- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,988
- Reaction score
- 10
- Location
- Pasadena, California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Not those who are running against the GOP incumbents, they haven't had a chance to become immersed in the culture yet and thus can claim that correctly.Goobieman said:...even though they are corproaret slaves, just as they claim the GOP is.
Hey, quote this, the AARP is a special interest for both the Dems and Repubs. But the point remains that those who are in power bend to those interests. Those who are running against the power have not yet had a chance to be bought completely and can run on that.Except for interests like the NEA, the AFT, the AARP, the Sierra club, etc -- but those special interests are OK.
Wage increases-nonexistant. Shipping jobs to other countries-oh yeah. A rise in service level jobs-oh hell yeah. Not that pleasant of an economy for workers who aren't that...intellectual.Youlre kidding, right?
By what measure does the economy suck?
GDP growth? Unemployment? Jobs creation? Productivity? Consumer confidence? Orders for durable goods?
True. But the point remains that it is the Economy Stupid.Yes. And he LIED to the American people when he said that "this is the wors economy in 50 years".
They are a new generation of progressives, and they should not be branded with the same stroke that brands those of the 60s and 70s. The Progressives haven't been in power since then. They can argue change is at hand and that they deserve to be the agents of change, because the conservatives who have been in power haven't done anything.....for the sake of change, as their version of "progress" has brought us nothing, and they cannot say what sort of change they will make to "improve" things.
But, they unlike the Republicans, are willing to argue for those that have nothing. Poverty is their issue, and nobody can tell them otherwise.Even though they kow-tow to the priveledged, just as they say the GOP does.
[quote[
How?
And what about the jobs being created now?
When unemployment under Clinton was at 4.6% with 1.8 million jobs created in a year, it was the cat's meow -- and under Bush, it means the economy sucks.[/quote]All the jobs are in the service level. The jobs that were eliminated were ones that were intellectual. Get with the program and realize that the pay level is not the same for these jobs and, in addition, will not mean a wage increase for any real American. You see productivity continue to rise, yet wages remain stagnant? Something smells fishy.
Oh, bait me. Just like Bush was willing to bankrupt the country by spending 400 million (according to a new report) in Iraq to prove himself right. Whoops. He still hasn't.And we're willing to bankrupt the country to prove it!!
We are willing to tax the rich, give tax breaks to the poor and middle class to prove it. Welcome to Democrats 101.
We won't touch social security in the next few years. We aren't lying.it means they're lying through their teeth to get it.

The Welfare state isn't going away, and I, for one, am for reforming it to make it more job oriented. But you can't take it away because so many people depend on it. IF you just took it away, there would be mass chaos, and you know that too.Except for the part where they're willing to bankrupt America to protect the welfae state. THAT is the truth.
Last edited: