Obamaites, what do you think?

hubrat

Squeaky Wheel
Bush....unemployment 4.9%
bho......unemployment 16% and climbing

ya let's not go back.

How about citing the same types of unemployment rates?
U-6 for 2006 was >8%
U-6 for 2011 is >16%

President Obama didn't make this mess, so give credit where it's due.

And no, please, let's not got back. We really need a leader with a triple-digit I.Q., not a corporate-owned puppet spending our hard-earned money on "Sawdam Hoosain and his Wayopons of mayess dis-truction". I STILL struggle to believe that intelligent ppl actually voted for that fool.
 
Last edited:
How about citing the same types of unemployment rates?
U-6 for 2006 was >8%
U-6 for 2011 is >16%

President Obama didn't make this mess, so give credit where it's due.

And no, please, let's not got back. We really need a leader with a triple-digit I.Q., not a corporate-owned puppet spending our hard-earned money on "Sawdam Hoosain and his Wayopons of mayess dis-truction". I STILL struggle to believe that intelligent ppl actually voted for that fool.

02oped_voting_republican.gif
You are correct that 0bama didn't create this mess (all by himself) but he sure hasn't done anything to clean the mess up. In fact he has made it worse, 3X worse and still climbing.
Not sure what your U6 comparison was supposed to illustrate, but if you want to compare numbers look at THIS,
it covers a long span in time.
u6.jpg
u6.jpg
 
And while we are at it, how about some proof of you claim that GWB has a low IQ? What is his IQ? or do you just like repeating liberal lies?
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/29/AR2008122901896.html
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
In what without a doubt is the most astounding op-ed piece of the year, Karl Rove reveals that his friend and former boss, George W. Bush, has read probably hundreds of books over the course of his presidency.

In his column, Rove says that Bush read 95 books in 2006 alone. In 2007, he read 51 books and as of last week, he had read 40 in 2008. The numbers are precise because Bush challenged Rove to a contest: who could read the most books. Rove always won, but Bush had the ready excuse that he was, as he put it, busy being "Leader of the Free World."
Rove appreciates that he's written a caricature-buster. "In the 35 years I've known George W. Bush, he's always had a book nearby," he writes. "He plays up being a good ol' boy from Midland, Texas, but he was a history major at Yale and graduated from Harvard Business School. You don't make it through either unless you are a reader."
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
How about citing the same types of unemployment rates?
U-6 for 2006 was >8%
U-6 for 2011 is >16%

President Obama didn't make this mess, so give credit where it's due.

And no, please, let's not got back. We really need a leader with a triple-digit I.Q., not a corporate-owned puppet spending our hard-earned money on "Sawdam Hoosain and his Wayopons of mayess dis-truction". I STILL struggle to believe that intelligent ppl actually voted for that fool.

02oped_voting_republican.gif

You're right....We really need a leader !!! Right Now !!! Do you know where we can find one ? Borat's busy filling out the NCAA brackets, golfing, saluting Mo-town, press dinners......oh, the endless responsibilities of this office whew!!
 

Lue C Fur

Evil member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/29/AR2008122901896.html
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
In what without a doubt is the most astounding op-ed piece of the year, Karl Rove reveals that his friend and former boss, George W. Bush, has read probably hundreds of books over the course of his presidency.

In his column, Rove says that Bush read 95 books in 2006 alone. In 2007, he read 51 books and as of last week, he had read 40 in 2008. The numbers are precise because Bush challenged Rove to a contest: who could read the most books. Rove always won, but Bush had the ready excuse that he was, as he put it, busy being "Leader of the Free World."
Rove appreciates that he's written a caricature-buster. "In the 35 years I've known George W. Bush, he's always had a book nearby," he writes. "He plays up being a good ol' boy from Midland, Texas, but he was a history major at Yale and graduated from Harvard Business School. You don't make it through either unless you are a reader."

Did Bush hide is college records like the Messiah? Maybe Obama is embarrassed about his grades...:pouting:
 
LMFAO, sometimes I feel the need to go back to the original post and re-read the first few pages of a thread. Threads usually vary off from the original thought, never to return. When I just did this on here, I had to really LOL at this post. All ya need to do is change a couple of the "labels" and it is as true today as it seemed to the poster at the time he posted it.
Maybe it's the disingenious labeling facter and the falsehood nature of the questions. Maybe most people are full of glee that Neo-con Republicans are no longer in charge and won't be lying and hypercritical to the american people any longer. Therefore anyone other than a Republican would be looked at with positive results. I rather have a Gov't Up front and transparent telling us they going to screw us rather than worshipping one who lies, spits on the Constitution, leaves us in the red, makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, and says mission accomplished.
But hey, don't let me interrupt you guys from reassuring each other....:wink2:
 

hubrat

Squeaky Wheel
Not sure what your U6 comparison was supposed to illustrate,


...Which is exactly why you should do a little homework before regurgitating statistics you've heard on Fox.

http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the U.S.:

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.
Definitions for the economic characteristics underlying the three broader measures of labor underutilization are worth mentioning here. Discouraged workers (U-4, U-5, and U-6 measures) are persons who are not in the labor force, want and are available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They are not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the prior 4 weeks, for the specific reason that they believed no jobs were available for them. The marginally attached (U-5 and U-6 measures) are a group that includes discouraged workers. The criteria for the marginally attached are the same as for discouraged workers, with the exception that any reason could have been cited for the lack of job search in the prior 4 weeks. Persons employed part time for economic reasons (U-6 measure) are those working less than 35 hours per week who want to work full time, are available to do so, and gave an economic reason (their hours had been cut back or they were unable to find a full-time job) for working part time. These individuals are sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers



THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- FEBRUARY 2011


Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 192,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.9 percent

http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm

Or you can see the table for yourself:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: MARCH 2007

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 180,000 in March, and the unemployment
rate was essentially unchanged at 4.4 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.

That is the U-3, or "official unemployemnt rate"

As demonstrated here http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_04062007.txt in Table A-12, the U-6 unemployment rate for the same time was 8.3.

So your statement "Bush....unemployment 4.9%
bho......unemployment 16% and climbing" is skewed and demonstrates your own lack of education on the matter.

Now I'll give you that it was 1/2 what it is today, no matter how it's measured (rather than 1/4 that you reported) but if your genius president hadn't sunk our money into war with Iraq (and killed so many of our troops as well) we would be in a much better position today, President Obama or not.

Proof that Dubble-ya is an idiot:

 

hubrat

Squeaky Wheel
And while we are at it, how about some proof of you claim that GWB has a low IQ? What is his IQ? or do you just like repeating liberal lies?


I don't know what his i.q. is. I do know he's an idiot. I don't care how many books he's read. Are you sure he was holding them right-side-up?

bush_bookupsidedown.jpg
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
George W. Bush Low Intelligence Myth Debunked
August 6, 2001
Debunked: "Lovenstein Institute" report that George W. Bush "has lowest IQ of all presidents of past 50 years"
Additional investigation revealed that the presidential IQ report ("Report: President Bush has lowest IQ of all presidents of past 50 years") attributed to the (fictitious) Lovenstein Institute is a hoax, debunked July 18, 2001 by snopes.com, an urban legends website (click here to read the snopes.com exposé; click here to read the original report, published in the fictitious "Pennsylvania Court Observer."In a Lexis-Nexis search, I found the hoax reported as factual information in at least four foreign newspapers: Guardian ("Diary" by Matthew Norman, July 19, 2001), The Express ("By George he's the dimmest," July 20, 2001, p. 8, no byline), the Scottish Daily Record ("Dumbya's dumb day" by Alexandra Williams, July 20, 2001, p. 2), and Bilt Zeitung ("Bush dümmster Präsident seit 1945 -- IQ nur 91," Aug. 1, 2001, no byline).
Aside from the factual errors noted in snopes.com's debunking, the story is transparently bogus, given that JFK (IQ reportedly 174) actually tested at 119 (though admittedly on the relatively crude Otis test) and Nixon (IQ reportedly 155), actually tested nearly a full standard deviation lower, at 143, according to the historical record. Given his academic record, Bill Clinton (IQ reportedly 182) probably has an IQ quite similar to that of Al Gore (who tested at 134, according to the public record).
In short, our presidents aren't nearly as smart as the bogus Lovenstein report would have us believe. [Intellectuals tend to be mediocre politicians who have great difficulty faking connectedness voters.] Given that intelligence tests are standardized with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, the average Democratic president, with a "Lovenstein IQ" of 156 (i.e., +3.7 SD) would be in the top one-hundredth of one percent under the bell curve -- that is, the top 10,000th relative to the general population in intellectual ability). Moreover, it is unlikely that there would be a gap of nearly three standard deviations between the IQs of Democratic ("Lovenstein IQ" = 156) and Republican ("Lovenstein IQ" = 115.5) presidents.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation
yet from the military records of the two presidential
candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher
I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.

That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a
conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a
veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last
presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush's
SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120's, about
10 points lower than Al Gore's.


Mr. Kerry's SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has
done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the
candidates' military records. They are not formal I.Q.
tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make
reasonable extrapolations.

Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test
at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's,
putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the
population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was
about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr.
Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy
Officer Qualification Test.

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of
Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not
surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed
that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled
into thinking someone is brighter if he says something
complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson
said.

Many Americans still believe a report that began
circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted
in "Doonesbury," that Mr. Bush's I.Q. was 91, the lowest of
any modern American president. But that report from the
non-existent Lovenstein Institute turned out to be a hoax.

You might expect Kerry campaign officials, who have
worried that their candidate's intellectual image turns off
voters, to quickly rush out a commercial trumpeting these
new results, but for some reason they seem to be resisting
the temptation.

Upon hearing of their candidate's score, Michael Meehan, a
spokesman for the senator, said merely: "The true test is
not where you start out in life, but what you do with those
God-given talents. John Kerry's 40 years of public service
puts him in the top percentile on that measure."
****************



Obama attended an elite private school in Honolulu as a scholarship student. Since all of the graduates from that school at that time took collegiate aptitude tests and he was not a National Merit Scholar, Semifinalist, or Outstanding Participant, his maximum possible score on the SAT was 1230, which is the 96.9 percentile. That would translate to a maximum possible IQ of 129. It should be noted, however, that one of the requirements for the National Merit Scholarship is taking the Preliminary SAT test. If Obama did not take the PSAT, he could very well have scored above 1230 on the SAT without being a National Merit Scholar.
 
...Which is exactly why you should do a little homework before regurgitating statistics you've heard on Fox.

http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the U.S.:

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.
Definitions for the economic characteristics underlying the three broader measures of labor underutilization are worth mentioning here. Discouraged workers (U-4, U-5, and U-6 measures) are persons who are not in the labor force, want and are available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They are not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the prior 4 weeks, for the specific reason that they believed no jobs were available for them. The marginally attached (U-5 and U-6 measures) are a group that includes discouraged workers. The criteria for the marginally attached are the same as for discouraged workers, with the exception that any reason could have been cited for the lack of job search in the prior 4 weeks. Persons employed part time for economic reasons (U-6 measure) are those working less than 35 hours per week who want to work full time, are available to do so, and gave an economic reason (their hours had been cut back or they were unable to find a full-time job) for working part time. These individuals are sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers



THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- FEBRUARY 2011


Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 192,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.9 percent

http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm

Or you can see the table for yourself:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: MARCH 2007

Nonfarm payroll employment rose by 180,000 in March, and the unemployment
rate was essentially unchanged at 4.4 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.

That is the U-3, or "official unemployemnt rate"

As demonstrated here http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/empsit_04062007.txt in Table A-12, the U-6 unemployment rate for the same time was 8.3.

So your statement "Bush....unemployment 4.9%
bho......unemployment 16% and climbing" is skewed and demonstrates your own lack of education on the matter.

Now I'll give you that it was 1/2 what it is today, no matter how it's measured (rather than 1/4 that you reported) but if your genius president hadn't sunk our money into war with Iraq (and killed so many of our troops as well) we would be in a much better position today, President Obama or not.

Proof that Dubble-ya is an idiot:

[video=youtube;cMy_7jLAok8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMy_7jLAok8[/video]
Before you call me out for posting stats, you might want to read who posted those stats. What I posted was a graph showing a time line. U1, U6 whatever, it clearly shows the unemployment being much higher now than anytime Bush was in office. I made no claims of any sort, just offered the graph and a link to where it came from. It is an disputable fact that there are more people out of work now than when Bush was the scape goat. Of course it's all Bushes fault.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
"....As to "Bush bashing" I have posted far less about that stoopid s.o.b. than you have about President Obama. ...."

That's because.......read my lips.......Bush is not president.....Obama is president.

I look forward, not backward. If you blamed Bush for stuff while he was pres., then turn about is fair play. Obama is the responsible party now.
 

hubrat

Squeaky Wheel
"....As to "Bush bashing" I have posted far less about that stoopid s.o.b. than you have about President Obama. ...."

That's because.......read my lips.......Bush is not president.....Obama is president.

I look forward, not backward. If you blamed Bush for stuff while he was pres., then turn about is fair play. Obama is the responsible party now.

I'm not playing.

I STILL blame Bush for the criminal acts he has yet had to answer for, which left this country in the dire economic straights you are blaming on the current president.

I also blame you, me, and the rest of the country for allowing any of it in the first place. It is OUR responsibility, agree or disagree.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
I can't ignore the enormous debt B.O. has heaped upon the future generations.......him alone.....3 x more than all the presidents before bush added together. His unwillingness to cut spending deeply is irresponsible and unforgiveable. His in-action with global crisis is immature and down right dangerous. We need a military person in charge........alan west would be a good one!
 
Top