I nominate that as the Slice of the Month. Cazz, your a regular Ginzu poster. You can slice through anything, even thick, tough baloney. I bow to a master.

If we'd all follow the valiant French, we'd be speaking outrageously accented German.

Ask a Canadian about it. We've been in one for years and years. Despite economic growth leading the planet, we've been barely able to get unemployment below 8%. Canadian people have not shared in the benefits of the "economic miracle" that we've been in since about 1995. It's better than the 12-14% unemployment we had previously, but still stinks.

What have we done to counteract the "Jobless Recovery?" The number one strategy that our gov't has employed (punny, huh?) since 1994 is tax cuts to corporations. "Trickle down" they called it. Guess what, nothing has trickled down. We've cut corporate tax rates to near zero, and jobs have not come. Only gone. Companies did not keep their productive capacity here despite their statements that deep tax cuts would do just that.

The jobless recovery has benefits to business. Thanks to high unemployment rates, there is a sizable pool of labour that keeps wages stagnant, no matter what happens with inflation or other measures of cost-of-living.

What can Bush do? If he keeps his "business" interests happy, jobless rates cannot fall. But, you Yanks are pretty sensitive to such matters come election time. We Canucks have become "conditioned" to expect perpetual recessionary unemplyment figures. Bush has not managed to as good a job as his Canadian counterparts.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif

Yes. We're even exchanging friendly waves.

1) So what. He's had four years, during which 3 million people lost their jobs, millions saw their retirement savings go up in smoke, and hundreds of thousands of jobs headed overseas. Who gives a $hit when it started, the real issue is that the only thing Bush seems able to do to end it is to hand out tax cuts to fatcats and corporations. By the way, last Foxnews poll showed 49% of Americans still think we are in a recession. And what's a "jobless recovery"? Bottom line, Bush just ain't got the sack to handle a big problem like a recession. After four years of failure at Economic Recovery 101, he needs to be fired. Clinton inherited a recession from Bush I, and turned it around in less than a year. Even Wall Street is starting to talk like getting rid of Bush and his record deficits is a good idea.

2)That's nice

3) By declaring North Korea part of the "axis of evil", Bush forced them to go nuclear to deter us from invading them. It worked.

4) I wish I could tell the future too.

5) Just a damned lie:
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Oh, you are soooo cute. MM needs somebody like you for his next propaganda piece. Apparently, you both use half truths and warmed up Teddy Kennedy propaganda rants.

OK, 1) Bull$$it. that number of jobs lost keep growing since last November when it started at 1.2 million. I suggest we agree on one number and stick to it. Although it's so tempting to have a moving target as the economy pumps in new jobs, it may eventually catch up to you when you say "250 million jobs lost!" oops. Of course, you have to grasp at straws as we approach the target of 2 million new jobs before the election as stated by Bush in March ( and mostly laughed at by the liberals). So, what IS that number of the jobs lost? or is it ALWAYS more than jobs created? BTW, in 1988 Joseph Tainter suggested that Rome collapsed from overtaxing. understendeably, this study is mostly ignored by liberals. have you compared that to, say, how much jobs where lost in the compatible time in EU???? Maybe you should, as we had a WORLDWIDE recession at that time.
2)I'm glad you think so. now stop for 10 seconds spewing Teddy Kennedy propaganda and think about the implications. here is some help - there is only one good way to feed a crocodile- make sure it eats you last (ask the French).
3) You could not possibly be so stupid. I mean, you can obviously write (unless somebody else does it for you). North Korea went nuclear under CLINTON with JIMMY CARTERS blessing. And if you do not know that, you need to brush up on the recent history. BTW- see #2 above.
4) ha ha , you are killing me
5) how cute- now add mr. Clinton in 1997-1998 (too many to quote) and John effing Kerry 1997-2001. we'll have a match set. Of course, we should not forget Hans Blix and Irak Chirac at the same time. You STILL did not address my statement. What you did was to MM the answer. BTW- show that ANY of your quotes are false.

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

Mr. Clinton, et al, espcecially Mr. Blix, none of these people thought that the answer was to invade Iraq and embark on this "nation building" excercise. They were handling him correctly thru containment and inspections. Bush wanted this invasion before 911 ever happened. He used 911 to prosecute this war, which so far has gotten a lot of people killed and turned Iraq into a slaughterhouse, and made us all vulnerable to terrorism as he ignores the gathering threat in Pakistan.

You're a nice one to talk about integrity, remember this one from a couple of days ago?



Or consider buying a better Latin quote book...

__________________
2011 Prius

No that isn't what Tainter suggested. Tainter's theory was that as society gets more complex it's problems get more complex and the resources allocated to solving those problems yield diminishing returns.

He referred to 4 or 5 causes of the collapse of the roman economy of which one was taxation. The growing military, with the forced conscription that went along with it. Foreign campaigns and their cost, tribute paid to germanic tribes, the devaluation of the currency growing beurocracy and lastly, the increase in taxes to pay for the above.

If I remember correctly he also charicterized the present day (the 80's) arms race as an example of the type of complex problem that creates a misallocation of a society's resources.

oh, and your wrong about jobs too.

BTW, while you managed to include most of the conservative strawmen, Michael Moore, Carter, Clinton, "effing Kerry", Kennedy and Chirac and the general "Liberal" I'm afraid I have to deduct points for your failure to work Hillary in. "That *****" would have also been acceptable also.

Piotrek,

you are way off, must be swollowing the whole republican hook, line and sinker like vd did. and what's up with the name calling. not cool at all; you seemed more intelligent then that.

as to your post, tell that to many of my friends. sure they are working finally for $8/h or whatever, but try to make in on that. if exchanging a 50k/y job for 16k/y is job growth you must be kidding or you need to get your head out of the sand - that's how this country has slid into the mess it is in right now. these patriots who card blanche the stupid shrub...
thank g it's almost RoundUp time!

__________________
72 W114/M130

RedMeat cartoon

No intentional quote of anybody. Might have been something I read in a comic book....

I hope what I said was "analysis without personal attack".

But I guess it could have said "the duck ate my shorts". Its hard to tell with translators.

Perhaps you would correct my latin grammar for me? I'm learning as I go.

Bot

As usual, we cite these Clinton et al as if we are predicting that they would have unilaterally invaded Iraq and then acted to occupy it as an American province just like Bush did. Its a ridiculous assertion whose only purpose is to provide some kind of cover for the stupid mistake Bush made of doing just that. There are right ways and wrong ways to go about regime change. Acting in a way that caused the death of tens of thousands of innocent people, making us look like butchers in the process, was real intelligent.

I beg your pardon but that's not what I said nor is it what I believe. Read again what I said:

"Dunno for sure about Pres. Clinton, he was embroiled in domestic issues. But he certainly spoke forcefully about Iraq's intransigence and threat to peace and stability.

When Mr. Blix has his own little country for which he is responsible then I'll listen to what Mr. Blix thinks is an appropriate response to a threat.

I think that the official policy of the US gov, before Bush, was regime change in Iraq, right? Mr. Bush promoted that policy with prejudice."

Bot

In the Congressional Resolution on Iraq that granted GWB the authority to invade Iraq under specific circumstances we now know were never met, or even given a lick and promise, there is reference to other Congressional Resolutions on Iraq. These other resolutions establish our official policy back when Clinton was in office. The policy was one of encouraging the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam and lock him up. Specifically, no nation building and no US forces there. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

But they did say Saddam was a bad man. So that makes what Bush did ok. We democrats just don't get that part.