Same here, though I have pretty much everything he wrote. In storage. :damn:

Well, yeah, there's that. But that's also true on other levels. Theoretically only Americans can vote in American elections, but Californians can't vote in Utah elections, and Salt Lakers can't vote in Provo elections. Citizenship as a requirement is sensible.

And I will say it again - if you actually READ the link - nowhere does it ask anyone to do anything - it is the simple stated intent of the writer to put forth their own plan of action for themselves. Yet you persist in trying to paint it as something it is not.

ROFL - you and gimpy are still acting like this was some request that companies follow - and it doesn't have any such request. Of course - your "scholarly studies" would have indicated that - but facts shouldn't get in the way of slamming those opposed to you, apparently....

Regarding your source - they are proven wrong - although we have hindsight where they did not:

The housing collapse has already lasted 6 years, and continues on - the only thing from keeping it from falling completely off the map is the difficulties banks now have proceeding with foreclosures.

Unemployment started rising majorly in 8/2007 - more than 4 years ago that your paper said was needed to see recovery. In case you haven't been paying attention - unemployment has NOT been improving. Especially considering the fact that the unemployment rate does not even count those who have given up looking for work. Real world estimates of unemployment - 22% - using the way it has historically been rated instead of the "new math" introduced in 1994.

http://usawatchdog.com/real-unemployment-rate-2011/

At least they got the debt explosion part right. We are up to our eyeballs in debt. For what? Nothing good has come of it - unless you count massive bailouts to banks, GM, and loads to Sunpower, Solyndra and electric car companies in Europe.....

The reality is that "hope and change" has left us with no hope... and change is about all we have left in our pockets. That isn't success, that isn't results, and sorry - but the worst of it has hit (and continues to do so) on Obama's watch. Had he dealt with the economy instead of trying to force through the DREAM act, had he focused on jobs (like he promised to do so repeatedly) instead of Obamacare that the majority disagreed with, had he focused on the main struggle this country faced instead of spending time on gay rights issues (such as ending DADT and deciding to stand idly by while the DoMA gets attacked), had he spent mroe time trying to find solutions to get people working instead of trying to punish business in between his apology tour of the world, then maybe your arguements would carry some weight. But, they don't.

hrm, well, i could walk over to somebody with a gun and say, "I resolve that people should give me money, or they will get shot"...and it would still be a request. You're pigeon holing the issue, and basically hinging your whole argument that the phrase isn't in there, where the writing in on the wall.

yeah, maybe the worst did hit on Obama's watch, but who was it who inherrited a good economy in 2000? oh wait. Bush would be like Ismay, getting off the Titanic just before she sunk, and trying to blame it on Smith, who drown in the mess Ismay had a large hand in making.

Ok Haplo. You've got it all figured out, apparently. I'll be sure to let Rogoff and Reinhart know that Haplo's destroyed their study in one post on the Subsim forums.

Can't argue the reality so all you have left is sniping sarcasm? Thats sad.

No, your making a strawman. There is a huge difference between an immediate threat of violence against others unless they part with their personal property, and the statement that a person / business will not act further unless the attacks against it cease. The description you gave above was a criminal action in any state in the US. There is nothing criminal in a business refusing to hire. Comparing apples to oranges with hyperbole and prevarication won't make you right.

Again a total strawman. The titanic sunk because of substandard materials and bad design after collision. Smith was captain - he chose to listen to the "insistence" of Ismay. Smith was responsible for the safety of his ship - his choice to cave to company pressure resulted in the collision damage that sank the Titanic. Does not make Ismay innocent, but last I checked, George Bush wasn't advising Obama. If Ismay had been captain during the collision, then left the captains chair to Smith after, you would be correct in saying that Ismay was THE one responsible. But that isn't the case, and we both know it.

No one disputes that Obama inherited an economy in trouble. However, if you think you can "blame Bush" for Obama's failed fiscal policies, or his intense avoidance of economic focus for the last nearly 3 years, your sadly mistaken. I mean, cmon - even Obama has figured out that he can't "blame Bush" any more - thats why he has turned to blaming Congress.

Of course, the fact that the Democratically controlled Senate won't pass his ideas, and the reality that they refuse to take up any economic legislation that originates (and passes) in the House, goes to show that the left not only isn't backing him fully, but that they are the ones more interested in playing politics with the economy.

I could go into how your source on unemployment rate is screwy, how using unemployment rate is not really an accurate measurement due to introducing other factors that skew it higher or lower (participation rate, birth/death adjustment, etc) and a better measurement would be total jobs lost/regained from peak employment month, and how they're study isn't "proven wrong," as it's an examination of historical data and not a subjective statement, and blah blah blah

But then sooner or later you realize you're dealing with someone who wouldn't listen anyways and you just cut bait.

here we are again, raging at Obama that he couldn't fix everything in 3 years, when that's never been done before from a downturn this severe. Straw Man I may have, But the seeds for this collapse were sewn long before Obama, and expecting everything to be fixed Immediately is naive, or just good ammunition for the Right if people are dumb enough to believe it.

Not only has Obama not fixed anything, he's made it worse.

data?

Unemployment climbing.
Deficit exploding.
Median income lower.
Housing economy worse than ever.
More people than ever on government aid.

How much more data do you need?

Data that would prove someone did better.

Hap he's not going to accept the obvious because it doesn't jibe with his partisan beliefs.

Accepting the obvious is knowing that you cannot show Obama made things worse as there is no "better" to compare it with.

Sure there is "better" to compare it with.

Unemployment levels on January 20th, 2009
Federal deficit on January 20th, 2009
Median income on January 20th, 2009
Housing economy on January 20th, 2009
# of people enrolled in government aid on January 20th, 2009

A president is defined by what he had when he started compared to what he has to show for his time in office. The definition on Obama is failure. Run from it all you want - he sure will try - but the American people know better.

here we go again with that....