coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
quick fox, sweep that shit under the carpet!
Sadly I have yet to hear a rational argument in here as to why we should re-elect him this year.
It's happened twice: Polk lost TN but won the 1844 election. Wilson lost NJ when he won his second term in 1916.
I believe Obama will be better served in his second term with a Republican Senate and House, which will force him (Clinton-style) to be more fiscally conservative. And I think he's smart enough to adopt the best ideas and be able to get enough of his own in.
Very positive and unexpected jobs report out today. Stock market futures immediately jumped.
I'm sure Obama will get a lot of credit for this from the GOP. If you saddle him with job losses, then you saddle him with gains too.
My friend thinks the same way. He once said to me: "As long as I have a job, I'm happy with whoever is President".
As a result, my friend liked Reagan, hated Bush Sr., liked Clinton, hated Dubya, and now likes Obama.
Mitt Romney accused President Obama this week of ordering “religious organizations to violate their conscience,’’ referring to a White House decision that requires all health plans--even those covering employees at Catholic hospitals, charities, and colleges--to provide free birth control.
To me - it is a question over firing Obama for his missteps during the first two years. But you have to consider the alternative.
I believe Obama will be better served in his second term with a Republican Senate and House, which will force him (Clinton-style) to be more fiscally conservative. And I think he's smart enough to adopt the best ideas and be able to get enough of his own in.
financeguy said:Ha ha. Dig into the data. Most of the new jobs are part time jobs. Employers can't afford to create proper jobs with proper benefits any more.
If they're clever, they'll dig behind the data.
I just find this whole thing hilarious. Like I said in another thread about this sort of issue, this is a great example of religious people's constant insistence on church and state blending coming back to bite them in the ass.
since separation of church and state is in the constitution, you'd think the people that cling to the constitution so desperately for stuff like the right to bear arms etc would respect this.
but then again, it isn't in the republican constitution. the one where they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.
since separation of church and state is in the constitution, you'd think the people that cling to the constitution so desperately for stuff like the right to bear arms etc would respect this.
I just glossed over the press release. Employment Situation Summary
In January 243,000 new jobs were created. There have now been 23 straight months of job growth. Unemployment is down to 8.3 percent, the lowest it has been since February 2009 (with this trend continuing Obama might even be able to claim that unemployment is lower then when he became president.
And oh...
So I think Obama will also get credit from the GOP for making government smaller.
I'm just saying that that's the thing religious people often tend to forget when they talk about wanting church and state to mix.
But then of course that presents an issue for those in this country who aren't religious at all.
"Moral and religious"-one should remember the two are not always synonomous.
Then you've just made secularism the official religion of the government. You've taken down that wall between the two.Either way, be it the church, or religion, neither one should be used to influence state decisions.
Protecting religious pluralism includes the right to be a non-believer.
Lots of evidence of that I'm afraid.
Then you've just made secularism the official religion of the government. You've taken down that wall between the two.
We want a secular government free of legislated dogma but do we really want to say that values and principles informed by faith and religious teachings are inherently inferior, if not illegitimate, for framing our laws to those arrived at by a more temporal or nonspiritual means? Where's the evidence that that is even true? And where's the evidence of such a system of governance that we would want to emulate?
- 1.2 million working age people no longer have the honor & privilege of being 'counted' for purposes of tabulating unemployment
+ inherently flawed 'seasonal january adjustment'
+ a whole lot of temporary workers with no benefits and mostly at or near minimum wage
= turn an actual survey data of a loss of 2.6 million jobs into a labour department reported gain of 243,000 jobs.
January Jobs Report: Good News for the Economy, Bad News for the Pessimists
By MASSIMO CALABRESI | February 3, 2012 |
Some Obama opponents are struggling to find a cloud in the silver lining of January’s jobs numbers, which estimated that there was a 243,000-job boost and a big drop in the unemployment rate, from 8.5% to 8.3%, last month. Their biggest gripe focuses on the size of the labor force: As the unemployment rate has trended down over the last few months, anti-Obama commentators have argued that the official percentage for those without jobs is deceptive because the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t count those who have stopped looking for work. In Friday’s report, they found a sharp increase in that group: More than 1.2 million people joined the non-job seeking pool of working-age Americans last month.
I was ready to join the pessimists Friday morning when I saw the sharp drop in the unemployment rate, but for a different reason. The January unemployment report, I had been forewarned by BLS, was the first to be based on models using 2010 census figures. (All these numbers are guestimations based on surveys of smaller samples taken around the country). A big shift up or down in the unemployment rate, I thought, could be explained by the change in the overall population of the country, reflected in the census numbers.
But the census adjustments actually work against my theory and that of the Obama-detractors. The demographic adjustments had no effect on the unemployment rate, says Mary Bowler, the resident expert in these matters at the BLS. And when it comes to labor force estimates, the steep jump in the number of those not seeking work came entirely from the census adjustment, which added 1.25 million people to that group. If you take out the census adjustment, the labor force numbers stayed essentially the same, as reflected by the labor force participation rate of 63.7%. In other words, the spike in the number of people no longer looking for work is entirely the result of some people at the Labor Department adding numbers to their spread sheets rather than an actual observed shift anywhere in the real economy.
In recent months there have been other reasons to be pessimistic about the economy and about the unemployment numbers, but January’s report offers good news in those areas as well. Even though consumer sentiment and retail sales have been improving over the last few months, some economists argued that the economy could never really turn the corner until the housing market cleared the millions of pending foreclosures that are keeping housing prices low and mortgage holders underwater. The latest employment numbers suggest a turnaround may be underway in housing even though the foreclosure bulge is still working its way through the economy. The January jobs report showed a sharp improvement in housing employment, says Jed Kolko, an economist at Trulia. Construction employment was up 3.9% compared to three months ago. Kolko also points to a big jump in youth employment, as the unemployment rate for 25-34 year-olds dropped to 9% from 9.4% in December. That age group is the prime demographic for changing housing demand.
And just as a final kick in the teeth to those of us who tend to look at the glass as half empty, the Institute for Supply Management on Friday reported that factory orders were up 1.1% in December, suggesting job growth may continue, at least in the manufacturing sector, as producers hire more workers to meet demand.
All in all, it was a very grim day for serial pessimists, this writer included.
Read more: January Jobs Report: Good News for the Economy, Bad News for the Pessimists | Swampland | TIME.com
it's simply that the religious argument is also more faith-based than fact-based. And for people who think laws should have grounds in cold hard facts behind them, this poses a bit of an issue.
Well, laws should reflect a society shouldn't they. The one caveat being the protection of human and unalienable rights. My concern with Islamic law isn't that it reflects the beliefs of the majority of its citizens but rather how it treats those that don't. Most Islamic countries have Shariah law written into their constitutions. Now, like Christians, Muslims can read the Koran and have different interpretations but history and the current record of human rights abuses speak for themselves. Nor is the assimilation of Muslims into Western culture looking very promising at the moment.Let's put it another way: if someone makes a simple suggestion in relation to Islamic beliefs as their reason for why a law should exist, how well would that go over? If our president were of that faith (I can hear the Obama/Islam jokes now), would it be okay for him to use his faith to help make his decisions about the country? Jewish? Buddhist? And so on? How comfortable will we all be with this idea when it's someone of an opposing faith making the laws?
Did you just quote direct from a US government press release?
Christ. That really wins the argument.
Here are the really numbers, for the benefit of those still living near Lake Reality:
- 1.2 million working age people no longer have the honor & privilege of being 'counted' for purposes of tabulating unemployment
+ inherently flawed 'seasonal january adjustment'
+ a whole lot of temporary workers with no benefits and mostly at or near minimum wage
= turn an actual survey data of a loss of 2.6 million jobs into a labour department reported gain of 243,000 jobs.
Sorry but it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with you.
Did you just quote direct from a US government press release?
Christ. That really wins the argument.
There is the Establishment clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." but is followed by the Free Exercise Clause, "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I think it can certainly be argued that forcing an individual or religious organization to act against its religious conscience (in this case Catholics to purchase contraceptives, or other groups the morning After Pill) is prohibiting their free exercise of religion.
(Reuters) - Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed.
A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.
The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.
"In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible," said the report's lead author Rachel Jones.
She said most sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant practice contraception, and most use highly effective methods like sterilization, the pill, or the intrauterine device (IUD).
"This is true for Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants, and it is true for Catholics, despite the Catholic hierarchy's strenuous opposition to contraception," Jones said.
Nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization, the birth control pill or an IUD, according to the Guttmacher Institute research.
The numbers are slightly higher among women who identify as Evangelicals or Mainline Protestants, research showed.
The latest data is from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG).
The findings nearly match previous NSFG data from 2002, which showed that 97 percent of Catholic women were using birth control, and are consistent with a trend tracked over the last decade by Catholics for Choice.
(Reporting by Lauren Keiper; editing by Barbara Goldberg and Greg McCune)
Im all for good news, if that's what it really was. But i'm also a bit confused with the jobs report because at the same time we're also hearing that American Airlines is supposed to cut 10k - 13k jobs:
American Airlines to Cut Up to 15,000 Jobs - KiiiTV3.com South Texas, Corpus Christi, Coastal Bend
American Airlines: We'll have 'many fewer' jobs - Feb. 1, 2012
Im all for good news, if that's what it really was. But i'm also a bit confused with the jobs report because at the same time we're also hearing that American Airlines is supposed to cut 10k - 13k jobs:
American Airlines to Cut Up to 15,000 Jobs - KiiiTV3.com South Texas, Corpus Christi, Coastal Bend
American Airlines: We'll have 'many fewer' jobs - Feb. 1, 2012
add to that awful news, per CNN, some analysts are predicting $5 per gallon gas this summer:
Gas prices: Rocky year ahead - Jan. 16, 2012
I don't concur necessarily. You could put George Will and Norm Chomsky, two agnostics, in a room and what policies, arguing on "facts" alone, would they agree on? In actuality we all act on faith. Some of us have more faith in free markets and some of us have more faith in government for example. Some of us have more trust that individuals can make the best choices for themselves and some of us believe they can't be trusted and we should limit access to foods, drugs, movies and light bulbs they might do harm with.
On the other hand, I can take a passage from the Bible and come to a completely different conclusion than another Christian. I think the president's theology is atrocious when he says, "For me, as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’ ” I don't read that at all as as an endorsement of the "social gospel" of the Left, Big Government or reason enough to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. So two Christians can agree on the commission to 'love thy neighbor" and care for the poor but disagree completely on the most efficient and effective way to achieve those ends. Private charities supported by the individual compulsion of time and money vs. compulsory giving enforced by the IRS and funneled through the autonomy of government bureaucracy is how I would frame it but you might word that differently.
In the end theology and ideology can both be based on faith and both can lead to truth. But truth is truth. And I rather like how the designers of the Supreme Court building show lawgivers from all over the world and throughout history. From Moses, Solomon, Charlemagne and Confucius to Blackstone to illustrate that.
Well, laws should reflect a society shouldn't they. The one caveat being the protection of human and unalienable rights. My concern with Islamic law isn't that it reflects the beliefs of the majority of its citizens but rather how it treats those that don't. Most Islamic countries have Shariah law written into their constitutions. Now, like Christians, Muslims can read the Koran and have different interpretations but history and the current record of human rights abuses speak for themselves. Nor is the assimilation of Muslims into Western culture looking very promising at the moment.
How come we've never discussed anything in depth before? You're very interesting to trade posts with.
Republican Clint Eastwood (unintentionally?) puts out a Super Bowl ad in total contravention of Mitt's "the car industry should have been let go bankrupt" much to the joy of the Obama people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEM9dodyABo&feature=player_embedded