Way to avoid the question. *rolls eyes*

Jobs saved and created, baby! Where's that correlation? How do you calculate that again, besides a wipe of your ass?

 

There's something to be said for actually running and/or being in a business rather then a career politician. You might learn how to actually think like someone who would hire folks.

 

The correlation is simple, with that said. Democrats = government. They create huge entitlements and push jobs into the public sector and call that job creation. Republicans = government light. They run their mouths like they want small government and do the opposite. But at least they fake it well. (yea, right).

 

You cannot create jobs with a "public" (aka government) mindset. Period. And right now, without mention to political affiliation, that's where our country has been focused.

You cannot create jobs with a "public" (aka government) mindset. Period. And right now, without mention to political affiliation, that's where our country has been focused.

(Bangs head against wall). Maybe I ought to go resume moving. Or drinking. Or something.

(Bangs head against wall). Maybe I ought to go resume moving. Or drinking. Or something.

 

DRIIIINKK!!!

 

(drink)

Edited December 5, 200916 yr by mr_genius

(Bangs head against wall). Maybe I ought to go resume moving. Or drinking. Or something.

You're missing the point. Maybe on purpose. Have another couple of drinks and maybe it will make sense.

 

 

You're missing the point. Maybe on purpose. Have another couple of drinks and maybe it will make sense.

Ok, I worded that poorly. . Have another.

 

What I was trying to say was that you don't get the multiplier you do with private sector additions to headcount. It doesn't translate the same way because the more government workers you add, the higher taxes have to be to pay for it. That's just one example of why it's not the same and there's many more. So you can't equate the growth of government (people with government experience only - to try to tie it together with what you were trying to ask) with private (industry) experience because the expenses are viewed quite differently.

 

Max baucus has sex with a woman whom he helps to get 'promoted'. I wonder if someone who also couldhave been eligible for that position would have legal grounds to sue over not getting it? if i didn't get a promotion because my competition was screwing someone with influence, I would sure be pissed. The rallying cry could be "He got head, she got ahead!"

Edited December 7, 200916 yr by Alpha Dog

Max baucus has sex with a woman whom he helps to get 'promoted'. I wonder if someone who also couldhave been eligible for that position would have legal grounds to sue over not getting it? if i didn't get a promotion because my competition was screwing someone with influence, I would sure be pissed. The rallying cry could be "He got head, she got ahead!"

Source? What are you talking about?

 

Source? What are you talking about?

 

It's in the WSJ

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126015136036479479.html

It's in the WSJ

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126015136036479479.html

I didn't get a chance to look at the online news this morning yet, other than a couple line items from my blackberry on the train. Thanks for the link.

 

That's weak s*** on Baucus' part, not sure what he was thinking.

 

I didn't get a chance to look at the online news this morning yet, other than a couple line items from my blackberry on the train. Thanks for the link.

 

That's weak s*** on Baucus' part, not sure what he was thinking.

Where's the Ensign like "RESIGN" comments? Oh wait, it's different. (Yes, it is, slightly, but the poor judgement for power isn't different).

Where's the Ensign like "RESIGN" comments? Oh wait, it's different. (Yes, it is, slightly, but the poor judgement for power isn't different).

 

That's fine with me. He should resign. And then Tester could replace him with a better Democrat.

Thought this was pretty interesting....

http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-the-gle...ecember-7-2009/

Thought this was pretty interesting....

http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-the-gle...ecember-7-2009/

 

Beck is usually interesting, but I think he hurts his credibility by being such a sensationalist. The one thing he has going for him is that he's anti big government, whether that be democrat or republican. I constantly see him attacking both sides...so as much as I find him annoying, at least he's consistent.

Thought this was pretty interesting....

http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-the-gle...ecember-7-2009/

 

 

So Beck thinks that Obama is being controlled being Robert Creamer, because they are both from IL and were at the same party. They are also working together to turn America into some kinda progressive wonderland.

 

 

 

Side note on Beck. I think it's funny that he uses a picture of Martin Luther King in his little opening segment. MLK was a socialist and really didn't hide it. Shouldn't Beck be attacking his evil ways?

So Beck thinks that Obama is being controlled being Robert Creamer, because they are both from IL and were at the same party. They are also working together to turn America into some kinda progressive wonderland.

 

 

 

Side note on Beck. I think it's funny that he uses a picture of Martin Luther King in his little opening segment. MLK was a socialist and really didn't hide it. Shouldn't Beck be attacking his evil ways?

 

So Beck uses a picture of MLK in his opening. Move on.

 

Beck never said Obama is being controlled by Creamer, he simply said that the entire plan of action from the start in regard to Health care Reform has been almost identical to the plan laid out in Creamers book.

 

And it is.

So Beck uses a picture of MLK in his opening. Move on.

 

Beck never said Obama is being controlled by Creamer, he simply said that the entire plan of action from the start in regard to Health care Reform has been almost identical to the plan laid out in Creamers book.

 

And it is.

 

 

So it's the same. So what. I could probably grab about 40 books by progressives that lay out the same plan.

 

 

So it's the same. So what. I could probably grab about 40 books by progressives that lay out the same plan.

 

And so that means Beck is wrong?

 

I fail to see your point.

 

I'm not even a Beck supporter, I find him to be a sensationalist idiot, but even I can see when people have a point that I tend to disagree with.

And so that means Beck is wrong?

 

I fail to see your point.

 

I'm not even a Beck supporter, I find him to be a sensationalist idiot, but even I can see when people have a point that I tend to disagree with.

 

 

It's not that he's right or wrong. He is trying to take a non issue and turn it into some kinda of progressive conspiracy to take over the country or something.

It's not that he's right or wrong. He is trying to take a non issue and turn it into some kinda of progressive conspiracy to take over the country or something.

 

 

You mean they're not?

You mean they're not?

 

 

Well maybe, but he is blowing our cover.

And so that means Beck is wrong?

 

I fail to see your point.

 

I'm not even a Beck supporter, I find him to be a sensationalist idiot, but even I can see when people have a point that I tend to disagree with.

I don't watch Beck either. I also find him to be sensationalist, although not an idiot. This is the 3rd show I've seen. I only watch when my dad calls and tells me there was something interesting on. The other two times was his czar outings and he was dead on with those.

 

GoSox

That book certainly wasn't on display during Obama's campaign as a blueprint for his presidency. He didn't run as a progressive to the masses. He didn't sell this as the direction he wanted to take the country. Those of us that paid attention, right and left, knew exactly who he was and what he wanted. Unfortuantely, we are a small block of the voting public.

 

So I don't see this as a non issue. I see it as something important that the everyday voter should be made aware of. The casual voter that doesn't tune in to Beck or Olberman, but instead uses the MSM for their info. Let someone explain to them the direction progressives want to take this country. No need to lie or put on some right wing zealot to discuss it. Put on a progressive. Put on Creamer....let him explain his utopian society. Then the people can decide whether they like it or not. God forbid we ask our politcians to advertise what they are selling.

I don't watch Beck either. I also find him to be sensationalist, although not an idiot. This is the 3rd show I've seen. I only watch when my dad calls and tells me there was something interesting on. The other two times was his czar outings and he was dead on with those.

 

GoSox

That book certainly wasn't on display during Obama's campaign as a blueprint for his presidency. He didn't run as a progressive to the masses. He didn't sell this as the direction he wanted to take the country. Those of us that paid attention, right and left, knew exactly who he was and what he wanted. Unfortuantely, we are a small block of the voting public.

 

So I don't see this as a non issue. I see it as something important that the everyday voter should be made aware of. The casual voter that doesn't tune in to Beck or Olberman, but instead uses the MSM for their info. Let someone explain to them the direction progressives want to take this country. No need to lie or put on some right wing zealot to discuss it. Put on a progressive. Put on Creamer....let him explain his utopian society. Then the people can decide whether they like it or not. God forbid we ask our politcians to advertise what they are selling.

 

 

He's not a progressive. I don't think he's running the country as one. I'm a progressive and I don't even know where to start with the things I am upset with that he's doing.

 

I hate when Beck starts with the progressives want to ruin the country talk. Like we are some evil group trying to take over.

 

 

 

 

lol

 

and the Democrats obsession with Glenn Beck continues.

He's not a progressive. I don't think he's running the country as one. I'm a progressive and I don't even know where to start with the things I am upset with that he's doing.

 

I hate when Beck starts with the progressives want to ruin the country talk. Like we are some evil group trying to take over.

 

Because no one ever does that to conservatives...

lol

 

and the Democrats obsession with Glenn Beck continues.

 

What I find funny is how rabidly the democrats attack Beck, but he's just as harsh toward the republicans. Anyone I know that's ever attacked Beck, and I've asked them this -- why do you hate him so much? Their answer, repeatedly, is "Because he's such a Republican 'Faux' news shill".

 

That's when I get to say, "But Beck isn't a republican...and if you ever watched him, you'd know that. Instead, you watched some clips of him on a pro-liberal show, no doubt. He blames republicans just as much."

 

And I retract calling him an idiot, Beck is not dumb, but he's a total sensationalist...and I really dislike sensationalism in media, since they always ALWAYS always focus on sensationalizing ONLY the negative.

Edited December 9, 200916 yr by Y2HH