Sho-nuff Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=13&u=/ap/20030502/ap_on_go_co/senate_judges_42 I truly hate to see political post on this great web site. But when in Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Now that's funny. The party that says it's against so many lawsuits now wants to have one itself! LOL! Maybe the Dems can file suit to stop the Senate majority from selecting comittee chairpeople! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 I dont really understand the reasoning. Cornyn at one point says the idea is floating around, then later says it's a ridiculous idea. Cant Bush just appoint the judges when the Senate is in recess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 This is fine by me. The longer the Demorats filibuster the more it makes them look like obstructionists and it will hurt them even more in the elections. I remember the republicans taking a big hit because they blocked some of Clinton's judicial nominations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho-nuff Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 This will not hurt the democrats. It's only show that the President Domestic policies( economy, un-employment, environment,judicial nominations) are not as good as his Foreign War policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by Sho-nuff This will not hurt the democrats. It's only show that the President Domestic policies( economy, un-employment, environment,judicial nominations) are not as good as his Foreign War policies. LMAO!! Yeah, keep on thinking that. I've got some nice beach front property in Nevada I'd love to sell ya...:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 I don't think it will hurt the Democrats either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 I think by now people have realized that either party will do what ever it takes to push their own agenda without thinking about its effect on the people. It probably won't hurt the Dems that much because as a political science professor once said" all politics is local" Meaning that if directly effects me than I might care if not than so what! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho-nuff Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 56Arrington, So you believe that the economy is well. And you believe the there is no federal deficit the has exploded in the last three years. Nope, the un-employment rate is not at a 8 year high right now. Federal Emmission standards weren't lowed either. There was two Conservative Federal judge appointed this year. Last but not least . The United States of America lost the second Iraqi War. I see the light 56arrington56. I'll go home and repent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by Sho-nuff 56Arrington, So you believe that the economy is well. And you believe the there is no federal deficit the has exploded in the last three years. Nope, the un-employment rate is not at a 8 year high right now. Federal Emmission standards weren't lowed either. There was two Conservative Federal judge appointed this year. Last but not least . The United States of America lost the second Iraqi War. I see the light 56arrington56. I'll go home and repent. You see the light huh? Well, from that lame arsed response it doesn't look like it to me. In case you forgot 9/11 played a huge part in why the economy isn't exactly peachy. Also, you can include the junk .com companies that went under as well. Even after all those events happened the economy is still growing. The federal emmission standards are fine for the current time being. And your last comment shows just how insane you truly are. You need to repent Rev Bubble Flavor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho-nuff Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 Of course the economy is growing. Like a 1 inch water-snail traveling 50 miles in the desert. There is only two place you can go from a recession, to a depression or a rebound. When you add more pollutants to the enviorment and continue to do so. It's no longer "fine at the moment". And you also failed to answer the call of the issue of un-employment rate being on a 8 year high. and Federal Judge Nominations. And usally the one who has to resort to name calling first, most often loses. It just show they don't have anything intelligent to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Unemployment is still 3 percentage points below the historical average. The problem is that the left still wants to compare the mid 90s. That economy will NEVER be duplicated. In part because there are now policies in place to prevent corporate fraud on the levels we saw in the mid 90s. We also will never see the market invest in companies based on projected market share rather than earnings. I've said this a bunch, but it's worth repeating. Anyone who though Pets.com was worth 100 bucks a share was an idiot to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by Sho-nuff Of course the economy is growing. Like a 1 inch water-snail traveling 50 miles in the desert. There is only two place you can go from a recession, to a depression or a rebound. When you add more pollutants to the enviorment and continue to do so. It's no longer "fine at the moment". And you also failed to answer the call of the issue of un-employment rate being on a 8 year high. and Federal Judge Nominations. And usally the one who has to resort to name calling first, most often loses. It just show they don't have anything intelligent to say. Well, at least you now agree with me the economy is growning. Like I said before we aren't in a recession(still having a hard time grasping that huh) and don't you think the unemployment rate is related to the economy? I think so. :doh: Let's remember who started the personal stuff with the 'repent' crap ok. Also, 2 nominations approved whoopdee dooo! Do you know how many vacancies there are in the federal courts right now? The Republican led congress pass the 2nd highest amount of judicial nominations for Pres Clinton in US history if I'm correct. It wasn't because they approved of his nominations either. You don't filibuster a nomination because you have a difference if political idiology. It's wrong and unethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 I agree the economy isn't as bad as everyone thinks. Yes there are a lot of people who don't have jobs, this still has a lot to do with 9-11, corporate scandals and the internet collapse. This also has a major impact on all those college kids getting out of school getting paid over $50k and thinking that is the norm. I know a lot of people where the reason why they don't have a job right now is because they are looking for the same exact position, money etc..... They are able to get jobs, just not the ones they would prefer. This is a major problem right now, these so-called jobs are not coming back. People need to suck it up, take something and get back to work and stop living off of unemployment right now. I have a lot of respect for people that are unemployed and take something lower than they should just so they can get work. If you look at the wants adds, there are a lot of companies hiring, just people are holding out for the options, money, etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 I have had 3 job postings available for 3 months now. It is a commission sales position with a modest drawl for the first 6 months. Every upcoming college grad that I interview is expecting a minimum of 50k for a sales position, yet every one of them cant seem to find a job. hmmmmmmmmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sho-nuff Posted May 2, 2003 Author Share Posted May 2, 2003 Here the thing. There is no longer a federal surplus. We now have a federal deficeit. I don't see how thing are not so bad when you keep putting yourself into more debt. You can explain a portion of the surplus going to the 911 trajedy. But where is the rest of the hundreds of billions dollar surplus. i agree with Kilmer about the Pets.com is and was not ever worth 100.00 a share. I for one am reaping the benefits of the economy. I work in the mortgage industry. People need more money. And I help them get it. Thank you, Mr. President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Sho-nuff, I work in the mortgage industry here in northern VA and its rockin' I have been doing alot of "No Doc" loans for people who have lost thier jobs in the tech field and bought big houses that have skyrocked in value. Many of these customers are looking for jobs in the 75-100K range and have been out of work for months. It just blows me away that many of these people would rather cash out thier equity than sell and maybe downsize. With interest rates so low its like getting free money and I am happy to help them,I just worry about a what the future hold for these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 One thing that bugs me (and I'm not saying any of you brought this up in this thread) is when people try to give Clinton all of the credit for the "prosperity" that we had in the mid to late 90's. First of all, he just happened to be lucky enough to be president when the internet came into it's own which was a HUGE factor in the boom that we saw. Second of all, that boom, as we all know, was nothing more than a baby farting in the bathtub, ie a small pop. Like Kilmer said, when pets.com is selling for 100 a share you know something is wrong. Bush just happened to be president when the dot com industry came crashing back down to earth and brought the economy with it. But the fact of the matter is, in the history books Bush will be judged much more on how he handled the aftermath of 9/11 than weather or not workers got a full christmas bonus check or not. Them's the facts folks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 I will agree with anyone that says Clinton gets too much credit for the good as long as they can also agree he gets too much credit for the bad. I think the same pretty much goes for ANY president. I truely believe the president is more of a figurehead than anything else. He doesn't have that much power to be honest. Congress and Circumstance takes a bigger role. The president's position is best served by someone who can unite people and get people thinking as a team rather than as individuals. He's the head coach. His people skills are his greatest weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama I will agree with anyone that says Clinton gets too much credit for the good as long as they can also agree he gets too much credit for the bad. I think the same pretty much goes for ANY president. I truely believe the president is more of a figurehead than anything else. He doesn't have that much power to be honest. Congress and Circumstance takes a bigger role. The president's position is best served by someone who can unite people and get people thinking as a team rather than as individuals. He's the head coach. His people skills are his greatest weapons. I agree with you 110% there. There is no denying that a president has an affect on things. However, he doesn't have NEARLY the affect that many say he does. Congress has a much bigger say than he does. Even though we would like to paint the picture of Bush or Clinton or whoever else in a superman suit out to singlehandedly save the economy by himself. :shootinth Fact of the matter is, people just like to have somebody to blame when things go south. The President is a very easy target for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by escholz I agree with you 110% there. There is no denying that a president has an affect on things. However, he doesn't have NEARLY the affect that many say he does. Congress has a much bigger say than he does. Even though we would like to paint the picture of Bush or Clinton or whoever else in a superman suit out to singlehandedly save the economy by himself. :shootinth Fact of the matter is, people just like to have somebody to blame when things go south. The President is a very easy target for that. Agreed... I tend to stick up for Clinton more ONLY because there are many more conservatives here on extremeskins. People wonder why presidents promise so many things and then don't deliver.. why? Because they can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuckinIA Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by escholz First of all, he just happened to be lucky enough to be president when the internet came into it's own which was a HUGE factor in the boom that we saw Actually, Clinton deserves a bit of credit. He had enough foresight to choose a running mate who invented the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golgo-13 Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by StuckinIA Actually, Clinton deserves a bit of credit. He had enough foresight to choose a running mate who invented the internet. :laugh: :laugh: I bet Al Gore would give his soul to take that comment back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted May 2, 2003 Share Posted May 2, 2003 Originally posted by escholz One thing that bugs me (and I'm not saying any of you brought this up in this thread) is when people try to give Clinton all of the credit for the "prosperity" that we had in the mid to late 90's. First of all, he just happened to be lucky enough to be president when the internet came into it's own which was a HUGE factor in the boom that we saw. Second of all, that boom, as we all know, was nothing more than a baby farting in the bathtub, ie a small pop. Like Kilmer said, when pets.com is selling for 100 a share you know something is wrong. Bush just happened to be president when the dot com industry came crashing back down to earth and brought the economy with it. But the fact of the matter is, in the history books Bush will be judged much more on how he handled the aftermath of 9/11 than weather or not workers got a full christmas bonus check or not. Them's the facts folks... amen escholz. I personally believe the impact of the President on our HUGE economy is almost nil. I think most economists would grant that. What impact Presidential policy has on the economy probably can't be seen for years. But some aren't really interested in facts or reality, they just want to tar and feather the opposition. Economies are cyclical. Who gets caught on the downside is as much bad luck as anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.