1
   

John Kerry - what a dork

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 02:39 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
BINGO! It's this statement: Or prove that the dems under the last Dem President claimed that the unemployment numbers proved how good the economy was doing at the time?


You are making this to easy.

Lets start with what Bill Clinton said in July of 1996...
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/05/jobless/


Try this and again read what Clinton said about the unemployment numbers...
http://www.time.com/time/daily/1996/960906/textonly.html

Read Clintons words to a club in Detroit...
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19990108-2098.html

So,here are 3 examples of Clinton himself claiming that the unemployment figures during his admin prove the economy was good.

Now,there are several on the left here on A2K claiming that the unemployment figures now are wrong and a lie.

Since they are figured the same way now as they were then,were Clintons numbers a lie?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 02:51 pm
Hey, clucless mm, you missed the most important part of the article:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.

What this "report" essentially says is very simply that the 'unemployment rate fell to 5.3 percent, and the rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.' Simple, right?

The Labor Department said Friday that businesses added 239,000 workers to their payrolls during June.

Most economists believe that our economy must add at least (minimum to you) 150,000 jobs (average) every month to maintain "full employment."

The vast majority of the jobs added were in the service industry, including restaurants, bars, and agencies that place temporary workers.

You are clueless. Compare this to Bush's 4.4 percent unemplohment rate and job "growth" averaging less than 70,000 every month. This when the US population is growing every year, more Americans are losing their health insurance, and factory jobs are disappearing from our landscape.

I won't waste my time looking at your other links. Just show us where anybody thta's a democrat on a2k say what you claimed. I won't hold my breath.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 02:59 pm
http://www.math.toronto.edu/~drorbn/Gallery/Symmetry/Tilings/2S22/BrickWall.jpg

Maybe you will have more luck with this mysteryman.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:05 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Hey, clucless mm, you missed the most important part of the article:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.

What this "report" essentially says is very simply that the 'unemployment rate fell to 5.3 percent, and the rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.' Simple, right?

The Labor Department said Friday that businesses added 239,000 workers to their payrolls during June.

Most economists believe that our economy must add at least (minimum to you) 150,000 jobs (average) every month to maintain "full employment."

The vast majority of the jobs added were in the service industry, including restaurants, bars, and agencies that place temporary workers.

You are clueless. Compare this to Bush's 4.4 percent unemplohment rate and job "growth" averaging less than 70,000 every month. This when the US population is growing every year, more Americans are losing their health insurance, and factory jobs are disappearing from our landscape.

I won't waste my time looking at your other links. Just show us where anybody thta's a democrat on a2k say what you claimed. I won't hold my breath.


You yourself have said that the current unemployment numbers are false.
If you want me to,I will spend the time to look for your exact words about the numbers.

Are you going to say that you havent called the numbers under the Bush admin wrong or false?

McG,
I probably will have better luck talking to that wall.
I am hoping that CI will be honest enough to admit that he has called the unemployment figures under Bush a lie.
But,somehow,I doubt if that will happen.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:10 pm
McG is clueless too!

mm wrote:
Or prove that the dems under the last Dem President claimed that the unemployment numbers proved how good the economy was doing at the time?

"...dems under the last Dem President claimed that the unemployment numbers "proved" how good th eeconomy was..."

CLUE: Unemployment numbers have been produced by the same government department.

CLUE: What and where did dems claim anything about the low unemployment rate to prove "how good the economy was?"
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:34 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
McG is clueless too!

mm wrote:
Or prove that the dems under the last Dem President claimed that the unemployment numbers proved how good the economy was doing at the time?

"...dems under the last Dem President claimed that the unemployment numbers "proved" how good th eeconomy was..."

CLUE: Unemployment numbers have been produced by the same government department.

CLUE: What and where did dems claim anything about the low unemployment rate to prove "how good the economy was?"


I posted 3 links where Clinton himself said it,are you now saying that he isnt a dem?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:35 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
McG is clueless too!

mm wrote:
Or prove that the dems under the last Dem President claimed that the unemployment numbers proved how good the economy was doing at the time?

"...dems under the last Dem President claimed that the unemployment numbers "proved" how good th eeconomy was..."

CLUE: Unemployment numbers have been produced by the same government department.

CLUE: What and where did dems claim anything about the low unemployment rate to prove "how good the economy was?"


I posted 3 links where Clinton himself said it,are you now saying that he isnt a dem?

But its as I thought,you are not going to be honest and admit that you yourself have said the Bush unemployment numbers are false.

That says much about you.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:37 pm
What does any of this have to do with the fact that Kerry is a dork?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 03:40 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
What does any of this have to do with the fact that Kerry is a dork?


I think C.I. is trying to prove that Kerry is no less a dork then himself.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 04:15 pm
All you guys are able to do is attack the messenger, because you can't answer your own claims. Where did all of you go to school?

All of you are clueless!

If the same government department issues unemployment rates, and one of them can't be depended on to be consistent with the "true" unemployment rate; figure out for yourself what that means for any number they produce.

Democrat and republicans are not definitive descriptions for any party member in the US.

What and how Clinton uses government statistics/numbers to support his
job growth is at least consistent to the facts: his job growth backs up the "low" unemployment rates.
In Bush's case, the two numbers are "inconsistent."
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 04:19 pm
Half of Wall Street is going to retire at the end of the year. There will be lots of job openings.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 04:43 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
What does any of this have to do with the fact that Kerry is a dork?


I think C.I. is trying to prove that Kerry is no less a dork then himself.

Unfair to single out c. i. ... Kerry's dorkness applies broadly across the sociopolitical demographic from whence it originates.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 04:46 pm
timberlandko wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
What does any of this have to do with the fact that Kerry is a dork?


I think C.I. is trying to prove that Kerry is no less a dork then himself.

Unfair to single out c. i. ... Kerry's dorkness applies broadly across the sociopolitical demographic from whence it originates.


Shall we apply the same rule to the other party, with reference to deficiencies amongst the chosen representative for prez in '04?

Cycloptichorn Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 09:49 pm
Knock yourself out, Cyclops.

But this thread is to discuss the dorkiness of John Kerry.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:29 pm
Can we take this to mean you'll not stray from thread topics from now on, or are you just blabbering hypocritically?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:39 pm
You can take it however you want, snood.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:40 pm
John Kerry is sooooo dorky...
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:40 pm
How dorky is he?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:43 pm
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9714/kerrydorksz0.jpg
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Nov, 2006 10:48 pm
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/608/captwigh10910262241battqa6.jpg http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7452/kerry20football4lm8.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2022 at 10:54:50