record number on food stamps
record deficit
unclear tax implications for estates, individuals, companies
incredibly divided country

record number on food stamps
record deficit
unclear tax implications for estates, individuals, companies
incredibly divided country

Of which not all is his fault.

This is the second time but it is not unusual for Presidents.

Of course, last year they named the protestor and in the past decade Vlady Putin

Surprisingly, I didn't even make the short list this year.

Surprisingly, I didn't even make the short list this year.

That's 'cause you are over 6'

Of which not all is his fault.

This is the second time but it is not unusual for Presidents.

Of course, last year they named the protestor and in the past decade Vlady Putin

I believe all 4 i listed are his fault and are under his control.

Not that I'm making comparisons, but Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin (twice), and Ayatollah Khomeini were named Time Man of the year before.

It has more to do with who drove the news that year than accomplishments

Not that I'm making comparisons, but Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin (twice), and Ayatollah Khomeini were named Time Man of the year before

and those individuals greatly influenced history.
Has Obama? How? Take away his race and tell me how he has changed history? Whats his impact? Medicore at best. But Mediocre has become the new Great

and those individuals greatly influenced history.
Has Obama? How? Take away his race and tell me how he has changed history? Whats his impact? Medicore at best. But Mediocre has become the new Great

At the time they were named Man of the Year....it wasn't history.

and you don't think 30 years from now what Obama has done isn't going to influence history...postively or negatively?

Like I said...it has more to do with how that person drove the news the past year than anything else.

Give this a read...an interview with the editor on how they choose the man of the Year..

Choosing the Person of the Year: TIME Editor Jim Kelly - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,189630,00.html)


Jim Kelly: Well, the classic definition of TIME's Person of the Year is the person who most affected the events of the year, for better or for worse. I think what has happened over the years is that the Man of the Year title, Person of the Year title, has become non-honorific. It was never meant to be solely that.

I believe all 4 i listed are his fault and are under his control.

He has been at the helm for 4 years, he has spent a jillion dollars, and for much of that time, his party controlled both houses of the legislature. He was in a position to exert a great deal of influence on these issues. He didn't create the subprime mortgage crisis, but he deserves much of the blame for the pathetic recovery.

The man added almost $5 trillion to our debt in 4 years. What do we have to show for that? Unemployment that is 0.1% lower than when he took office. Median income that is $4000 lower than when he took office. Rising fuel costs, rising medical costs, rising food costs (I guess cows and wheat are racist).

Should be some guy who lost his job several years ago and for one reason or another couldn't land another one, but kept his chin up and applied, and applied, and applied again until something fell his way and he started working again. Time man of the year should this non-descript individual with his straight back to the photographer, dress in wrinkled pants and suit coat (because he hasn't been able to afford going to the dry cleaners yet again) carrying the lunch pail or briefcase to his first day at the new job. You may want to consider having a woman dressed the same as the man standing beside each other in the picture, and the heading be Time Man and Woman of the Year.

Thats who ought to be Time Man of the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing Year!

Should be some guy who lost his job several years ago and for one reason or another couldn't land another one, but kept his chin up and applied, and applied, and applied again until something fell his way and he started working again. Time man of the year should this non-descript individual with his straight back to the photographer, dress in wrinkled pants and suit coat (because he hasn't been able to afford going to the dry cleaners yet again) carrying the lunch pail or briefcase to his first day at the new job. You may want to consider having a woman dressed the same as the man standing beside each other in the picture, and the heading be Time Man and Woman of the Year.

Thats who ought to be Time Man of the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing Year!

One of the better posts I've seen in a long time. Problem is, that guy you described isn't going to vot ethe way the editors at TIME want us to vote. Remember, TIME's last editor was Jay Carney, who is now the official spokesman for the Obama administration.

Should be some guy who lost his job several years ago and for one reason or another couldn't land another one, but kept his chin up and applied, and applied, and applied again until something fell his way and he started working again. Time man of the year should this non-descript individual with his straight back to the photographer, dress in wrinkled pants and suit coat (because he hasn't been able to afford going to the dry cleaners yet again) carrying the lunch pail or briefcase to his first day at the new job. You may want to consider having a woman dressed the same as the man standing beside each other in the picture, and the heading be Time Man and Woman of the Year.

Thats who ought to be Time Man of the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing Year!

brilliant - the working (or seeking work) common man. So true.

With the hell reads TIME Magazine ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who the the hell reads TIME Magazine ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama says GOP is too focused on getting better of him in fiscal cliff talks than doing what's best for the country.

TIME said that Obama is the "Architect of the New America"

Interesting, since all Obama did for 4 years is suggest that someone else, anyone other than he, was to blame for all the malaise within the New America.

TIME went on to say that there is "a new demographic, a new cultural America that he is now the symbol of"

I agree. Obama's election in 2008 was the ultimate victory of 1960's radicalism over 1950's traditionalism. Hip-hip-hooray.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;975639]TIME said that Obama is the "Architect of the New America"

QUOTE]

I don't know if he's the architect as they started drawing up the plans a long time ago.....ever wonder how they came up with a gazillion pages of ObamaCare legislation just like that?....he's definitely cutting the ribbon on the "New America"....guess we'll see what kind of foundation was laid and whether it can support the additional weight somewhere down the road:)

Haters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Haters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You might be a progressive ideologue if:


4. You find that people who don't agree with you are idiots or racists or mean-spirited...

:)

"You might be a progressive ideologue if:


4. You find that people who don't agree with you are idiots or racists or mean-spirited...

:)
Not even close.


Why 2012 was the best year ever
Never in the history of the world has there been less hunger, less disease and more prosperity
The Spectator 15 December 2012

It may not feel like it, but 2012 has been the greatest year in the history of the world. That sounds like an extravagant claim, but it is borne out by evidence. Never has there been less hunger, less disease or more prosperity. The West remains in the economic doldrums, but most developing countries are charging ahead, and people are being lifted out of poverty at the fastest rate ever recorded. The death toll inflicted by war and natural disasters is also mercifully low. We are living in a golden age.

Why 2012 was the best year ever The Spectator (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/8789981/glad-tidings/)

Suck it all you haters.

-spence

Not even close.



Suck it all you haters.

-spence

2012 may be the best year ever for the planet as a whole, but it was not the best year ever for the United States Of America. And the last time I checked, Obama didn't get elected as president of the U.N. or some League Of Nations, he is the leader of this country.

So according to Spence, we should not hold Obama responsible for the fact that the economy stinks here. Rather, we should give Obama credit for the good things that are happening everywhere else, things which in reality, Obama did not contribute to.

But in Spence-world, all the good things that have happened since 6500 B.C., are thanks to Obama.

And if I'm not inclined to give Obama 100% credit for the fact that Nepal had a good wheat crop this year, Spence says I am a 'hater'.

Got it, check.

We live in a global economy, if the world is s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g wind so will we. Things aren't perfect here at home but all the doom and gloom is just a lack of belief in the American spirit.

Suck it haters.

-spence

You have to love the irony...

Spence points to the fact that developing countries are continuing to develop, as evidence that the world is in good shape. He also says, somehow, that Obama deserves the credit for that, but we'll put that aside.

What's the irony, you ask? The irony, and it is spectacular, is this...here, Spence celebrates the development of up-and-coming countries. But if liberals like Spence had their way, they would put an immediate halt to that development, in the name of global warming. The liberals want to tell these developing countries to stop using fossil fuels, stop driving cars, stop eating cows that fart methane gas, stop building houses that use electricity and fossil fuels, stop tapping into gas and coal resources that are literally fueling the development.

So which is it, Spence? Is that development a good thing for our planet, or a bad thing? Because if it's good for those countries to use their natural resources to develop, then kindly tell me why your ilk claim that we shoudn't do the same exact thing here with our abundant coal and natural gas resources?

You can't have it both ways, Spence. Have fun getting yourself out of that intellectual corner you backed into.

Developing nations consume our products and technology and put Americans to work.

Globalism 101.

Read up Jim.

-spence

Developing nations consume our products and technology and put Americans to work.

Globalism 101.

Read up Jim.

-spence

Spence, I am laughing so hard I'm tearing up.

Those developing nations are buying our products? OK. That explains our massive trade surplus, our record-low unemployment, and the resurgence of the US manufacturing structure, and all the new factories being built here!

I have to get some tissues to wipe my eyes...

At least you made it through a few sentences without calling me a 'hater'.

TimeWarner is run by Henry Grunwald who last I knew was a devout Reagan republican. Grunwald was in fact made the ambassador to Austria I believe during Reagan's term in office. However, I think that Time is subservient to the liberal side of polictics. Grunwalds daughter, Mandy, has been involved in democratic politics for years as an operative for one elected official or another. Mandy is in fact Senator elect Elizabeth Warren's chief of staff. Grunwald was working for the dem's in Washington and was sent by the party to Massachusetts with Warren to do whatever she had to do to help get Warren elected. It is an interesting aside to this deal. The Grunwald's own at least two properties fronting the water just north of the Tashmoo opening on the Vineyard. I knew who she was from there, because a dear fiend did work for the family. I once jumped her jeep, so she and her brother could make the ferry. She did offer a twenty, but I turned her down. She also authored at least one children's book to good reviews.

That explains our massive trade surplus, our record-low unemployment, and the resurgence of the US manufacturing structure, and all the new factories being built here!
Trade deficits are largely a function of domestic consumption. When the Bush economy was ballooning via credit we imported more, during the recession less. I'd think that as household discretionary spending increases in emerging markets the fact that much production for these goods is already overseas would benefit local producers faster.

Though, as we've discussed before, US manufacturing in many sectors is doing quite well, especially areas like heavy machinery and commercial aviation. The challenge is that factories are more productive via technology rather than people.

A global slowdown will hurt these US exports more than anything as the companies derive increasing % of revenues from emerging markets...the EU is pretty flat.

Remember, that new office park in Shanghai is probably being built with gear from Caterpillar.

-spence

Remember, that new office park in Shanghai is probably being built with gear from Caterpillar.

-spence

Spence, in these developing nations you speak of...office parks are going up, houses are being built, roads are being built, cars are being purchased. All of that requires energy, all of that increases the environmental footprint that mankind leaves on the planet.

Do you think that development is a good thing, or a bad thing?

You seem to be saying that development is good, even though it results in a huge increase in energy consumption. If that's OK with you, then why shouldn't we tap into the massive natural gas resources that we know we are sitting on? That would put Americans to work, right?

If energy exploitation is good in other countries (to support their development), why don't liberals support that same concept here?

Remember, that new office park in Shanghai is probably being built with gear from Caterpillar.

-spence

Actually, it's probably not being built with gear from Caterpillar. Most likely, it's being built with equipment made by Sany or LiuGong (both Chinese) who both have much higher sales than Caterpillar in China.

Sometimes I wonder if you just say stuff and hope no one calls you out on it, or if you really are that dense? I'm pretty sure you're not that dense.:uhuh:

Things aren't perfect here at home but all the doom and gloom is just a lack of belief in the American spirit.

Suck it haters.

-spence
A lack of "believe in the American spirit"? Obama is the last person someone can defend and then state his critics lack believe in the American spirit. Someone that supports a complete disregard for civil liberties and the Constitution would be a better fit for the claim "lacks American spirit."

Here's the short list of the Constitutional scholar, Barack Obama's actions that directly contradict someone that appreciates and respects a sense of the American Spirit:
- Expanded drone attacks in sovereign countries
- Drones over American skies
- Consistent push for NDAA
- Approval and expansion of warrantless surveillance of Americans
- A microstep away from socialized medicine
- Broken promises of a transparent Administration
- The assassination of an American citizen without trial
- Indefinite detention of Bradley Manning
- Expanded support and funding of the TSA's "airport security" charade

I didn't even touch upon his open support for keeping people on the government's dole as opposed to lifting themselves up and working to improve their lives - something that could be argued is the biggest violation of the "American Spirit" within his agenda.

Sure seems as though those that support Obama's agenda are the ones with a lack of "American Spirit" - claiming otherwise is a complete misunderstanding of what the American Spirit actually is and the liberties for which the country was founded on.

I can't wait to go off this fiscal cliff... Besides the world is suppose to end I think on the 21st anyway (Mayan calender) so it really should not be all that bad for much longer.

peace-------


http://www.downside.com/bldgjump.gif

I can't wait to go off this fiscal cliff... Besides the world is suppose to end I think on the 21st anyway (Mayan calender) so it really should not be all that bad for much longer.

peace-------


http://www.downside.com/bldgjump.gif

My friends on the other side of the world are still here......sorry
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"who reads Time."

LOL, I do,Buck, when my chinnese take out food isn't ready yet. :grins:
Good for some laughs. :)

Sometimes I wonder if you just say stuff and hope no one calls you out on it, or if you really are that dense? I'm pretty sure you're not that dense.:uhuh:
Heavy equipment in the US sells a lot to China and other emerging nations...that's not to say they don't have competition.

-spence

Heavy equipment in the US sells a lot to China and other emerging nations...that's not to say they don't have competition.

-spence

We'll leave other countries out of it because you specifically referred to China. Caterpillar has a very small market share in China. The Chinese companies are much more prevalent, and the Japanese companies have a greater market share than Caterpillar. Stop responding with your jibberish, vague, non-answers.

https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html

We'll leave other countries out of it because you specifically referred to China. Caterpillar has a very small market share in China. The Chinese companies are much more prevalent, and the Japanese companies have a greater market share than Caterpillar. Stop responding with your jibberish, vague, non-answers.
I believe CAT has at least 12 manufacturing plants in China and over 8,000 employees. It represents a substantial part of their growth strategy.

These investments have a big impact on jobs in Peoria. The net is that any way you shake it, development in emerging markets has a big impact on the US economy...

Perhaps you should sub out your googling to ScottW :bshake:

-spence

I believe CAT has at least 12 manufacturing plants in China and over 8,000 employees. It represents a substantial part of their growth strategy.

These investments have a big impact on jobs in Peoria. The net is that any way you shake it, development in emerging markets has a big impact on the US economy...

-spence

Phew!! Glad you've finally put to rest that non-sense about "shipping jobs overseas", especially to China, costing Americans jobs. Those 8,000 jobs in Peoria instead of China would look really nice right about now. Of course, then, China wouldn't have bought the CAT stuff if it was made here because greedy, mean, right wing presidents wouldn't have forced them to. That's one of the reasons we voted for Obama, no? To stop jobs from being shipped overseas, and to make China trade "fairly" with us?

But all is well now, anyway, because CAT's "investments" in China will have a big impact on jobs in Peoria. After all, Obama will see to it that those investments are taxed at higher, fairer, rates, and that will create more "revenue" to distribute to unemployed and needy Americans.

Phew!! Glad you've finally put to rest that non-sense about "shipping jobs overseas", especially to China, costing Americans jobs. Those 8,000 jobs in Peoria instead of China would look really nice right about now. Of course, then, China wouldn't have bought the CAT stuff if it was made here because greedy, mean, right wing presidents wouldn't have forced them to. That's one of the reasons we voted for Obama, no? To stop jobs from being shipped overseas, and to make China trade "fairly" with us?

But all is well now, anyway, because CAT's "investments" in China will have a big impact on jobs in Peoria. After all, Obama will see to it that those investments are taxed at higher, fairer, rates, and that will create more "revenue" to distribute to unemployed and needy Americans.
Perhaps many of those jobs don't belong here.

They likely manufacture locally to be more responsive to the market, take advantage of local labor, local materials and perhaps more importantly avoid the costs associated with transport of heavy raw materials, finished product and extended supply chain and service components.

Yet, the profit from such ventures is sent to the USA where it can finance expansion and higher paying jobs at home that are the innovation engine of the company.

And Mitt Romney said he was going to get tough...with who again?

-spence

Yet, the profit from such ventures is sent to the USA where it can finance expansion and higher paying jobs at home that are the innovation engine of the company.
-spence
You must be mistaken. Those higher paying jobs are only held by people that got there by stomping on the heads of those below them. Those with higher paying jobs don't actually contribute to the economy, that's why we should tax them >50% of their income. I mean, they have never really done any work so why should they keep the money they earn?

Btw, I see you're going to ignore my reply to your "lack of American Spirit" nonsense just as you did with ignoring what's so bad about giving people a choice not to join unions.

Btw, I see you're going to ignore my reply to your "lack of American Spirit" nonsense just as you did with ignoring what's so bad about giving people a choice not to join unions.

He'll answer that, right after he tells you why it's bad to let Americns choose if they want to be in a union.

Perhaps many of those jobs don't belong here.

They likely manufacture locally to be more responsive to the market, take advantage of local labor, local materials and perhaps more importantly avoid the costs associated with transport of heavy raw materials, finished product and extended supply chain and service components.

Yet, the profit from such ventures is sent to the USA where it can finance expansion and higher paying jobs at home that are the innovation engine of the company.

When greedy business and evil Republicans were supposed to be responsible for shipping jobs overseas they were not only able to "take advantage of local labor, local materials" and even with the cost of transport of materials and finished products, etc., they were still able to "profit from such ventures" to "finance expansion and higher paying jobs at home that are the innovation engine of the company." So then, I guess those jobs that were shipped overseas pre-Obama also "many of those jobs don't belong here." Maybe all that gibberish about shipping jobs overseas was poo-poo to get folks like Obama elected. As I said, glad that you were able to put to rest that nonsense.

Gee, I wonder with such wondrous profit making dynamics, which jobs do belong here.

And Mitt Romney said he was going to get tough...with who again?

-spence

What on earth does Romney have to do with it. He lost. Why talk about losers. Aren't the winners the relevant ones, the ones who move and shake? Wasn't Romney accused of shipping jobs overseas? I guess THAT was a bad thing.

hard to read and not shake my head with all the spin from spence

Perhaps you should sub out your googling to ScottW :bshake:

-spence

or just make it up as you go along.... like Spence :love:

I believe CAT has at least 12 manufacturing plants in China and over 8,000 employees. It represents a substantial part of their growth strategy.

These investments have a big impact on jobs in Peoria. The net is that any way you shake it, development in emerging markets has a big impact on the US economy...

Perhaps you should sub out your googling to ScottW :bshake:

-spence

Ok, Spence. This is comical, even for a post from you. You stated that the Chinese are likely using Caterpillar machines for their big construction projects. I pointed out that Caterpillar has a very small market share there as compared to the 2 large Chinese heavy equipment makers. Then you say that heavy equipment in the US sells a lot to China, which in no way backs up your original statement. China does not buy a lot of US made equipment because they buy Chinese made equipment. Now you claim that US companies are building their equipment in China. You really have no clue. How does it go from China using a lot of American made heavy equipment to US companies building their equipment in China and sending it back here? And how's that benefiting the US? Wouldn't Peoria be better off if they kept all the jobs there?

Maybe you should have RIROCKHOUND's new baby do your googling for you. It's bound to be better than whatever you're doing.

Ok, Spence. This is comical, even for a post from you. You stated that the Chinese are likely using Caterpillar machines for their big construction projects. I pointed out that Caterpillar has a very small market share there as compared to the 2 large Chinese heavy equipment makers. Then you say that heavy equipment in the US sells a lot to China, which in no way backs up your original statement. China does not buy a lot of US made equipment because they buy Chinese made equipment. Now you claim that US companies are building their equipment in China. You really have no clue. How does it go from China using a lot of American made heavy equipment to US companies building their equipment in China and sending it back here? And how's that benefiting the US? Wouldn't Peoria be better off if they kept all the jobs there?

Maybe you should have RIROCKHOUND's new baby do your googling for you. It's bound to be better than whatever you're doing.
There are many companies that sell heavy equipment in China, some are Chinese, some are Korean, some are Japanese, some are American. That a company like CAT doesn't dominate the market is irrelevant to the point at hand unless you want to parse a single word to to make trouble.

Quite simply, assembly in China doesn't mean there aren't thousands and thousands more here in the US involved in design and planning.

Do you seriously lake the fundamentals of how a global manufacturing business operates? It sure sounds like you do.

-spence

Ok, Spence. This is comical, even for a post from you. You stated that the Chinese are likely using Caterpillar machines for their big construction projects. I pointed out that Caterpillar has a very small market share there as compared to the 2 large Chinese heavy equipment makers. Then you say that heavy equipment in the US sells a lot to China, which in no way backs up your original statement. China does not buy a lot of US made equipment because they buy Chinese made equipment. Now you claim that US companies are building their equipment in China. You really have no clue. How does it go from China using a lot of American made heavy equipment to US companies building their equipment in China and sending it back here? And how's that benefiting the US? Wouldn't Peoria be better off if they kept all the jobs there?

Maybe you should have RIROCKHOUND's new baby do your googling for you. It's bound to be better than whatever you're doing.

If I can respond on Spence's behalf...

You're an ignorantracisthatemongerbigotsexisthomophobeislamo phobeintoleranthatecrimes!

P.S. Suck on that

man, spence has gone off the deep end
Thanks guys - this IS cheering me up!

There are many companies that sell heavy equipment in China, some are Chinese, some are Korean, some are Japanese, some are American. That a company like CAT doesn't dominate the market is irrelevant to the point at hand unless you want to parse a single word to to make trouble.

Quite simply, assembly in China doesn't mean there aren't thousands and thousands more here in the US involved in design and planning.

Do you seriously lake the fundamentals of how a global manufacturing business operates? It sure sounds like you do.

-spence

I see you're at it again.:rotf2: You originally stated that CAT equipment is most likely being used at large Chinese construction projects. I pointed out you are wrong. Then you started squirming around trying to change your original statement because you looked foolish. Now you start saying I "lake" fundamentals of how a global manufacturing business operates. You're quite wrong again.

I'll ask one simple question that I would like a straight forward, yes or no answer without the typical Spence circular logic. Would the 8,000 CAT manufacturing jobs currently in China help the people of Peoria if they were brought back home?

BTW, if you need more tranny porn for your stocking suffers, I can email you some very disturbing stuff, or just ask WPTMafia. He has all the bookmarks on his phone.

I see you're at it again.:rotf2: You originally stated that CAT equipment is most likely being used at large Chinese construction projects. I pointed out you are wrong. Then you started squirming around trying to change your original statement because you looked foolish. Now you start saying I "lake" fundamentals of how a global manufacturing business operates. You're quite wrong again.
The initial remarks were if global expansion benefited US business...and as I've indicated it certainly does. Swap "most likely" with "possibly" and your argument vanishes because you hadn't made a single point to refute my claim.

You still haven't by the way.

I do like your assertion that the Chinese only buy Chinese equipment even though CAT has over a half dozen plants in country...an investment strategy to capture Chinese market share :rotf2:

What do you think all those people are doing? :1poke:

I'll ask one simple question that I would like a straight forward, yes or no answer without the typical Spence circular logic. Would the 8,000 CAT manufacturing jobs currently in China help the people of Peoria if they were brought back home?
To answer that question you'd have to assess if the company could afford to hire skilled workers, absorb increased material, shipping and support costs and be responsive to local markets and competitive pressures...while still turning a profit.

The answer is likely not, otherwise they would have already done it.

Additionally, without a Chinese manufacturing presence do you think their government would have any incentive to give us favorable trade conditions or would Chinese investors have much of any incentive to award contracts to foreign suppliers?

The answer again is likely not.

Yes, some companies do go overseas for cheaper labor or to avoid regulatory pressure, but for many global manufactures it's a growth strategy that would be impossible given the logistical and political challenges of operating from afar.

Bones, please keep pounding on that one word, in this argument it's really about all you've got :lama:

-spence

Now you're just lying and trying to put words in my mouth. Since I'm in the holiday spirit, I'll stop embarrassing you and let you continue to do it yourself.:uhuh:

Now you're just lying and trying to put words in my mouth. Since I'm in the holiday spirit, I'll stop embarrassing you and let you continue to do it yourself.:uhuh:

You've executed the ScottW playbook to a tee.

Try and blind them with bull#^&#^&#^&#^&, and when that doesn't work declare victory and leave. You even have the correct emoticon :uhuh:

-spence

When greedy business and evil Republicans were supposed to be responsible for shipping jobs overseas they were not only able to "take advantage of local labor, local materials" and even with the cost of transport of materials and finished products, etc., they were still able to "profit from such ventures" to "finance expansion and higher paying jobs at home that are the innovation engine of the company." So then, I guess those jobs that were shipped overseas pre-Obama also "many of those jobs don't belong here." Maybe all that gibberish about shipping jobs overseas was poo-poo to get folks like Obama elected. As I said, glad that you were able to put to rest that nonsense.
Depends on the company and industry. Certainly some jobs have been move purely for cost reasons. In other cases jobs have been created where it makes more sense. As I've noted this isn't always a bad thing for Americans.

-spence

RIJimmy's right. Spence, you've lost it man. As much as I enjoy watching you flail around in here making no sense, I kind of feel bad. It's like watching a boxer who's way behind on the scorecards keep getting the crap beat out of him, yet his corner doesn't realize they should have thrown in the towel several rounds ago.

You've executed the ScottW playbook to a tee.

Try and blind them with bull#^&#^&#^&#^&, and when that doesn't work declare victory and leave.
-spence

"You might be a progressive ideologue if:


3. You are a master at projecting or "transferring" what could be your problem or attitude (but not really) on to others.

10. You are certain that you never ever operate from an ideological position.":drevil: