Will Republicans ever admit the mess they left President Obama?

[eddiew]

Obviously you never heard of 9/11!

what did 9/11 have to do with invading iraq other than to lead gwb and his cohorts to make false claims All the while leaving gwbs friends the arabs , who paid the perps alone Again THE WORST mistake a president can make

YOU should have told that to these people!!!

Obviously you never heard of these DEMOCRAT quotes!
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

ALL Democrats asking for resumption of "1991 CEASE FIRE" YOU idiots!

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Duhbya, December, 2005

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

yes she did but did she see the info where iraq wasn't considered dangerous or just the bs bush and co were spreading like manure on a garden?

 

[healthmyths]

Is there really any way to reason with some idiot, who thinks we are now in a booming economy? We cant fight delusions. Maybe we could help you with some psychological counseling

Great, after making a fool of yourself by admitting you have your own unemployment rate, independent of the BLS's, you now resort to strawman lies. I never said the economy is booming.

Can you respond to what I actually posted? Or is that beyond your G-d given limitations?

After Reagan's policies were fully implemented the economy was booming. Obama's not so much. You equate the two, which means you're delusional

LOL

You're sooo fucking deranged.

I said their job approval rating is the same. Job approval comprises every aspect of their job, not just the economy. So no, I never inferred the economy is booming.

That's twice now you ran from my post with your tail tucked firmly betwixt your hind legs.

Care to try for three? When did your unemployment rate replace the BLS's? Theirs is 5.0%. Who knows what yours is?

Current U-6 Unemployment Rate

The official unemployment rate is the U-3, not the U-6. Always has been since these measurements have been collected. Even worse for your derangement, the U-6 does not measure unemployment. It measures underutilization. And lastly, you were whining about the 93 million who are not in the labor force... what does the U-6 have to do with those 93 million folks?

The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.

Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It wasn't B Clinton it wasn't Obama that pulled the trigger,, that hungered for war with iraq ,,it was the moron, the republican ah gwb that is guilty of the worst mistake a president can make

Obviously you never heard of the 1991 CEASE FIRE!

Obviously you never heard of 9/11!

what did 9/11 have to do with invading iraq other than to lead gwb and his cohorts to make false claims All the while leaving gwbs friends the arabs , who paid the perps alone Again THE WORST mistake a president can make

YOU should have told that to these people!!!

Obviously you never heard of these DEMOCRAT quotes!
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

ALL Democrats asking for resumption of "1991 CEASE FIRE" YOU idiots!

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Duhbya, December, 2005

Not used to a President taking responsibility, are you?

 

[Faun]

Great, after making a fool of yourself by admitting you have your own unemployment rate, independent of the BLS's, you now resort to strawman lies. I never said the economy is booming.

Can you respond to what I actually posted? Or is that beyond your G-d given limitations?

After Reagan's policies were fully implemented the economy was booming. Obama's not so much. You equate the two, which means you're delusional

LOL

You're sooo fucking deranged.

I said their job approval rating is the same. Job approval comprises every aspect of their job, not just the economy. So no, I never inferred the economy is booming.

That's twice now you ran from my post with your tail tucked firmly betwixt your hind legs.

Care to try for three? When did your unemployment rate replace the BLS's? Theirs is 5.0%. Who knows what yours is?

Current U-6 Unemployment Rate

The official unemployment rate is the U-3, not the U-6. Always has been since these measurements have been collected. Even worse for your derangement, the U-6 does not measure unemployment. It measures underutilization. And lastly, you were whining about the 93 million who are not in the labor force... what does the U-6 have to do with those 93 million folks?

The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.

Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


View attachment 70467

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.

 

[Faun]

Obviously you never heard of the 1991 CEASE FIRE!

Obviously you never heard of 9/11!

what did 9/11 have to do with invading iraq other than to lead gwb and his cohorts to make false claims All the while leaving gwbs friends the arabs , who paid the perps alone Again THE WORST mistake a president can make

YOU should have told that to these people!!!

Obviously you never heard of these DEMOCRAT quotes!
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

ALL Democrats asking for resumption of "1991 CEASE FIRE" YOU idiots!

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Duhbya, December, 2005

Not used to a President taking responsibility, are you?

Glad we agree Bush was responsible for invading Iraq.

 

[eddiew]

After Reagan's policies were fully implemented the economy was booming. Obama's not so much. You equate the two, which means you're delusional

LOL

You're sooo fucking deranged.

I said their job approval rating is the same. Job approval comprises every aspect of their job, not just the economy. So no, I never inferred the economy is booming.

That's twice now you ran from my post with your tail tucked firmly betwixt your hind legs.

Care to try for three? When did your unemployment rate replace the BLS's? Theirs is 5.0%. Who knows what yours is?

Current U-6 Unemployment Rate

The official unemployment rate is the U-3, not the U-6. Always has been since these measurements have been collected. Even worse for your derangement, the U-6 does not measure unemployment. It measures underutilization. And lastly, you were whining about the 93 million who are not in the labor force... what does the U-6 have to do with those 93 million folks?

The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.

Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


View attachment 70467

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.

If a republican president accomplished what obama has they'd be screaming to put him on Mt Rushmore

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL

You're sooo fucking deranged.

I said their job approval rating is the same. Job approval comprises every aspect of their job, not just the economy. So no, I never inferred the economy is booming.

That's twice now you ran from my post with your tail tucked firmly betwixt your hind legs.

Care to try for three? When did your unemployment rate replace the BLS's? Theirs is 5.0%. Who knows what yours is?

Current U-6 Unemployment Rate

The official unemployment rate is the U-3, not the U-6. Always has been since these measurements have been collected. Even worse for your derangement, the U-6 does not measure unemployment. It measures underutilization. And lastly, you were whining about the 93 million who are not in the labor force... what does the U-6 have to do with those 93 million folks?

The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.

Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


View attachment 70467

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.

If a republican president accomplished what obama has they'd be screaming to put him on Mt Rushmore

And if DumBama was a Republican, you'd be screaming how lousy of a shape our country is in, and continually point to Iraq as the second major F-up in that region; how those Republicans love to put us deeper in debt.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Obviously you never heard of 9/11!

what did 9/11 have to do with invading iraq other than to lead gwb and his cohorts to make false claims All the while leaving gwbs friends the arabs , who paid the perps alone Again THE WORST mistake a president can make

YOU should have told that to these people!!!

Obviously you never heard of these DEMOCRAT quotes!
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

ALL Democrats asking for resumption of "1991 CEASE FIRE" YOU idiots!

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Duhbya, December, 2005

Not used to a President taking responsibility, are you?

Glad we agree Bush was responsible for invading Iraq.

I don't think anybody denied it.

 

[rdean]

The failed economy.
The Iraq debacle.
The deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts.
The millions of jobs moved oversea.
The over 40,000 factories closed.
Medical bills becoming the number one cause of bankruptcy.
Not getting Bin Laden.

Republicans were able to use reconciliation three times which shows they controlled the entire government.
Will they ever take any responsibility for what happened on their watch?

Bush is not a Conservative, hes an internationalist Like many of the Republican Establishment and very liberal in their own way, which is why you had a group like the Tea Party form in the first place, The republican Base had been upset with Bush for a long time, I dont know why You dont get that. That doesnt mean they have to Vote Democrat however

Cutting taxes for the wealthy. The Bush Doctrine. Trickle down.
Bush was a conservative through and through. His policies are the same exact policies the GOP follows today. That's why he followed them. He was indoctrinated into them for decades. Believe me, it was a shock to him the disasters they caused. That's why the GOP is adrift today. They shot their wad and now they have nothing but trickery and suppression.

Bush was establishment--not conservative.

Some of his measures were conservative while many more were liberal.

No Child Left Behind is not a conservative position.
Medicare Part D was the exact opposite of conservative.
Sending money to fight AIDS in Africa was not conservative.
Allowing the debt to be run up was not conservative.
New EPA regulations is not conservative.

You can call him what you want, but that doesn't make it so.

No Child Left Behind is not a conservative position.
Unfunded makes it conservative.

Medicare Part D was the exact opposite of conservative.
Old people makes it conservative by necessity.

Sending money to fight AIDS in Africa was not conservative.
Keeping them from condoms letting more get infected is.

Allowing the debt to be run up was not conservative.
If you look at Reagan it is.

New EPA regulations is not conservative.
I don't remember EPA regulations under Bush. He made scientists resign from his administration.

Bush covers up climate research

Google

 

[rdean]

Current U-6 Unemployment Rate

The official unemployment rate is the U-3, not the U-6. Always has been since these measurements have been collected. Even worse for your derangement, the U-6 does not measure unemployment. It measures underutilization. And lastly, you were whining about the 93 million who are not in the labor force... what does the U-6 have to do with those 93 million folks?

The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.

Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


View attachment 70467

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.

If a republican president accomplished what obama has they'd be screaming to put him on Mt Rushmore

And if DumBama was a Republican, you'd be screaming how lousy of a shape our country is in, and continually point to Iraq as the second major F-up in that region; how those Republicans love to put us deeper in debt.

That's speculation. If Bush inherited the mess he left and brought us back from the brink, I would give credit where credit is due. I would never approve of white people saying they want to destroy the first black president even before he was sworn in. That's the ultimate in racism. And it's undemocratic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The failed economy.
The Iraq debacle.
The deficit creating Bush Tax Cuts.
The millions of jobs moved oversea.
The over 40,000 factories closed.
Medical bills becoming the number one cause of bankruptcy.
Not getting Bin Laden.

Republicans were able to use reconciliation three times which shows they controlled the entire government.
Will they ever take any responsibility for what happened on their watch?

Bush is not a Conservative, hes an internationalist Like many of the Republican Establishment and very liberal in their own way, which is why you had a group like the Tea Party form in the first place, The republican Base had been upset with Bush for a long time, I dont know why You dont get that. That doesnt mean they have to Vote Democrat however

Cutting taxes for the wealthy. The Bush Doctrine. Trickle down.
Bush was a conservative through and through. His policies are the same exact policies the GOP follows today. That's why he followed them. He was indoctrinated into them for decades. Believe me, it was a shock to him the disasters they caused. That's why the GOP is adrift today. They shot their wad and now they have nothing but trickery and suppression.

Bush was establishment--not conservative.

Some of his measures were conservative while many more were liberal.

No Child Left Behind is not a conservative position.
Medicare Part D was the exact opposite of conservative.
Sending money to fight AIDS in Africa was not conservative.
Allowing the debt to be run up was not conservative.
New EPA regulations is not conservative.

You can call him what you want, but that doesn't make it so.

No Child Left Behind is not a conservative position.
Unfunded makes it conservative.

Medicare Part D was the exact opposite of conservative.
Old people makes it conservative by necessity.

Sending money to fight AIDS in Africa was not conservative.
Keeping them from condoms letting more get infected is.

Allowing the debt to be run up was not conservative.
If you look at Reagan it is.

New EPA regulations is not conservative.
I don't remember EPA regulations under Bush. He made scientists resign from his administration.

Bush covers up climate research

Google

Washington, DC – June 1, 2006) Starting today, EPA will require refiners and fuel importers to cut the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel 97 percent, from 500 parts per million to 15. The rules are issued in line with the Bush Administration's promotion of renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels, such as Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD).

06/01/2006: June 1 Marks Historic Milestone in Clean Diesel

Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.

-Emi Kolawole

Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The official unemployment rate is the U-3, not the U-6. Always has been since these measurements have been collected. Even worse for your derangement, the U-6 does not measure unemployment. It measures underutilization. And lastly, you were whining about the 93 million who are not in the labor force... what does the U-6 have to do with those 93 million folks?

The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.

Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


View attachment 70467

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.

If a republican president accomplished what obama has they'd be screaming to put him on Mt Rushmore

And if DumBama was a Republican, you'd be screaming how lousy of a shape our country is in, and continually point to Iraq as the second major F-up in that region; how those Republicans love to put us deeper in debt.

That's speculation. If Bush inherited the mess he left and brought us back from the brink, I would give credit where credit is due. I would never approve of white people saying they want to destroy the first black president even before he was sworn in. That's the ultimate in racism. And it's undemocratic.

I agree. So who is it that said they want to "destroy the first black President?" A video would even be more compelling.

 

[eddiew]

The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.

Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


View attachment 70467

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.

If a republican president accomplished what obama has they'd be screaming to put him on Mt Rushmore

And if DumBama was a Republican, you'd be screaming how lousy of a shape our country is in, and continually point to Iraq as the second major F-up in that region; how those Republicans love to put us deeper in debt.

That's speculation. If Bush inherited the mess he left and brought us back from the brink, I would give credit where credit is due. I would never approve of white people saying they want to destroy the first black president even before he was sworn in. That's the ultimate in racism. And it's undemocratic.

I agree. So who is it that said they want to "destroy the first black President?" A video would even be more compelling.

don't have the video but sure heard McCellan bash obama and say their goal was to make him a one term president NOW how would they do that??? go against everything he wanted??? for example

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.

If a republican president accomplished what obama has they'd be screaming to put him on Mt Rushmore

And if DumBama was a Republican, you'd be screaming how lousy of a shape our country is in, and continually point to Iraq as the second major F-up in that region; how those Republicans love to put us deeper in debt.

That's speculation. If Bush inherited the mess he left and brought us back from the brink, I would give credit where credit is due. I would never approve of white people saying they want to destroy the first black president even before he was sworn in. That's the ultimate in racism. And it's undemocratic.

I agree. So who is it that said they want to "destroy the first black President?" A video would even be more compelling.

don't have the video but sure heard McCellan bash obama and say their goal was to make him a one term president NOW how would they do that??? go against everything he wanted??? for example

First of all, McConnell never said anything about his race. Secondly, it is the goal of an opposing party to make the President a one-term President if possible. Or do you really think that the Democrats wanted to see Bush's two terms or Reagan's for that matter?

What I asked Dean about was who on the right brought up his race and especially, in context of destroying him?

The debate between the right and DumBama never had anything to do with race; it was his policies and view of changing our country where the objection came in. It's the left--particularly on places like USMB, that will make sure we never have another black President in our lifetime because who wants to go through all this racial crap again? We're sick of hearing about it.

 

[eddiew]

If a republican president accomplished what obama has they'd be screaming to put him on Mt Rushmore

And if DumBama was a Republican, you'd be screaming how lousy of a shape our country is in, and continually point to Iraq as the second major F-up in that region; how those Republicans love to put us deeper in debt.

That's speculation. If Bush inherited the mess he left and brought us back from the brink, I would give credit where credit is due. I would never approve of white people saying they want to destroy the first black president even before he was sworn in. That's the ultimate in racism. And it's undemocratic.

I agree. So who is it that said they want to "destroy the first black President?" A video would even be more compelling.

don't have the video but sure heard McCellan bash obama and say their goal was to make him a one term president NOW how would they do that??? go against everything he wanted??? for example

First of all, McConnell never said anything about his race. Secondly, it is the goal of an opposing party to make the President a one-term President if possible. Or do you really think that the Democrats wanted to see Bush's two terms or Reagan's for that matter?

What I asked Dean about was who on the right brought up his race and especially, in context of destroying him?

The debate between the right and DumBama never had anything to do with race; it was his policies and view of changing our country where the objection came in. It's the left--particularly on places like USMB, that will make sure we never have another black President in our lifetime because who wants to go through all this racial crap again? We're sick of hearing about it.

The republicans made very sure to SAY it wasn't about race Their policies spoke otherwise

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And if DumBama was a Republican, you'd be screaming how lousy of a shape our country is in, and continually point to Iraq as the second major F-up in that region; how those Republicans love to put us deeper in debt.

That's speculation. If Bush inherited the mess he left and brought us back from the brink, I would give credit where credit is due. I would never approve of white people saying they want to destroy the first black president even before he was sworn in. That's the ultimate in racism. And it's undemocratic.

I agree. So who is it that said they want to "destroy the first black President?" A video would even be more compelling.

don't have the video but sure heard McCellan bash obama and say their goal was to make him a one term president NOW how would they do that??? go against everything he wanted??? for example

First of all, McConnell never said anything about his race. Secondly, it is the goal of an opposing party to make the President a one-term President if possible. Or do you really think that the Democrats wanted to see Bush's two terms or Reagan's for that matter?

What I asked Dean about was who on the right brought up his race and especially, in context of destroying him?

The debate between the right and DumBama never had anything to do with race; it was his policies and view of changing our country where the objection came in. It's the left--particularly on places like USMB, that will make sure we never have another black President in our lifetime because who wants to go through all this racial crap again? We're sick of hearing about it.

The republicans made very sure to SAY it wasn't about race Their policies spoke otherwise

And what policies might those be?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Bad enough to have to admit he's president...

 

[Oldstyle]

what did 9/11 have to do with invading iraq other than to lead gwb and his cohorts to make false claims All the while leaving gwbs friends the arabs , who paid the perps alone Again THE WORST mistake a president can make

YOU should have told that to these people!!!

Obviously you never heard of these DEMOCRAT quotes!
Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

ALL Democrats asking for resumption of "1991 CEASE FIRE" YOU idiots!

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Duhbya, December, 2005

guess that throws a monkey wrench into their it was hillary's fault bs

Only if you ignore the whole "Constitution" thing...you know...where the President has to get authority from Congress to go to war?

So was Hillary part of Congress? Did she vote to authorize? Your "monkey wrench" just flew out and hit you in the head!

Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...

"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005

So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!

 

[gipper]

After Reagan's policies were fully implemented the economy was booming. Obama's not so much. You equate the two, which means you're delusional

LOL

You're sooo fucking deranged.

I said their job approval rating is the same. Job approval comprises every aspect of their job, not just the economy. So no, I never inferred the economy is booming.

That's twice now you ran from my post with your tail tucked firmly betwixt your hind legs.

Care to try for three? When did your unemployment rate replace the BLS's? Theirs is 5.0%. Who knows what yours is?

Current U-6 Unemployment Rate

The official unemployment rate is the U-3, not the U-6. Always has been since these measurements have been collected. Even worse for your derangement, the U-6 does not measure unemployment. It measures underutilization. And lastly, you were whining about the 93 million who are not in the labor force... what does the U-6 have to do with those 93 million folks?

The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.

"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.

Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


View attachment 70467

Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.

Except that everyone knowledgeable on the subject, knows the U3 rate is a fraud. It is a rate used to dupe people easily duped by big government propaganda, like you.

 

[healthmyths]

If a republican president accomplished what obama has they'd be screaming to put him on Mt Rushmore

And if DumBama was a Republican, you'd be screaming how lousy of a shape our country is in, and continually point to Iraq as the second major F-up in that region; how those Republicans love to put us deeper in debt.

That's speculation. If Bush inherited the mess he left and brought us back from the brink, I would give credit where credit is due. I would never approve of white people saying they want to destroy the first black president even before he was sworn in. That's the ultimate in racism. And it's undemocratic.

I agree. So who is it that said they want to "destroy the first black President?" A video would even be more compelling.

don't have the video but sure heard McCellan bash obama and say their goal was to make him a one term president NOW how would they do that??? go against everything he wanted??? for example

First of all, McConnell never said anything about his race. Secondly, it is the goal of an opposing party to make the President a one-term President if possible. Or do you really think that the Democrats wanted to see Bush's two terms or Reagan's for that matter?

What I asked Dean about was who on the right brought up his race and especially, in context of destroying him?

The debate between the right and DumBama never had anything to do with race; it was his policies and view of changing our country where the objection came in. It's the left--particularly on places like USMB, that will make sure we never have another black President in our lifetime because who wants to go through all this racial crap again? We're sick of hearing about it.

IN FACT Obama brought up RACE first and I quote:

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced
and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
Obama says Republicans will use race to stoke fear