Unemployment jumps to 9.6%...

[vanhalen1r2]

See step four - there will be no further use of the United States military for anything that does NOT involve the actual defense of the United States of America. Since there is no likely candidate to invade America any time soon, there would be no reason for "World War III", or any other war which involved the US.

Well that was the republican approach pre-WWII, the party was pro-isolation, remember the Draft instituted in 1940, the Burke Wadsworth act was not wildly popular

[GAR]

Since there is no likely candidate to invade America any time soon..

The Quakers spouted this shit right up through 1811.. nice try.

That bullshit is what got the White House torched the first time!

[FORD]

The Quakers spouted this shit right up through 1811.. nice try.

That bullshit is what got the White House torched the first time!

The White House got torched because the British (and their Canadian colonists) once again invaded America. Therefore, the war of 1812 was a legitimate war.

Not much chance of some opium farmer in Afghanistan pulling that off.

[GAR]

Not much chance of some opium farmer in Afghanistan pulling that off.

Who pulled off the following attack: Liza Minnelli? William Shatner? Oh I know.. Mudpeople did it.



Now what was it you're saying about the mudpeople - that their drug sales can't fund anything, that they are stuipid.. or maybe they just really, really wish us the best of luck with our economy?

[FORD]

Who pulled off the following attack:

These assholes did. Exactly as they said they would......

"........Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
Charles Krauthammer
William Kristol
I. Lewis Libby
John Lehman
Clifford May
Martin Peretz
Richard Perle
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Randy Scheunemann
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz
Marshall Wittmann

Funny how I only see one name on that list that fits your racist terminology of "mud people". So what would you do to these traitors who attacked America, GAyR??

[GAR]

Please notify DHS regarding your new list of True WTC Attackers, there's nothing I can do with it.

After they ignore you and send a Decline to Investigate email, please post it here so we can settle this new controversy of yours.

Far as I know it was Mudpeople who still pose a threat, they farm drugs, which pay people to attack us today.

[jhale667]

Lmao!

LMAO

YOU, of all people, are going to bitch about others being unemployed? It's like Elton John pointing his finger at Rob Halford and calling him a fag.

[GAR]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rwgvfp3jlvc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rwgvfp3jlvc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Nickdfresh]

If your Hopes is dead, your Changes must really be on life-support by now.

Factoring in the folks who are working two or three part-time jobs, or who've dropped off unemployment when their UIB benefits ran out, the corrected figure is 16 percent.

I think the Depression figure is officially around twenty percent unemployed.

The Great Depression figure is over 25% unemployed with spikes of joblessness that were even greater than that...

And a better way to rekindle my dreams would be for Thome (and you) to stop with the mindless attention whoring. I wouldn't want to have to ban you guys when they make me SupermodLLC for life here...

[Nickdfresh]

First off do we need WWIII to help out ? I mean WWII is what brought the USA out of the depression not FDR, so along those lines is that what we need ?

Another oft spoken myth. In fact the U.S. was easing out of the depression by 1940, over a year before we were in WWII. And there was a big recession after WWII brought on by food shortages and and the lack of civil production...

[vanhalen1r2]

Another oft spoken myth. In fact the U.S. was easing out of the depression by 1940, over a year before we were in WWII. .

I wonder why ?? War in Europe maybe ?? Is that another myth too.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx

[Nickdfresh]

I wonder why ?? War in Europe maybe ?? Is that another myth too.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx

Thanks for the jerkoff study accepted by virtually no one outside of Fox News...

Upon deeper examination, I discovered that the right bases its New Deal revisionism on the short-lived recession in a year straddling 1937 and 1938. But that was four years into Roosevelt’s term—four years marked by spectacular economic growth. Additionally, the fleeting decline happened not because of the New Deal’s spending programs, but because Roosevelt momentarily listened to conservatives and backed off them. As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman notes, in 1937-38, FDR “was persuaded to balance the budget” and “cut spending and the economy went back down again.”

To be sure, you can credibly argue that the New Deal had its share of problems. But overall, the numbers prove it helped—rather than hurt—the macroeconomy. “Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt’s first two terms [while] the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent,” writes University of California historian Eric Rauchway.

What about the New Deal’s most “massive government intervention”—its financial regulations? Did they prolong the Great Depression in ways the official data didn’t detect?

Nope.

According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, “Only with the New Deal’s rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression.” In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was “the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War.”

OK—if the verifiable evidence proves the New Deal did not prolong the Depression, what about historians—do they “pretty much agree” on the opposite?

Again, no.

As Newsweek’s Daniel Gross reports, “One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression.”

But that’s the critical point I somehow forgot last week—the truism we must all remember in 2009: As conservatives try to obstruct a new New Deal, they’re not making any arguments that are remotely serious.

--David Sirota

Also see: http://www.salon.com/technology/how_...ew_deal_worked

[FORD]

If "war" fixed the economy, then we should be doing better than ever right now because of Chimpy's stupid wars. Obviously, that theory is bullshit.

[vanhalen1r2]

Thanks for the jerkoff study excepted by virtually no one outside of Fox News...

You watch fox news ?? Yes it must be a jerkoff study if Nick cannot rub one out to it.

[vanhalen1r2]

If "war" fixed the economy, then we should be doing better than ever right now because of Chimpy's stupid wars. Obviously, that theory is bullshit.

[

Must be too difficult for you to understand.