So I take it you don't want to hear my theory that Scalia are Ginsburg are more than just friends as well?
![]()
Was there any comment from Snowe or Collins about term limits?
So I take it you don't want to hear my theory that Scalia are Ginsburg are more than just friends as well?
![]()
Didn't the Enquirer break that story?
That's funny cause the right doesn't see it that way. They always forget that Stewart and Maher are comedians and Coulter, Malkin, Beck, O'Reilly, Rush, are not.Well of all of them, Maher has an excuse -- he's an overt professional comedian.
and Coulter, Malkin, Beck, O'Reilly, Rush, are not.
That's funny cause the right doesn't see it that way. They always forget that Stewart and Maher are comedians and Coulter, Malkin, Beck, O'Reilly, Rush, are not.
Yet they all use the same level of absurdity.
There's an actual, serious idea behind it.
Agree with number one. I mean, I'm not calling for impeachment or anything extreme here. I'm just saying it was just another childish moment from what seems to be a pretty childish administration.
On number two... the point is, I think, that the office of the President ought to be held to a higher standard.
What do you say when Keith Olbermann, one of the most highly adored celebrities of the left wing calls Michelle Malkin "a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick"?
The most hateful, misogynistic pigs are always liberals that hide behind their liberal credentials to spew the most foul garbage.
I dunno guys, but I think this country's been going to hell in a hand basket ever since the skirts got the vote.![]()
![]()
![]()
I assume Thomas watches. And sips.
Fair? Are you kidding?A pretty fair article about job growth in 2010:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100515_5237.php?mrefid=site_search
Fair? Are you kidding?
They're ripping on Bush for not creating millions of jobs during a period when the unemployment rate was ~5%. What about that makes sense? That's like pointing out that Calista Flockhart can't win The Biggest Loser. And they're cherrypicking what is likely to be Obama's best year and comparing that to an 8 year period.
Using the same statistic they did, from August 2003 to May 2008, jobs went from 129.8M to 137.7M, which is an an annual rate of more than 2M per year. Let's see Obama replicate that feat over a 4.5 year period. Actually, let's not, because all those jobs that Bush "created" from 2003 to 2008 were NOT a good thing - they were merely a symptom of the mortgage bubble that finally burst with a vengeance in 2009. Those jobs were never real in the first place. If Obama "creates" 8M jobs in the next 4 years, it will be the same story - they won't be the result of healthy growth of the economy but some artificial inflation. There should not BE 138M jobs in the US right now - the economy will not sustain that level.
In any case, I'm still firmly in the "Presidents deserve almost no credit or blame for the economy" camp. The jobs increase from 2003-2008 were not because of Bush's policies, just as the jobs that will be created from 2010-2012 will not be due to Obama's, but will be due to the financial industry getting itself back into shape so that it can begin lending again and businesses can access the capital they need to expand.
Oh yeah, you are wrong about one thing...we've recently created thousands of jobs putting in curbing, islands and guardrails...these are clearly high skill, long-term jobs that will aid us in our mission to control the global market on road improvements.
Oh yeah, you are wrong about one thing...we've recently created thousands of jobs putting in curbing, islands and guardrails...these are clearly high skill, long-term jobs that will aid us in our mission to control the global market on road improvements.
Red Cloud said:Don't forget the census.