kraychik

Put aside your perceptions of California for a moment and try addressing the more important points I'm making which redress the lies from the original post. You won't do it, and it's not a product of your integrity.

Yes, you're so concerned with the truth that you ignore the blatant lies parroted by your fellow socialist bleeding heart about decreased unemployment in the USA under Obama's great economic stewardship.

You're like Michael Hardner. As long as you stay ignorant of facts, there's nothing to be concerned about. Nevermind the fact that unemployment is up, that poverty is up, that wages are down, that debt is up... all of which is widely known and available at the click of a mouse in a couple of seconds via public data. Nothing to see here, folks!

I don't need you to be my agent against stupid assertions from someone like punked. California stated it fully reported its labour information to the BLS, it was disputed by Business Insider and other with good reason, and California doubled down and chastised the website when its PR employees came across its article in order to defend their perceived integrity.

Do you always get so hysterical when you're embarrassed? There is a lie in the original post that bleeding heart has parroted. The lie is that unemployment has been decreased under Obama's presidency. This is demonstrably untrue according to BLS statistics. There are more Americans out of work today than when Obama took office, both in term of proportion of the population AND in terms of absolute numbers. Although somewhat tangential, American net worth is significantly down (about 40% over the last three years), American median and average wages have gone down (around 8%, I believe, for both statistics), and total governmental debt at teh federal level has increased significantly (an additional $18K per American, about a 40% increase). Predictably, this lie presents itself as a "fact check" to a "lie" that came from Romney. This is the age we live in, I suppose. Yet this is all somehow spun into an economic success story according to socialists like you. "Tractor production is up, comrades!"

Yeah, that was acknowledged in one of the original articles. California denies it. I guess somehow you can reconcile two things, that monthly job growth is below the minimum threshold required to accomdate new entrants into the labour market and maintain the current percentage of those unemployed, and that total unemployment, the U6 (or "real unemployment") is actually higher now than when Obama took office. It was 14.2% in January of 2009, and it's 14.7% as of the most recent data from the BLS. Also, there has been a precipitous decline in full-time employment, with many people migrating to part-time. John Lott explains it here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/05/what-78-percent-jobless-rate-really-means/ While total jobs rose by 114,000, people who are classified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as "part time for economic reasons" soared from about 8 million to 8.6 million, a 581,000 increase. More people are unemployed today, both as a proportion of the total population and in terms of absolute numbers, than the day Obama took office. Moreover, the earn less and have significantly less net worth, and are indebted about 50% more at the federal governmental level alone. You can see it here: http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Seriously?

Are you suggesting that most of the Canadian media is left wing? I demand proof of such a charge!!!

G_bambino, my mistake, I linked the wrong article. Here Norman Spector expressed his disapproval of the Harper prorogation: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/prorogation-jean-chrtien-did-it-too/article794712/ Also here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/harper-plays-the-prorogation-card/article794572/ He also made a recent comment on Twitter in which he implied that the Harper prorogation sort of set the stage for McGuinty's prorogation.

The "update" was simply another contact from the BLS reasserting the original false claim. This was obviously done because the BLS was concerned about the political damage done by the original article. The BLS, like most other governmental departments, had a dedicated PR staff that monitors media coverage in order to preserve its image.

I've said it several times, already. If Obama gets reelected, I will permanently leave MLW. If Romney get elected, you must leave MLW for six months.

Economic freedom has been reduced in Canada and the USA over the past half century, we are hardly enjoying unparalleled economic freedom today in the context of modern history.

Really? "The 1%"? You've adopted OWS lingo, congratulations. You're also making the flawed assumption that all people are informed and understand the consequences of the policies they support. You are a perfect example of how very often that isn't the case, as you support greater centralisation of control by subscribing the mythology that greater prosperity is developed via governmental direction of the economy.

So worried that you won't take my counteroffer, you mean?

Try reading the rest of the article. It challenges the false premise of the BLS employee.

I'm not so concerned with the polling one way or the other, but I'm also not the one stating that RCP has Obama up by 55 points. If you care about the polls, the momentum is in Romney's favour. You're trying to play this down, and it's juvenile.

Then why won't you take my offer? If Obama gets reelected, I'll permanently leave MLW. Why are you putting on the facade of confidence? Are you trying to discourage Shady from not even bothering to vote in an election in which he can't even participate (unless he votes for a Democrat via Acorn scam, of course)?

It's like pulling teeth with this guy.

You're not using RCP's primary electoral map, you're linking us to a "No Toss Up States" scenario. RCP's most recent data has Romney up by five, which takes into account recent polls which suggest certain leanings from various states. Is this the first time you've actually gone to RCP?

Who made that argument? Nobody. Try reading the thread, or paying attention to the news.

What facts needed to be known that weren't immediately known in order to characterise the attack as terrorism? There was even a report on September 10 by Nic Robertson of CNN that there was a demonstration to take place in front of the embassy in Cairo the following day to demand the release of the so-called "blind sheikh", Omar Abdul Rahman. It was also being coordinated with other Muslim/Islamist groups in other cities with an American diplomatic presence. This report was immediately buried when CNN made the decision to carry water for Obama until the lie could no longer be supported. Kudos to Anderson Cooper for actually paying some attention to this story and exposing deception from the Obama administration. More importantly, the date is not a coincidence How could any person be so ridiculous as the think that an obscure YouTube film trailer that had been released months (or years?) earlier was at the core of an attack on this calendar date involving mortars, RPGs, and automatic rifles? The administration instantly knew, as all sensible people did, that this attack was terrorism. The subsequent obfuscation was and continues to be a deliberate attempt to shield Obama's faux reputation as someone who is serious about security. Moreover, Obama's political decision to maintain a "low profile" in Benghazi in order to further his policy of appeasement is directly responsible for the denial of requests for necessary security at the Benghazi consulate. Meanwhile, Valerie Jarret enjoys a full security detail. It doesn't require a particularly astute follower of politics to see exactly what's happened, and what continues to happen.

There is a lot of truth behind the warnings coming from those like Glenn Beck, and to a lesser extent, those like Alex Jones and Jesse "FEMA camps are being built to imprison us all for future slave labour" Ventura. There is a growing centralisation of control over both the economic and social spehres of our lives being placed into the hands of government. We see it domestically, and we see it supranationally (the UN and the EU being the best examples). There is an erosion of sovereignty that occasionally occurs via treaties, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. This is not all whacked out "conspiracy theory" type stuff, Of course leftists like you either don't see it or actively support it.

Exactly. Outcomes are often decided by winners, or at least primarily, but certainly not history. And certainly not today.

This isn't even slightly about semantics.

http://www.ottawacit...9741/story.html “We’re reaping the fruits of Michaëlle Jean’s prorogation,” said Norman Spector, Brian Mulroney’s former chief of staff, on Tuesday. Also this article, from back when the Harper prorogation was occurring. Spector opposed it then. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/harper-jean-spar-to-the-end/article1369911/