Who are you voting/rooting for in this years election

[georges]

Yes Kerry does! Defeating Saddam was more than neccessary? No! Defeating Al Qieda and Capturing bin Laden is whats more than neccessary. Stoping terrorism all over the world is what's more than neccessary not attacking somebody because you have a grudge with him left over from your father's administration. And peaceful talks do stop some terrorism. If defeating Saddam was more than neccessary then what about all those people that are worse than him and pose a bigger threat. What about Iran, North Korea, Libia, etc. Bush is a dumbass who resorts to fear tactics to get people to think his way.

He's a coward who wouldnt even fight in Vietnam. He attacks people because he has a bad record with the econemy and domestic issues and the only thing he can fall back on is Iraq which is an awful failure in judgement and he knows it. He's such a bad president that he still has yet to implement the 9/11 commissions suggestions to make this country safer and if we get attacked it's going to be his fault for not implementing those suggestions.

kerry won't make the situation better he will make it worse. kerry is the worst democrat candidate ever and you know that better than me. record economy bad? but who left bush this bad economy? mr clinton, another democrat and not better than kerry.and kerry will not be able to foresee all the attacks planned by terrorists.Peaceful talks never stop terrorism.Terrorists must be killed alongwith terrorism. Kerry is a losy weakminded democrat he is a shame for democrats.

 

[Brino]

kerry won't make the situation better he will make it worse. kerry is the worst democrat candidate ever and you know that better than me. record economy bad? but who left bush this bad economy? mr clinton, another democrat and not better than kerry.and kerry will not be able to foresee all the attacks planned by terrorists.Peaceful talks never stop terrorism.Terrorists must be killed alongwith terrorism. Kerry is a losy weakminded democrat he is a shame for democrats.

You treat Bush like he's a saint when every republican before president Bush was better than him. And no he didnt inherit the bad econemy from Clinton. Clinton saved money that Bush wasted and Bush accumulated a huge deficit acting like he could do whatever he wanted.

Peaceful talks stoped some terrorism in Israel when Clinton was president but then Bush wasted that plan and now a wall has to be built. Kerry will make the situation better he will implement the 9/11 commissions plans and suggesstions to make us safer at home instead of using terrorism for political gain like Bush.

No Kerry can't forsee terrorist attacks but neither can Bush so what's your point? Bush is a dumbass hateful mofo

 

[sky1lopez]

nader wanted 2 legalize weed a while back, maybe he will try again

 

[georges]

You treat Bush like he's a saint when every republican before president Bush was better than him. And no he didnt inherit the bad econemy from Clinton. Clinton saved money that Bush wasted and Bush accumulated a huge deficit acting like he could do whatever he wanted.

Peaceful talks stoped some terrorism in Israel when Clinton was president but then Bush wasted that plan and now a wall has to be built. Kerry will make the situation better he will implement the 9/11 commissions plans and suggesstions to make us safer at home instead of using terrorism for political gain like Bush.

No Kerry can't forsee terrorist attacks but neither can Bush so what's your point? Bush is a dumbass hateful mofo

bush is a saint as compared to kerry.Prove me that bush wasted the money that clinton accumulated.Deficit prouve it with a source or with numbers talks are talks, facts are facts.Mr clinton give the nobel prize to a terrorist Mr Yasser Arafat and all the Wye Plantation Talks were not useful because Arafat is a terrorist.Gladly the Israelians killed cheikh Yassine and his successor. Terrorists must be killed. In Israel you still had terrorism before Clinton and that was in 1982 when Israeli soldiers were at the libanese front near the Beqaa Valley and the first inti fada. Kerry won't implement anything he is just too weak and too afraid of terrorists for fighting them. Bush hates terrorists and their allies and he is right.People who lower hands in front of terrorists are weak and have no courage. Problem is that kerry hasn't proposed a plan against terrorism.Kerry is a low weakminded peaceful idiot.

 

[Brino]

bush is a saint as compared to kerry.Prove me that bush wasted the money that clinton accumulated.Deficit prouve it with a source or with numbers talks are talks, facts are facts.Mr clinton give the nobel prize to a terrorist Mr Yasser Arafat and all the Wye Plantation Talks were not useful because Arafat is a terrorist.Gladly the Israelians killed cheikh Yassine and his successor. Terrorists must be killed. In Israel you still had terrorism before Clinton and that was in 1982 when Israeli soldiers were at the libanese front near the Beqaa Valley and the first inti fada. Kerry won't implement anything he is just too weak and too afraid of terrorists for fighting them. Bush hates terrorists and their allies and he is right.People who lower hands in front of terrorists are weak and have no courage. Problem is that kerry hasn't proposed a plan against terrorism.Kerry is a low weakminded peaceful idiot.

Kerry afraid of terrorists? You know your talking about a guy that has actually seen combat. A guy that has actually stared down the barrel of a gun and put his life on the line to save others. I'm sorry but to qoute you "your argument is weak" Bush is the coward he'd rather attack an enemy that he knew he could defeat rather than attack the true countries behind terrorism.

Prove to you that Bush accumulated a huge deficit? Well I cant I'm not good with numbers (I hate math) I wouldnt even know where to look that's Inspector_XXX's domain. But I can tell you that it's common knowledge that Bush accumulated a huge deficit and if you want the proof then ask Inspector_XXX.

Israel was getting better under Clinton and his peace plan but when Bush became president he didnt continue the talks. He waited until after 9/11 to do anything about Israel and terrorism because he was such a dumbass and didnt care. Bush is the worst president ever! He has accumulated the largest deficit this country has ever had with his misguided war and he should be impeached!

 

[Inspector_XXX]

Prove me that bush wasted the money that clinton accumulated.Deficit prouve it with a source or with numbers talks are talks, facts are facts.

This has been well documented, georges, and if you would get off your ass and do your own research you would know that. But here it is straight from the horse's mouth, the Congressional Budget Office:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table11

Under Bush Sr.:

1989: $152 billion deficit
1990: $221 billion deficit
1991: $269 billion deficit
1992: $290 billion deficit

Under Clinton:

1993: $255 billion deficit
1994: $203 billion deficit
1995: $164 billion deficit
1996: $107 billion deficit
1997: $22 billion deficit
1998: $69 billion surplus
1999: $126 billion surplus
2000: $236 billion surplus

Under Bush Jr.:

2001: $127 billion surplus
2002: $158 billion deficit
2003: $375 billion deficit
2004: $455 billion deficit (predicted)

In other words, the budget situation improved every single year under Clinton, and it's gotten worse every single year under Bush. So there's the hard facts you wanted, georges.

By the way, I've never seen you put forth any facts to defend your positions. In fact, a lot of the things you say are just absurdly wrong. Like this:

Mr clinton give the nobel prize to a terrorist Mr Yasser Arafat

No, Clinton didn't give Yasser Arafat a Nobel Prize. He didn't give anybody a Nobel Prize, because the President of the United States doesn't give out Nobel Prizes, and doesn't choose who gets them. They're given by the King of Sweden, and the Nobel Foundation decides who gets them. The President of the United States has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize.

Seriously, georges, do you even think before you post this shit?

 

[foxfilm]

Inspector:

Thanks for taking the time to read my stuff!

You write: "The big problem with your analysis, though, is that the hourly income figures already account for changes in the CPI. That's what it means to be "adjusted to 1982 dollars", the CPI is the exact statistic used to measure inflation".

Well, not to be argumentative but I was always under the impression that inflation had to do with the amount of money in circulation. Evidently, so does Webster's:

"A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by AN INCREASE IN AVAILABLE CURRENCY (emphasis added) currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services". (2000)

The Old Websters: (1982)
"An increase in the amount of currency in circulation, resulting in a relatively sharp and sudden fall in its value and rise in prices: it may be caused by an increase in the volume of paper money issued or of gold mined, or a relative increase in expenditures as when the supply of goods fails to meet the demand."

I'm confused.

Anyway, the fundamental question I was trying to ask was "How is it that we determine whether or not the "adjusted to 1982 dollars" income buys more or less than the "average" income bought in 1982?

If the Consumer Price Index (the cost of goods at any point? Or the cost of goods in 1982 dollars?) doubled in 20 years, are we to assume that average hourly income has likewise doubled? No way to tell with the "adjusted income" stat alone, is there? Or am I missing something primary, here? (Always a distinct possibility.)

And is this discussion getting too off track for this thread? Mods, should we put it somewhere else more appropriate.

Oh, and everybody, Airamericaradio.com is airing a more liberally based programming line-up than the average American radio station (Al Frankin, total Babe Janeane Garofalo, and a MILF named Randi Rhodes) and a ton of outstanding political satire and news. Their stream works well, too! Check em out.


:hatsoff:

 

[Inspector_XXX]

Hey, fox. Always interested in reading your stuff.

You're correct about what inflation is; it's "an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services" But that doesn't answer the question of how to measure it.

To measure inflation perfectly you'd have to measure the amount of "available currency and credit" and then compare it to the amount of "available goods and services". The first one isn't hard to measure, but the second one is tricky. You can't track down everyone who's providing goods and services and tally up the value of all of them.

So, economists use the Consumer Price Index to get an approximate measure of inflation. Basically, they've got a list of commonly bought items and they track the prices of all of them and keep track of how they change from month to month. If prices are generally going up, there's inflation going on.

So, if you go back to the BLS data servelet page, here:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce

you can retrieve the data for

1. Hourly wages, unadjusted.
2. Hourly wages, adjusted to 1982 dollars.
3. The CPI (use the pull-down menu at the top right that says "Other Surveys")

and check it out for yourself. The numbers don't seem to match up exactly, but they're pretty close. (I think it has something to do with the difference between monthy and yearly averages.)

For example:

January 1982:
Average hourly wage: $7.71
CPI: 94.3
$7.71/0.943 = $8.17 adjusted
(The BLS adjusted data says $7.88.)

January 2004:
Average hourly wage: $15.49
CPI: 185.2
$15.46/1.852 = $8.36
(The BLS adjusted data says $8.27.)

So it's not exact, but it's pretty close.

And naturally, I'm an Air America fan too.

 

[Brino]

Thanks for the facts Inspector_XXX! :hatsoff: Your a workhorse as usual! :bowdown:

BTW foxfilm, Ive often wondered whether there should be a political section for us to post all this crap in too. I dont think enough people would post there though so it might not be worth it.

 

[georges]

This has been well documented, georges, and if you would get off your ass and do your own research you would know that. But here it is straight from the horse's mouth, the Congressional Budget Office:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table11

Under Bush Sr.:

1989: $152 billion deficit
1990: $221 billion deficit
1991: $269 billion deficit
1992: $290 billion deficit

Under Clinton:

1993: $255 billion deficit
1994: $203 billion deficit
1995: $164 billion deficit
1996: $107 billion deficit
1997: $22 billion deficit
1998: $69 billion surplus
1999: $126 billion surplus
2000: $236 billion surplus

Under Bush Jr.:

2001: $127 billion surplus
2002: $158 billion deficit
2003: $375 billion deficit
2004: $455 billion deficit (predicted)

In other words, the budget situation improved every single year under Clinton, and it's gotten worse every single year under Bush. So there's the hard facts you wanted, georges.

By the way, I've never seen you put forth any facts to defend your positions. In fact, a lot of the things you say are just absurdly wrong. Like this:

No, Clinton didn't give Yasser Arafat a Nobel Prize. He didn't give anybody a Nobel Prize, because the President of the United States doesn't give out Nobel Prizes, and doesn't choose who gets them. They're given by the King of Sweden, and the Nobel Foundation decides who gets them. The President of the United States has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize.

Seriously, georges, do you even think before you post this shit?

I have been mistaken with the nobel prize.Yes and what everyone make mistakes no?
btw i didn't know the cbo website maybe should i have gone further in the research.

 

[georges]

http://speed.supercars.net/Board?viewThread=y&fID=7&tID=127061 an interesting thread about kerry

 

[georges]

anotherinteresting link http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp

 

[bibo]

True. Everybody can make mistakes. Clinton giving out Nobel prizes is a minor mistake, just like putting a 6 year old Helmut Kohl into the SS or telling the world that the Nazis were Socialists. No biggie. After all, that´s what history is made of isn´t it.

Just curious: Can you enlighten me and tell me why exactly Yassr Arafat is considered a Terrorist? Does wearing strange clothes, praying to Mekka and defending himself against Israel make him one?

 

[georges]

True. Everybody can make mistakes. Clinton giving out Nobel prizes is a minor mistake, just like putting a 6 year old Helmut Kohl into the SS or telling the world that the Nazis were Socialists. No biggie. After all, that´s what history is made of isn´t it.

Just curious: Can you enlighten me and tell me why exactly Yassr Arafat is considered a Terrorist? Does wearing strange clothes, praying to Mekka and defending himself against Israel make him one?

helmut kohl was in the hitler jugend and a certain number people who were in the hitler jugend were transfered into ss divisions.Yasser Arafat was the founder of the OLP but he is also indirectly implicated in the murder of the jew athletes in Munich 1972, he supports terrorism and the fatah his party is composed by extremist terrorists who are just mass murderers. People who explose themselves or kamikazes in Israel are people that share ideas with the fatah who is mainly composed of extremist.

 

[bibo]

helmut kohl was in the hitler jugend and a certain number people who were in the hitler jugend were transfered into ss divisions.

Blimey! That´s true! Could have something to do with the fact that 99% of all children in Germany were in the HJ at that time and partens had to expect repressions and trouble if they wouldn´t put their kids into it. And it´s not very likely that the Hitler would recruit people from the missing 1% for his beloved SS. Does that make them all possible SS soldiers? Anyways, that didn´t keep you from trying to sell us the story of Kohl, one of the creators of modern Europe being a former officer in the SS. At the age of 10. Just another oopsie and we´re all making mistakes and everything, but nevertheless a good sign of how flexible the content of your arguments is.

Yasser Arafat was ... bla bla ... composed of extremist.

Munich 1972 is over one generation ago. Shall we compare how many victims have been killed from fundamental arabs and radical israel folks since then (and in the years before 1972 as well)? If Arafat is considered a terrorist for his actions and his sympathies towards radical muslims, then why isn´t Sharon? Oh, I know! Terrorists is a term that´s being used for the weak and the desperate people, those people who don´t own a TV station and a couple of newspapers to camouflage their actions. It´s a term for people who have gone so low as to kill innocent people. But you know what? When they do, they at least have the backbone to not call it "collateral damage" or "ethnic cleansing" or "euthanasia". Those words are a (TM) of the strong (as you call them).

And one final thing...
Apologizing is NEVER a sign of weakness. Only the wise and strong apologize. Stubborn idiots who consider themselves holier than the pope never do.

 

[Inspector_XXX]

I have been mistaken with the nobel prize.Yes and what everyone make mistakes no?
btw i didn't know the cbo website maybe should i have gone further in the research.

What I was pointing out was that it's hypocritical of you to demand facts from Brino when your own posts are so consistently fact-free.

Hell, I showed you the hard data in the other thread that there were 22.4 million jobs created in the U.S. under the Clinton administration -- more than in the Reagan administration and both Bush administrations combined -- and yet you still keep spewing this horseshit about how Clinton didn't do anything about unemployment.

So really, georges, why should we bother presenting the facts to you? You just ignore them and keep saying "Reagan good, Clinton bad, Bush good, Kerry bad."

 

[georges]

What I was pointing out was that it's hypocritical of you to demand facts from Brino when your own posts are so consistently fact-free.

Hell, I showed you the hard data in the other thread that there were 22.4 million jobs created in the U.S. under the Clinton administration -- more than in the Reagan administration and both Bush administrations combined -- and yet you still keep spewing this horseshit about how Clinton didn't do anything about unemployment.

So really, georges, why should we bother presenting the facts to you? You just ignore them and keep saying "Reagan good, Clinton bad, Bush good, Kerry bad."

hypocritical no :nono:. we have our own opinion.you are a majority of democrats on that board ok. however it is not because i don't like a person that facts don't interest me.yes but also during clinton there was also the asian financial crisis and it had consequences too indirectly. I don't ignore your facts but i am just trying to tell you that kerry isn't the best choice.
However the economical situation in the eighties was different from the nineties.Personnally you can't compare the 80's to the 90's because those are different times.

 

[Brino]

georges, I can't believe after playing that game (Beat Bush) in the funny pictures section you can still treat Bush like he's a saint. If you played that game then you know all the facts that say Bush is the worst president ever! How can you still treat him like a saint after all that?

 

[georges]

georges, I can't believe after playing that game (Beat Bush) in the funny pictures section you can still treat Bush like he's a saint. If you played that game then you know all the facts that say Bush is the worst president ever! How can you still treat him like a saint after all that?

I was always a conservative. But when i have to compare between bush and kerry.Then i pick GWB.I don't trust Kerry maybe you do. According to many people's opinion on the radio VOA Kerry doesn't propose a concrete program against terrorism at least Bush does and it is the main line of his campaign.That is why i am for GWB.That won't change.
I never liked Mr Kerry.

 

[Brino]

I was always a conservative. But when i have to compare between bush and kerry.Then i pick GWB.I don't trust Kerry maybe you do. According to many people's opinion on the radio VOA Kerry doesn't propose a concrete program against terrorism at least Bush does and it is the main line of his campaign.That is why i am for GWB.That won't change.
I never liked Mr Kerry.

Well maybe thats because you live in France and you dont have to deal with all the domestic issues Americans have with Bush as president! When it comes to domestic issues Bush is the worst president ever and concerning foreign relations I dont think he's that good either.