AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

That President and Congress that passes a rotten law are responsible for passing that law.

Any President and Congress who are successors to the President and Congress that passed a rotten law, are responsible for continuing that rotten law by failing to rescind or curtail that rotten law.

YES, we should blame the GOP for the deficits caused by Medicare since the GOP didn't rescind or curtail Medicare. YES, we should blame Obama and the Democrat Congress for the deficits caused by Medicare since they failed--so far--to rescind or curtail Medicare.


Parados, before you question someone else's "logical and math skills," you should competently question your own "logical and math skills," in order to competently determine your own competence to question anyone else's "logical and math skills."

ican wrote:

That's what happens when the "other" party wins the presidency and congress. If you don't like it, you can move to another country.

Your dumbness shows again!

January 2010 = ?
December 2010 = ?

That President and Congress that passes a rotten law are responsible for passing that law.

Any President and Congress who are successors to the President and Congress that passed a rotten law, are responsible for continuing that rotten law by failing to rescind or curtail that rotten law.

Your use of the employment tables raises the question of how you could even look things up properly as an electrical engineer.

I am guessing the closest thing you got to being an electrical engineer ican was when you stopped mopping the floor long enough to change a light bulb.

Oh.. so the GOP IS responsible and you were talking out of your ass earlier? or are you talking out of your ass now?


I wouldn't compare the employment figures for a year to the figures for a month and claim they show a specific change in job numbers. Do you also use the claim the power produced at a power plant is the same power that comes out the other end of a transmission line?

I doubt very much ican understands the concept of batteries.

That President and Congress that passes a rotten law are responsible for passing that law.

Any President and Congress who are successors to the President and Congress that passed a rotten law, are responsible for continuing that rotten law by failing to rescind or curtail that rotten law.


Good! Then don't claim that.

I posted:

December 2006 to December 2007 is a year.
December 2007 to December 2008 is a year.
December 2008 to December 2009 is a year.

Do the math:
Total Employment Losses:
December 2007 to December 2008 = 2,709,000
December 2008 to December 2009 = 5,546,000

ican never learned about trends, and he never will. Dumb. That he can fly airplanes is a mystery, because he should know something about momentum. When another person pilots an airplane, and he takes over the controls, I wonder if he can stop in midair? According to his understanding about momentum, he should be able to, because that's what he expected Obama to do on January 20, 2009.

I didn't claim it.

YOU did however ican in previous posts as well as this one. Now you want to pretend you didn't do such a thing. You posted it several times.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-914#post-3876548
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-906#post-3865134

Here you seemed to agree that the unemployment rate was actually 22%
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-888#post-3811794

From this post ....
That is the YEARLY figure for 2006, not the Dec figure


That figure is NOT from Decemer 2007. It is the YEARLY figure for 2007.

I can't be sure where you got this number based on your sources because it isn't listed there. I can only assume you meant to use the Dec 2008 number of 143,138.
But wait,.. the number for 2006 and 2007 came from the YEARLY table where 2008 is 145,362 so it is OBVIOUS you are comparing Dec to YEARLY numbers and expect us to accept the meaning you are giving it.

You can't even use a simple lookup table correctly ican.

Not only that, you completely ignore the warning about using the data..

and this one..



Not only do you misuse the data, you ignore the fact that the data specifically says you can't compare years.

I expect Obama will continue in 2010 his momentum of decreasing total USA unemployment.

I predict January 2010 total USA employment will be less than the total USA employment in December 2009 that was equal to 137,792,000.

I fly both fixed wing and helicopter aircraft, and kites without flapping my wings.

ican, Our country and the world economies are in a great recession. Get your head out of your arse. People are still losing their jobs and homes, and many workers are seeing their work hours reduced.

Looking at unemployment or employment numbers and comparing them to the past is a dummy's exercise when viewed with myopia like you.

I think examining total USA employment since December 2006 is actually a valid way to measure how many people have lost their jobs. AND it probably will probably prove to be a valid way to predict how many more will lose their jobs if current Obama efforts achieve the objectives he has advocated.


Total USA Employment Gain:
December 2006 to December 2007 = 1,620,000

Total USA Employment Losses:
December 2007 to December 2008 = 2,709,000
December 2008 to December 2009 = 5,546,000

Show us how "examining" total USA employment since December 2006 is a valid way to measure how many people have lost their jobs?

Looking at "only" employment numbers is a dummies way to measure anything, because you don't take into consideration other important aspects of employment. You are too simple minded to have any intelligent discussion on any subject.

The numbers of people employed in December 2006 does not compare in any way to those employed now. Guess why?

Coakley has conceded the special election for the seat formally occupied by the Late Sen. Edward Kennedy. This according to the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/

Brown 52%, Coakley 47%, Kennedy 1%

Two Democrats confirmed the concession to POLITICO.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Globe_Coakley_concedes.html

Next up:

The Dems are making noises about going straight to the bill already approved in the senate.

Will they stoop to reconcilliation? I would not be suprised.

JM

Does this mean that Obama's promise of bipartisanship will come to fruition?

Another thought: Does this mean that the No Party is going to block all legislation from now till the 2012 elections? LOL

I hope so, but don't think Obama will take that tact. He's not that smart, nor strong enough to counter his liberal base.



Republicans will not be foolish enough to block "all legislation", but certainly would be well justified to block any legislation that irresponsibly expands the deficit i.e., 2nd Stimulus, Cap&Trade, healthcare.

What amazes me about the aftermath of this election is the insistence of prominent Dems that they MUST now pass the Senate Healthcare bill. They seem totally deaf to the fact that playing to their base didn't work in MA and won't work nationally. Independents beat them in MA, not Republicans....and independents don't like this bill. Dems need to start over...

I think this would be a good thread to post a thought or two about political philosophies, parties, and trends. I have been thinking about a cultural effect as it relates to politics, and so it is as follows.

Humans tend to do many things because they are trendy, whether it be clothing, music, architectural styles, car styles, hair styles, you name it really, it includes almost everything. To be accurate, there are a portions of the population or culture on opposite ends of the spectrum that do things or do not do things based upon their own in depth reasoning in terms of whether something is practical or suit their particular tastes or philosophies.

So the point I wish to make here is that politics is no exception, there are a significant portion of people that will jump onto a candidate's bandwagon if they feel that that candidate is trendy, cool, and popular. I believe that is what happened with Obama. There were many people that recognized Obama for what he was, and because those people realized he was ultra leftist, even Marxist leaning, they opposed him because they themselves were conservative and voted their conscience, while ultra left leaning people also voted their conscience. However, it was the large number of people that had a poor understanding of political philosophies, their definitions, and who Obama really was, and therefore swallowed the mainstream media's portrayal of Obama as a centrist, very smart, a uniter, a new kind of politician that was cool and trendy, and so they followed the crowd and voted for Obama, and they were the difference.

That gets me to the Scott Brown election. I am very happy that a Republican won in a seat that had been held by a Democrat for ages, and I feel this signifies a huge tidal turn, perhaps not only in Massachusetts but nationwide, however, I would like to caution people about what I discussed in opening this post. It really depends upon whether more people become conservative or whether it is that large number of people in the middle simply want to be trendy and they now think Obama and his brand has fallen out of popular favor and so they vote for a Brown type brand. To summarize, I think it is imperative that people actually become much more educated and thoughtful about their own political philosophy, to have good sound reasons for believing a political philosophy, to actually have a political philosophy that they have thought out in good sound detail, with good sound reasons for voting for a candidate, rather than simply voting the trendy or popular mood of the country.

So I hope the election of Brown signals a move toward a return to more and more people understanding and supporting conservatism. After all, it works, it is sound reasoning, it is responsible, and it is rooted in the constitution. Liberalism is rooted in emotions and feelings, and is therefore much more subject to voting the trendy candidate.

Brown's victory simply means that the Republican Party still has some life in it. In my opinion, a two party system is the best model for any democracy.

This from the guy that confuses the northern hemisphere with the entire globe when he claims the cold proves we aren't warming?

Reason is NOT your strong suit okie. You certainly don't use "sound reasoning".