• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

OFFICIAL ELECTION THREAD MEANS ALL ELECTION-RELATED STUFF GOES IN HERE, DUR

Status
Not open for further replies.

Seth C

Member
Matlock said:
SethC

You do realize that's because people are losing unemployment benefits/unemployed status, don't you?

So basically what you're saying that no matter what stats I could show you, they don't matter. That's fine. I can only present what is available to be presented. Still, based on historical figures, it is hard to argue that unemplyment under Bush is as bad as some would have you believe. Certainly, at worst, it is average.
 

SalientOne

Internet Batman
Do The Mario said:
Well in thirty years when china is the world’s new hegemonic power feels the need to disarm America will you bush supporters welcome you’re new masters?

Exactly right. This is the part that is lost on the Bush supporters and their inability to look forward more than a couple of months, paralyzed as they are by the fear-mongering of their leader.

The actions taken over the past three years by the Bush administration have all but assured that China (and indeed even most of Europe) views them as an unpredictable worldwide threat.

The longterm outcome of this will have Americans eating a steady diet of rice bowls and manufacturing cheap imports for their future Chinese masters.

You won't be the dominant world power forever, and you are officially perceived as a bully. We all know what happens to bullies when their victims grow up.
 

Sysgen

Member
akascream said:
Lib quote of the day.

I ain't no lib and your still a dumb shit for posting that picture given the carnage that went on over there. Typical bs, when backed into a corner scream LIBERAL!
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
And just for the record: What set me off more than anything last night was that the Republicans are going to maintain control of the Congress. I'm hoping that there are enough moderates in the mix to keep lunatics like Santorum and DeLay in line.
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
Just a general FYI:

Average unemployment under Clinton (1993-2000): 5.2
Average unemployment under Bush (2001-2004): 5.5 (up to September)

Unemployment by year under Clinton:
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0

Unemployment by year under Bush (2004 up to September):
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.6 (rounded up from 5.555555555)

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
Miguel said:
Thank you Will Federman.

Now without resorting to breaking your capslock key...I don't have a problem with what you're trying to say....but that pic does not belong on this forum. You can make your point just as well without having to resort to crap like that.

... Uh, I'm not JetSetHero.
 
akascream said:
Wait.. you've already lost me.

Whether you agree with them or not, the arguments by xsarien, Drinky Crow, jinx et al have always been clear and articulate. All you seem to post are Rumsfled-endorsed pics of Iraqi children and "Saddam was a bad bad man who did bad things." What does that tell you?
 

Phoenix

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
Seth C: Let's see the poverty numbers, which is what this was about.

I care fuck-all about how many people work at McDonald's.


More importantly you should care about the spending power of people during those years.
 

Iceman

Member
xsarien said:
And just for the record: What set me off more than anything last night was that the Republicans are going to maintain control of the Congress. I'm hoping that there are enough moderates in the mix to keep lunatics like Santorum and DeLay in line.


you know, and that was the only thing I was hoping for from this election (a continued hold on the congress by republicans). The 54 senators (although a couple will cross the aisles back and forth) is particularly huge.
 

Seth C

Member
DarienA said:
I just found that data at the BLS site, thanks. I have a question that I need to do some research on but my first question is why are the #'s during Clinton's term considered abnormal and what are they attributed to?

They're abnormal because some of them are considerably lower than the average. Why? There are probably too many reasons to list. Some of it undoubtedly had something to do with Clinton. Some of it had something to do with Bush Sr., as his numbers were falling over his second term. Some of it had to do with the booming economy, as the people with jobs were making money hand over fist, so you'd have to factor all the reasons the economy and the stock market were booming.
 

akascream

Banned
Sysgen said:
your still a dumb shit

:lol

What an awesome conversation.

<conservative point>
<lib insult>
<conservative point>
<lib referencing some good point another lib said somewhere, about something>

We're just going around in circles. Regardless, you guys put up a good mud slingin hodown this election, and its been fun. Can't wait to see who you bring to the table in 4 years (by you, I mean people actually part of our great nation, not you foreigners).
 

Seth C

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
Seth C: Let's see the poverty numbers, which is what this was about.

I care fuck-all about how many people work at McDonald's.

I'm having a lot more trouble finding solid poverty data. I'd imagine it looks similar, up and down over the long term.
 
Hi, I'm in the UK, I've been watching this race with morbid interest throughout the day. I was wondering why it appears to be down to the opponent parties to state whether they have won or lost, as opposed to an independent Govt. body that could provide a definite total result maybe after a day or two?

This whole deal with waiting for the Democrats to decide it isn't worth counting the rest of the votes just seems mad to me. Anyway, today has had an atmosphere a bit like a World Cup Final, where people around the world may be dealing with the everyday issues as normal before them, yet have their minds completely elsewhere for the day. Hi to everyone.
 
akascream said:
:lol

What an awesome conversation.

<conservative point>
<lib insult>
<conservative point>
<lib referencing some good point another lib said somewhere, about something>

What points have you made/are you making?
 

Kifimbo

Member
Seth C said:
So basically what you're saying that no matter what stats I could show you, they don't matter. That's fine. I can only present what is available to be presented. Still, based on historical figures, it is hard to argue that unemplyment under Bush is as bad as some would have you believe. Certainly, at worst, it is average.

Historical figures do not really matters when you talk economy. Why? Because since 10-15 years, there are new mechanisms use to control inflation and unemployment.

Yes the unemployment is not that bad, but the problem is that almost every other big countries have improved except the USA. Here in Canada, our dollar now worth 0.82$ US. It was 0.62$ US two years ago. You are deep in the red when you like at your budget. In Canada it's the opposite. It's not normal to have high deficit when the economy is that good.
 

Seth C

Member
Phoenix said:
More importantly you should care about the spending power of people during those years.

Wasn't this period of economic boom also part of the time when more American citizens put themselves more in debt than ever before in our history?
 

myzhi

Banned
Just mention on MSNBC and Foxnews TV channel that Kerry has called Bush to concede the presidency base on AP reporting.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
B-B-Bomba! said:
Hi, I'm in the UK, I've been watching this race with morbid interest throughout the day. I was wondering why it appears to be down to the opponent parties to state whether they have won or lost, as opposed to an independent Govt. body that could provide a definite total result maybe after a day or two?

Part of the problem is that we don't go by the popular vote, which is asinine, but also for another thread (or this one, I don't care.)
 

Seth C

Member
Matlock: Cute, but if you can find something, post it. I've found nothing at all, unfortunately, save for recent news stories saying it is "up." Really, I have no agenda here. I'm arguing more against exaggeration than I am against Democrats or for Republicans. I'd be just as annoyed with Republicans if they had lost and were giving us a similar "woe is me, the world is coming to a disastrous end" load of crap.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
I hope that despite all evidence presented to me... that I'm wildly wrong about Bush.

I hope he manages to do more than just pull the woolen blanket over people. I just hope honest to goodness, that he doesn't do any more damage than he's already done.
 

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
11/2/04 9/11/01

Worst 2 days of my life :(

Me too Zap...

Oh well, here's to bush my commander in chief..prrove me wrong cowboy.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
while we are stuck with bush for 4 more years.
I'd like to thank kerry for sparing us the constant insanity that could have ensued.
 

olimario

Banned
KERRY AM CRY
Kerry_cry.gif
Kerry_cry.gif
 
Guileless said:
If you think gassing villages and filling mass graves with your opponents is indicative of being a pussy I'd hate to know what it takes to be a hardass.

When I call Hussein a 'pussy dictator,' I mean that he wasn't a prominent threat to the US and that he's a clear and soft target. The crimes under his regime are horrible attrocities that can not be called piddly shit, obviously.
 

Koshiro

Member
Well it's been shit, I'm off to stab my eyes out with a fork now. Look forward to seeing where mr number one derranged christian bombs next.

(his interpretation of christianity defies belief)
 

Seth C

Member
Suikoguy said:
while we are stuck with bush for 4 more years.
I'd like to thank kerry for sparing us the constant insanity that could have ensued.

Same here. I'm afraid it would have done more harm than good to his party, had he tried to drag this on. Last time was enough, thanks. Better so save face, be humble in defeat, and come back strong next election.
 

Matlock

Banned
Seth C said:
Matlock: Cute, but if you can find something, post it. I've found nothing at all, unfortunately, save for recent news stories saying it is "up." Really, I have no agenda here. I'm arguing more against exaggeration than I am against Democrats or for Republicans. I'd be just as annoyed with Republicans if they had lost and were giving us a similar "woe is me, the world is coming to a disastrous end" load of crap.

Code:
 2003......         7,607            10.0         3,856            28.0
 2002......         7,229             9.6         3,613            26.5
 2001......         6,813             9.2         3,470            26.4
 2000 12/..         6,400             8.7         3,278            25.4
 1999 11/..         6,792             9.3         3,559            27.8
 1998......         7,186            10.0         3,831            29.9
 1997......         7,324            10.3         3,995            31.6
 1996......         7,708            11.0         4,167            32.6
 1995......         7,532            10.8         4,057            32.4
 1994......         8,053            11.6         4,232            34.6
 1993 10/..         8,393            12.3         4,424            35.6
 1992 9/...         8,144            11.9         4,275            35.4
 1991 8/...         7,712            11.5         4,161            35.6
 1990......         7,098            10.7         3,768            33.4
 1989......         6,784            10.3         3,504            32.2
 1988......         6,874            10.4         3,642            33.4

'cause census.gov is so hard to find.

Does look fairly cyclical, but look at how the Bush admins only served to heighten it, and the Clinton one was the only one to reduce it. :p
 
Bush was favoured among white men, voters with family incomes over $100,000 US and evangelical Christians who view him as a messenger from God in a titanic fight to quell terrorism and spread liberty around the world

WOW.......

Looks like Iran is pretty much next on the list.


Personally i think Baby boomers screwed all of us, they have it all covered and we the younger generation will suffer
 
91x in san diego just reported that kerry called bush to coincide. Expect the official announcement with an hour.

=(
I need some faith right about now.
 

Sysgen

Member
Seth C said:
Same here. I'm afraid it would have done more harm than good to his party, had he tried to drag this on. Last time was enough, thanks. Better so save face, be humble in defeat, and come back strong next election.

Kerry had his shot (if that's what your referring to). Next time it just may be Hiliary vs. Giulianai.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
BlackSalad said:
91x in san diego just reported that kerry called bush to coincide. Expect the official announcement with an hour.

=(
I need some faith right about now.

2006 election: Take back the Congress (or as much of it as possible.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom