal, I don't know how these scumbags can show up and accept a nobel peace prize with a straight face. He's in good company with Kissinger.

That is a pointless accusation. Every military strike on any city or town will unfortunately kill innocent people. I don't care who gives the orders. Under Bush Jr. alone, more than 80,000 innocent victums were killed in manned and unmanned air attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. His Daddy's attacks in the first Gulf War killed more than 30,000 innocent people. Innocent people meaning those private civilians of our enemy countries not involved in the military or in combat against us. That is why we should have never gotten involved in these wars in the first place.

Obama is the one getting us OUT of these wars that Bush started. His extended drone attack have taken out more terrorist in 3 years than bush and Clinton combined in 16 years, and have killed far far less of the innocent people. He did Bush's job and got Osama Bin Ladden. Yeah Obama is such a criminal and scumbbag. Look at the thousands of innocent people the terrorist killed here in America. I guess you think that our criminal scumbbag Obama should just ignore them, do nothing, and let them build up to kill more of us.

[onmyknees]

Only the GOP makes up the numbers. The numbers I gave about employment are 100% true. And Trish is correct. You obviously do not know how to read a chart.

The chart below is not about job loss. It shows the change in the job rates (Losses and gains) from Feb 2008 under Bush until today under Obama. The chart DOES NOT include the total amount of unemployed in the country. It only represents how many jobs were lost or gained under Bush and Obama.

The chart shows job loss during the Bush years from Feb of 2008 through Jan 2009 when Obama took office. Over 800,000 jobs lost under Bush in just his last year in office alone. Each of those months show a constant increase of unemployed just under Bush. They are all in red.

Obama's first month Jan '09 was still under Bush policies and showed a further increase in unemployed. But after the (then) democratic congress quickly passed a few bills in Feb '09, the unemployed numbers DECREASED, shown in blue. That means people found jobs. This trend continues through March of 2010 where for the first time, the employment rate is above what it was under Bush in Jan '08. Since March 2010 to today, more jobs have been created than bush had lost at his highest employment. This means that the over 840,000 jobs lost under Bush, have now been recovered. And the Obama job rate has added an additional 220,000 jobs. Recovering Bush's 840,000 loss and adding 220,000 more gives Obama a 1,060,000 gain in jobs just since Obama took office. The net gain is shown in blue above the "0" bar.

Obama didn't sit in the oval office and draw this chart for the hell of it. The chart is a fact of life whether you like it or not. So the numbers I gave before are not made up. They are the facts.

And the guy I "railed in a cunty way", started it by being a typical nasty ass republican FIRST. Stop being a right winger and look at the facts before you accuse someone of bull shit. Every time a republican is proved wrong, they twist the facts and words of others to make their own points look valid. And you think we are all stupid enough to fall for your carp. You are wrong. We see through it like water.

Interesting chart...where'd ya lift that from? Unless I see some references along with that chart, it's as meaningless as a pollster with an agenda asking questions to manipulate the answer. Why does it not include the amount of unemployed? The chart looks to me as though it shows job gains...not loss....therefore not net. Thus the need for reference material. For example...what good is it if you're creating 50,000 and losing 75,000 ? It appears by your chart, the average is about 150,000 jobs for the past year. At that rate, it will take 7 years to get to a 5% unemployment rate. Look....anybody who studies these numbers can cook them any way they like.For example the unemployment rate does not include the number of people who have dropped out of the work force. But alas....aren't they still unemployed?
Ever hear of Austan Goolsbee? He's Obama's former chairman for the council of economic advisors. A numbers guy...Here's what he had to say on Friday....
A recent unemployment report found that even though the unemployment rate declined, 50,000 people left the labor force. “As bad as the unemployment rate has been, the actual job situation in the country has been worse than that because these ways that they don't get measured.”
Almost six million Americans classified as “discouraged workers,” or rather those who have lost hope, are not counted in the unemployment numbers. Economist Aparna Mathur says if these people were counted, “That number is really almost double the official unemployment rate. And that sort of gives you a much better, a much more realistic picture of the labor market.” ( READ THAT AGAIN)

I think in this case, I'll let Obama's economists words speak for themselves, and disregard your colored charts, with all due respect. And one more thing....all those policies you mention that Obama implemented to get this economy roaring...care to elaborate what they were? Oh....the stimulus...that's right. Borrowed money..... deficit spending...Just when do we pay that back? Or do we borrow another trillion to pay back the first trillion? That's the catch 22 of deficit borrowing. Nothing is going to convince you so in the end it's useless. The election won't be won on questionable charts. If the private sector is creating 500,000 jobs a month by November, he may be on his way to a second term...if not you'll jump off a cliff with the rest of the lemmings. It's that simple. And I can't wait !!

[Ineeda SM]

Interesting chart...where'd ya lift that from? Unless I see some references along with that chart, it's as meaningless as a pollster with an agenda asking questions to manipulate the answer. Why does it not include the amount of unemployed? The chart looks to me as though it shows job gains...not loss....therefore not net. Thus the need for reference material. For example...what good is it if you're creating 50,000 and losing 75,000 ? It appears by your chart, the average is about 150,000 jobs for the past year. At that rate, it will take 7 years to get to a 5% unemployment rate. Look....anybody who studies these numbers can cook them any way they like.For example the unemployment rate does not include the number of people who have dropped out of the work force. But alas....aren't they still unemployed?
Ever hear of Austan Goolsbee? He's Obama's former chairman for the council of economic advisors. A numbers guy...Here's what he had to say on Friday....
A recent unemployment report found that even though the unemployment rate declined, 50,000 people left the labor force. “As bad as the unemployment rate has been, the actual job situation in the country has been worse than that because these ways that they don't get measured.”
Almost six million Americans classified as “discouraged workers,” or rather those who have lost hope, are not counted in the unemployment numbers. Economist Aparna Mathur says if these people were counted, “That number is really almost double the official unemployment rate. And that sort of gives you a much better, a much more realistic picture of the labor market.” ( READ THAT AGAIN)

I think in this case, I'll let Obama's economists words speak for themselves, and disregard your colored charts, with all due respect. And one more thing....all those policies you mention that Obama implemented to get this economy roaring...care to elaborate what they were? Oh....the stimulus...that's right. Borrowed money..... deficit spending...Just when do we pay that back? Or do we borrow another trillion to pay back the first trillion? That's the catch 22 of deficit borrowing. Nothing is going to convince you so in the end it's useless. The election won't be won on questionable charts. If the private sector is creating 500,000 jobs a month by November, he may be on his way to a second term...if not you'll jump off a cliff with the rest of the lemmings. It's that simple. And I can't wait !!

The source is from National Labor Relations Board figures for the time periods of the chart. Look it up yourself. I am sure you will still insist it is bull shit. That all you ever say about everything that you don't like.

I see you don't know how to read a chart too. The red shows job loss, the blue shows job gains. The gains are above the "0" line. It means a gain over Bush's loss. Not a gain above the national employment numbers. What else do you need to understand that part.

This is a country of 310 million people. There are always people leaving the work force no matter what the economy is like or who is in the oval office. Yes 50,000 left the work force. Not all of that 50,000 remain unemployed. Some of that number of people are the ones changing jobs and included in the higher employment figures. If the employment rate is higher this month than last month, obviously more people found jobs than those who lost jobs. It is still a gain.

The deficit was started by Bush who started his illegal war at $30BILLION per month with no plans to pay for it. Ask the GOP why they let him borrow so much on the taxpayer with no way of paying for it. Bush and the GOP handed Obama this mess. It's funny how you guys can never accept the blame for your part. OH NO we can't do that. Let's blame the new nigga who is actually fixing it.

You must be allergic to facts. What a shame.

[Sabre6]

The source is from National Labor Relations Board figures for the time periods of the chart. Look it up yourself. I am sure you will still insist it is bull shit. That all you ever say about everything that you don't like.

I see you don't know how to read a chart too. The red shows job loss, the blue shows job gains. The gains are above the "0" line. It means a gain over Bush's loss. Not a gain above the national employment numbers. What else do you need to understand that part.

This is a country of 310 million people. There are always people leaving the work force no matter what the economy is like or who is in the oval office. Yes 50,000 left the work force. Not all of that 50,000 remain unemployed. Some of that number of people are the ones changing jobs and included in the higher employment figures. If the employment rate is higher this month than last month, obviously more people found jobs than those who lost jobs. It is still a gain.

The deficit was started by Bush who started his illegal war at $30BILLION per month with no plans to pay for it. Ask the GOP why they let him borrow so much on the taxpayer with no way of paying for it. Bush and the GOP handed Obama this mess. It's funny how you guys can never accept the blame for your part. OH NO we can't do that. Let's blame the new nigga who is actually fixing it.

You must be allergic to facts. What a shame.

Obvoiusly trying to take the high road here is a wasted effort. As I stated, I am NOT a Republican. I am an Independant I distrust both parties enough not to take anything from either of them at face value. However, that being said, You, Ineeda SM, are such a gullible tool if you buy into the Leftist spin-machine take on unemployment. Since you seem to be more comfortable in an insult laden gutter fight, I shall end my involvement in this thread thusly, EAT SHIT, you Insufferable Asshole & go Fuck Yourself. Have a nice day

[shac]

Doesn't that apply to every president? Well, Noam Chomsky seems to think so.
And Ralph Nader called Bush and Cheney war criminals. And says the same about Obama. As Nader said, Obama is committing war crimes.
And Ron Paul calls Afghanistan an illegal war.
Glenn Greenwald has said that we've been inculcated or taught to believe that politicians are above the law. And, as Greenwald pointed out, people in positions of POWER come to believe in the justness and merit of their elevated status and with that comes the belief that they're above the law.

I remember when Nader questioned whether Obama will govern as Uncle Same or Uncle Tom. He got attacked at the time, and even much of the left turned on him, but he couldn't have asked a more legitimate question.

[shac]

That is a pointless accusation. Every military strike on any city or town will unfortunately kill innocent people. I don't care who gives the orders. Under Bush Jr. alone, more than 80,000 innocent victums were killed in manned and unmanned air attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. His Daddy's attacks in the first Gulf War killed more than 30,000 innocent people. Innocent people meaning those private civilians of our enemy countries not involved in the military or in combat against us. That is why we should have never gotten involved in these wars in the first place.

Obama is the one getting us OUT of these wars that Bush started. His extended drone attack have taken out more terrorist in 3 years than bush and Clinton combined in 16 years, and have killed far far less of the innocent people. He did Bush's job and got Osama Bin Ladden. Yeah Obama is such a criminal and scumbbag. Look at the thousands of innocent people the terrorist killed here in America. I guess you think that our criminal scumbbag Obama should just ignore them, do nothing, and let them build up to kill more of us.

That is nothing more than mindless Obama apologetics. You sound like one of those progressives who protested the war under Bush and now bites their tongue. Step out of the false left/right paradigm.

Indiscriminately targeting civilians is a war crime.

Just for the record, your understanding of foreign policy is laughable. A typical ignorant American.

[martin48]

The way I see it, a string of adjectives separated by commas is a conjunction of unary predicates. E.g. Let P(x) denote "x is intellectually challenged," let Q(x) denote "x stayed up late," and let R(x) denote "x is a wanker." Then "they were simply intellectually challenged, late night masturbators" translates formally into "P(they) AND Q(they) AND R(they)".

On the other hand "P(they) OR Q(they) OR R(they)" would be transcribed, "They are intellectually challenged, or up late or wankers (or any non-empty combo thereof)."

Had I wanted to convey "(Q(they) AND R(they)) -> P(they)" I would have said, "It's Friday night and they're here jerking off to internet porn, therefore they must be intellectually challenged." Alternatively I could've said, "They're not up late, or they aren't wankers or they are intellectually challenged," but I can't think of a way to do it with just a string of adjectives separated by commas.

I supposed something should be said about the convention that some English language users (me included) leave out the last comma (it's implicit?) and some don't. But I won't say anything about that

Strings of words or phrases separated by commas are another issue altogether.

BTW. Hi martin. You know i <3 u.

Wow, this is hardcore stuff. I stand corrected - commas in a list are a grammatical shorthand for conjunctions. The "missing" last comma I would always obey this rule in my writing but it is not followed by all anymore.

You read Lynne Truss's 'Eats, Shoots and Leaves'?

Note also how I used "'s" at the end of Truss to imply possession - it's "'s" because Truss is a proper noun. Oh, I could go on all day --- sad, I know! And I used "it's" and not "its".

Take care

[martin48]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle2325323/


Explains most of the above!

[onmyknees]

The source is from National Labor Relations Board figures for the time periods of the chart. Look it up yourself. I am sure you will still insist it is bull shit. That all you ever say about everything that you don't like.

I see you don't know how to read a chart too. The red shows job loss, the blue shows job gains. The gains are above the "0" line. It means a gain over Bush's loss. Not a gain above the national employment numbers. What else do you need to understand that part.

This is a country of 310 million people. There are always people leaving the work force no matter what the economy is like or who is in the oval office. Yes 50,000 left the work force. Not all of that 50,000 remain unemployed. Some of that number of people are the ones changing jobs and included in the higher employment figures. If the employment rate is higher this month than last month, obviously more people found jobs than those who lost jobs. It is still a gain.

The deficit was started by Bush who started his illegal war at $30BILLION per month with no plans to pay for it. Ask the GOP why they let him borrow so much on the taxpayer with no way of paying for it. Bush and the GOP handed Obama this mess. It's funny how you guys can never accept the blame for your part. OH NO we can't do that. Let's blame the new nigga who is actually fixing it.

You must be allergic to facts. What a shame.

Did someone refer to you as an Obama apologist? LMAO. That would be the understatement of the decade. The single most revealing quote of the entire Obama abomination is this...."Shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we thought" .

That pretty much sums it up there pretty boy. Here's a couple of more Obama apologists discussing Obama's inability to handle the joblessness. (link below) They don't seem quite as euphoric as you do, but then again few do.
What that reveals to me, and anyone else who understands the dynamic of job creation.....is that he doesn't. But appearently you already have a full time job, .....writing charts and graphs for "www.white-house.gov" LMAO.

And what would any post about Obama be without a few blame Bush referrences tossed in just to distract? This guys made a living at it for 3 1/2 years. So here's a few of mine ........


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-mat...t-being-ready/

[KorbinDallas]