unemployment rate dropped below 8% to its lowest rate since Obama took office

[Natural]

^^^ Fox news had all kinds of polls running before but when the polls started to show Obama is ahead, all of a sudden they became inaccurate n not representative of all voters. Now that the unemployment rate drops, the numbers are manipulated and labor dep is being owned by the "Chicago guys"


hahah and where do Flint and Massoud get their information?

 

[Mahdi]

^^^^^^^

to be fair though, MSNBC is a huge load of crap too.....or at least almost similarly annoying, but at least you don't have racist bigots sitting there...but anyway...

it's too much fun...

 

[Natural]

^^^^^^^

to be fair though, MSNBC is a huge load of crap too.....or at least almost similarly annoying, but at least you don't have racist bigots sitting there...but anyway...

it's too much fun...

MSNBC is def bias. but it is not even comparable to LOADS of GIANT crap that come out of faux news.

 

[lordofmordor]

One thing I dont get is how come the religion pushed the republicans get totally ignored by the Iranians who are against religion and a religious regime. There is a not single day that goes by that Glenn beck, Fox, and other republican news sources dont talk about religion and religious cases around the country. Ex. yesterday, a school banning the use of god banners by the cheerleaders . Romney being a religious man.

And they supported Bush although him using:

"Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day."

"After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that “God put me here” to deal with the war on terror. The President’s belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that “he’s the man,” the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reëlection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose."

“I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.”—George W. Bush commenting to Texas evangelist James Robinson in the run-up to his presidential campaign

 

[Flint]

awww.. makes me feel so bad for them.. theyre such amazing ppl.. cuz at the end of the day they are only putting their lives on the line for the well being of the middle class.. not because they are hoping they make more profit no matter what it takes..

What was the biggest risk you took today? Cut your bagel in half?

 

[Natural]

What was the biggest risk you took today? Cut your bagel in half?

What was yours, get out of your mom's basement?

 

[Kaz]

awww.. makes me feel so bad for them.. theyre such amazing ppl.. cuz at the end of the day they are only putting their lives on the line for the well being of the middle class.. not because they are hoping they make more profit no matter what it takes..

The above is a classic example of the mentality creeping into people on the left these days and it is dangerous. They are not putting their lives on the line for the middle class no more than the middle class is putting their lives on the line for them. Which, ultimately, is not the business of either to be risking anything for anybody else.

As for your previous question: who makes them rich? They do, themselves. By providing something others consensually buy, for their own self-interests.

Anyway, I read an interesting fact: no President has been reelected with UE above 7.2%.

One thing I dont get is how come the religion pushed the republicans get totally ignored by the Iranians who are against religion and a religious regime.

I agree, all belief systems based on nothing but subjective whims, and which are aggressively imposed (or attempted to be) on others are dangerous to the liberty of people.

Ironically, the Ds position on morality and the welfare state is just another religion in itself. Why don't you oppose that instead?

 

[Abedzaadeh]

Look at the odds:

http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/g/9036/Next-US-President.html

for me odds are more reliable than polls and opinions

 

[IranZamin]

The above is a classic example of the mentality creeping into people on the left these days and it is dangerous. They are not putting their lives on the line for the middle class no more than the middle class is putting their lives on the line for them. Which, ultimately, is not the business of either to be risking anything for anybody else.

As for your previous question: who makes them rich? They do, themselves. By providing something others consensually buy, for their own self-interests.

The funny thing about the left's logic on these issues is they don't realize most often they're arguing against themselves. If we're really going to get into "who owes what to whom" and "who helped rich people get rich", if this is the kind of argument we're going to rely on, the welfare-recipients would end up at the wrong end of the equation every time.

On this basis the lowest classes owe the most to those in the middle and upper strata since the funds for food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid and various other benefits come directly out of the pockets of those groups. The middle class also owes only to their own cohorts and those above themselves, since they pay the bulk of taxes which fund the construction of infrastructure everyone relies on and the left constantly reminds us of. The working class who provide the manual labor for those projects and get paid for their services wouldn't get the jobs or the salary if the funds didn't exist in the first place.

Also, if we're going to worry about 'who makes who rich', then the fat cats and so called 'one-percenters' end up owing next to nothing to the welfare class. If you're a wealthy stock broker or the owner of a luxury car company or even a dealership, who really helps you get rich? Is it the middle and upper classes who have the disposable income to buy the products and services you offer, or is it the group that doesn't patronize your business but receives a paycheck from the funds government collects from you?

If we adopt the left's own "owe me" logic, welfare should probably not even exist at all It really is a sad mess of an ideology.

 

[Mahdi]

[video=youtube;t3GnWTy8Ebg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3GnWTy8Ebg[/video]

 

[Mahdi]

this left/right middle class, lower class, higher class, 1% discussion is pretty much a huge bullcrap btw.

it all depends on what you believe in and who your clientele is...

if you believe in trickle down economics, you believe that the wealthy people will reinvest their money saved from lower taxes in new business and what not and it will trickle down to everyone else. data suggests that it might have been true at some point but doesn't work that way right now since economy works different now than it did say 70 years ago.
if you believe in multipliers, then you believe that a broad middle class, whatever that might be, will reinvest their money saved from breaks or given by someone further into consumption and you will have an economic boom based on consumption and what not. which is all cool, but....depends on how sustainable it is and shit also may hit the fan if too many people buy too much of the same goods, a bubble comes up etc. but evidence suggests here too that a simple government handout doesn't work well. schools, parks, stuff like that, work better.
the other issue is how much welfare and government support belongs to those below the poverty line and what not....again, debatable. some are for vouchers, others believe in infrastructure and service for them, like better schools in poor areas, etc. again, ideological issue, depends on your skin color, your upbringing, how much of a douchebag you are or are not in what you believe in.
all in all, as a matter of fact, if we take the United States as the prime case, the country has done best whenever it was quasi socialist or led by politicians with what one would consider left policies, and by today's standards and actually compared to his time too, Eisenhower was pretty left too, despite being Republican. (extended social security, interstate highway, new deal support, events in Little Rock)

most importantly though

Mitt Romney don't pay no tax, Mitt Romney don't pay no tax
Chi-Town 'til I'm on my back, Chi-Town 'til I'm on my back
Only nigga in Beverly Hills, where the hell is Axel Foley at?
"Ease up there, baby boy": Ving Rhames told Jody that
R. Kelly and the God of rap
Shitting on you, holy crap

 

[Kaz]

True a lot depends on your beliefs; but no, America was probably at it's richest/most prosperous when it was anything but a quasi-socialist society. America has been very wealthy and free, but that is despite it's socialistic tendencies.

@ IZ: I agree, of course. Which is why I tend to like discussing political/economic ideology. I find eventually enough doubt creeps into their mind that they give up the whole thing eventually. Kind of like religion.

 

[Mahdi]

True a lot depends on your beliefs; but no, America was probably at it's richest/most prosperous when it was anything but a quasi-socialist society. America has been very wealthy and free, but that is despite it's socialistic tendencies.

Oh really? You really want to say that the US was bad off during Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Clinton, Lyndon B. etc. and better off during Reagan, George W., Hoover etc.?

 

[Kaz]

No, what does the above have to do with it? The time I am talking about predates all of them. I also feel the juxtaposition in the above mistakes me for someone who cares about R Presidents. Reagan, for example, was more to the left than Obama is on the whole re economics; and Clinton owed a great deal to anything but his policies - as I stated, growth was achieved despite socialistic tampering, not because of it. The insinuation being that if not for those policies there could have been even greater wealth had.

 

[IranZamin]

Kaz jan, in all honesty, don't you feel a bit silly attempting a serious discussion with a grown man who thinks posting rap lyrics in a political discussion makes him look clever?

 

[Mahdi]

No, what does the above have to do with it? The time I am talking about predates all of them. I also feel the juxtaposition in the above mistakes me for someone who cares about R Presidents. Reagan, for example, was more to the left than Obama is on the whole re economics;

which kind of is the point that ranting about an invisible left is a bit stupid....

and Clinton owed a great deal to anything but his policies - as I stated, growth was achieved despite socialistic tampering, not because of it. The insinuation being that if not for those policies there could have been even greater wealth had.

hypothetical argument of yours...sorry to say..irrelevant.

 

[Mahdi]

Uffff....yes...rap lyrics are posted to look clever...

 

[IranZamin]

So you realize they don't sound clever, funny or ironic, but you still post them I'm actually not sure if this makes it less pathetic.

 

[Kaz]

Kaz jan, in all honesty, don't you feel a bit silly attempting a serious discussion with a grown man who thinks posting rap lyrics in a political discussion makes him look clever?

I have hope in the human race. LOL

which kind of is the point that ranting about an invisible left is a bit stupid....

hypothetical argument of yours...sorry to say..irrelevant.

Invisible left? I am talking about leftist doctrines when it comes to politics or economics. Whether it comes from a Republican or a Democrat is irrelevant for me.

Nothing in the above was stated hypothetically.

[video=youtube;JPyjJ1MMUzQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPyjJ1MMUzQ[/video]

 

[Mahdi]

Nothing in the above was stated hypothetically.

Really? You claim that something you can't prove and has no factual basis but is just a theory of yours since it didn't happen that way is not hypothetical but fact?

Interesting....I have no hope then...