"Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others."..as long as those others don't try and express their religious views, or views they don't agree with, or are conservatives. Then a "liberal" can be as intolerant as they want.
So, you're saying she's kinda like the Michael Moore or Al Franken of the right, eh? Interesting.
At least she has the guts to write books that aren't "satire". You might not agree with them, but last time I checked, that's where Michael Moore and Al Franken's books both are.... in the humor section. The reason for that is that if they're label as "satire" they can avoid being sued for libel, because you can't sue if it's considered satire.
No, the left is full of religous bigots, people who are anti-semites, and worse. If you think that "The fact that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are effectively the same religion", you really need to learn more about all those religions.
The left is for free speech, as long as people agree with them. Look what they're trying to do to Fox News. Don't agree with it? The other side getting to actually appear on TV regularly, (unlike news programs on network news)? The left's answer is to scream "bias" and try and shut them down.
Ok, don't buy the Fox News thing? Just look at the last convention. They CAGED the demonstrators.
Interesting thing about that Swift boat ad.... not done by the RNC or the White House. Sure, a republican funded $100,000 of it. What do you expect.... a liberal would do that? Oh, right... the liberal organizations like MoveOn.org (don't you wish they would....just "move on"?) get $16 million from ONE GUY to run ads.
The Swift Vets have documentation on everything they've said. Look at the Cambodia thing Kerry's been talking about years. Turns out that's a lie too.
There's an easy way to end all of that Swift Boat stuff too.. Just have Kerry release his 180 form that last April he told Russert he'd disclose. He hasn't yet.
If people don't think that there were people in the UN that didn't have a vested interest in seeing Saddam remain in power, they should read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/international/ mi ddleeast/13food.html?hp
for more info on how people that UN people scammed a LOT of money from the oil for food program. They knew that if the US went to war, the gravy train would stop.
Actually troops found 18 canisters total so far.
And, apparently you don't know what a small amount of sarin can do. A small dose killed about 20 people in Tokoyo on that train a few years ago, and made thousands of others sick.
Chemical munitions can do a lot more damage...even just one.
Who said anything about taking a job in a one-company town? Move to a place were there are multiple companies you can go to if things don't work out. That is just common sense.
My point was that too many times people are married to where they're living now, and are unwilling to move to a new place. There are companies that do full-relo packages, so leaving out the "I can't afford to go" argument, the real bottom line is that people don't want to move.
And that's a helluva lot different when people say "I can't find a job". That's fine... I just wish people would say "I like this city, I don't want to move, and I can't find a job here".
Moving sucks. Moving away from a place you like to live in REALLY sucks. But if it comes down to it, you either have to be willing to move to a new job, or you're trapped in the old place with a great city to live in, and a rapidly dwindling bank account.
The nation's job reports released Friday surprised just about everybody. Companies added 32,000 new positions to their payrolls in July, a much smaller increase than most economists expected. The unemployment rate, though, dipped to 5.5 percent.
So it goes with economic indicators. The monthly parade of numbers tends to be as fluid as the economy itself, flashing one way, then another. Divining their meaning, like economics itself, involves nearly as much art as science.
Bottom line--the economy continues to expand and to grow jobs, though not as robustly as everyone would like.
We're heading into a fall presidential campaign where every indicator will be invested with political significance by both sides. No doubt Sen. John Kerry will talk about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been lost since President Bush took office. No doubt Bush will talk about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created in the last year.
As you listen to that debate, it will help to keep in mind the limits of the data. Take the unemployment rate. All through the most recent recession, the jobless rate never got above 6.3 percent, well below the peak in previous downturns.
Yet most economists believe that particular statistic understates the real unemployment number. The government arrives at its figure by calling around 40,000 households a month to ask how many folks are working. Sounds straightforward, but it requires a bit of voodoo to project the size of the labor force and determine the proportion looking for work and unable to find it.
When the economy flags, many of the unemployed stop seeking jobs. The Labor Department no longer counts them once they're out of the market, so their exit tends to drive down the official unemployment rate.
It's believed by some economists that the number of people who don't get counted has expanded lately. The long decline in manufacturing, for instance, has led many former factory workers to give up looking for work. Young Americans unable to find desirable entry-level positions, in part due to outsourcing and immigration, often decide to continue their schooling instead.
The rises in temporary help and part-time employment, along with the aging of the population, also chip away at the benchmark jobless rate. The 2 million Americans locked up in prisons and jails don't count as unemployed. Same goes for those on the booming Social Security disability program.
So it may well be that conditions at their worst last year were just as bad as during the 7.8 percent unemployment peak in the recession of 1992, although the indicator didn't show it.
So does all that mean Kerry can claim the economy's in worse shape than advertised? Perhaps. But Bush can find evidence, too, that things are a little better than they seem.
The Labor Department reported that the economy created 32,000 jobs in July, a number that was widely billed as a disappointment. But that reflected the number of people that larger companies say they added to their payrolls. The government also produces a separate report that has turned up evidence of many more new jobs being created among small businesses and the self-employed. The reported 10,000-job increase in manufacturing is also very encouraging.
The numbers don't tell the whole story, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored. Instead, recognize them for the imperfect guesstimates they are and treat the rhetoric surrounding them with the skepticism it richly deserves.
That's why I specifically said to use monster.com or hotjobs. You can tell what companies are advertising with them.
Resumes sent into sites like that are a sure way of NOT getting hired. Every headhunter that sees that resume, grabs it, and throws it to every company they can. Multiple resumes come into a company from different sources, and if HR is screwed up enough (and they usually are) to not date it, they'll toss a candidate rather that look at the lawsuits.
Wrong, added jobs are added jobs. No amount of spin changes that fact. Apparently you WISH what you're saying is the case, but it's not. Sorry.:-)
And where is your source for those permanently leaving the workforce?....Oh, right...you don't have one. People bring that out to have this mysterious, scary "people leaving the workforce" when they start losing the argument.
Face it: Jobs are being created. That might not do whoever you wish becomes president much good, but just saying that jobs aren't being created doesn't make it true.
Wait a sec... you mean all those jobs on Monster.com and HotJobs.com that employers (not agencies...I never trust them) are posting are FAKE?
People can't go out and interview for them?...Or is it that they're not willing to move or to take those jobs, even if it means not getting a pay check.
The jobs are out there folks. One of them might not be your DREAM job, but it's a job that'll get those paychecks coming in while you look for a better one.
NEVER EVER take a counter-offer. More money isn't going to change why you were looking in the first place.
A couple of things the parent post didn't mention:
If they have layoffs, your name will be on the top of the list.
Salaries are generally in one pool of money. If you get a raise now, you'll either NOT get one next time raises go around. It's also probable that the people you work will think they won't get as big of a raise because of YOU if the raise they get doesn't meet expectations.
Plus, if you really want to work for that other company, turning them down how will make it much much harder to go back there to ask for a job. Oh, you can do it, but they'll likely say "oh, that's the guy who was just looking to make more money at the place he was at... don't bother".
There are MANY more reasons never to take a counter-offer. Do yourself (and your career) a favor, and don't take it.
Basing how you're going to vote for someone based on whether you have a job or not, is stupid.
Do yourself a favor. Go to Monster.com, or HotJobs.com, and look for jobs there. Not just in your area. Move if you have to. The jobs are out there. You just have to be willing to move to get one if there isn't one in your area.
If you can't find one after that, go into consulting for a while.
If you still can't find one, the problem isn't the lack of full-time or consulting jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
Perot ran in all 50 states. http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/elections/96 -92electoral-college.shtml
So, you're saying it's OK for the Democrats trying to suppress Nadar's right to run for office?
That's pretty damn scary.
"Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others." ..as long as those others don't try and express their religious views, or views they don't agree with, or are conservatives. Then a "liberal" can be as intolerant as they want.
So much for your definition.
" The left is not about policing your language use."
Whoa there cowboy.... Where do you think things like "political correctness" and "hate speech" came from?
Both of those came from the left, and both of those ARE "policing your language use".
So, you're saying she's kinda like the Michael Moore or Al Franken of the right, eh? Interesting.
At least she has the guts to write books that aren't "satire". You might not agree with them, but last time I checked, that's where Michael Moore and Al Franken's books both are.... in the humor section.
The reason for that is that if they're label as "satire" they can avoid being sued for libel, because you can't sue if it's considered satire.
No, the left is full of religous bigots, people who are anti-semites, and worse. If you think that "The fact that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are effectively the same religion", you really need to learn more about all those religions.
The left is for free speech, as long as people agree with them. Look what they're trying to do to Fox News. Don't agree with it? The other side getting to actually appear on TV regularly, (unlike news programs on network news)? The left's answer is to scream "bias" and try and shut them down.
Ok, don't buy the Fox News thing? Just look at the last convention. They CAGED the demonstrators.
Interesting thing about that Swift boat ad.... not done by the RNC or the White House. Sure, a republican funded $100,000 of it. What do you expect.... a liberal would do that? Oh, right... the liberal organizations like MoveOn.org (don't you wish they would....just "move on"?) get $16 million from ONE GUY to run ads.
The Swift Vets have documentation on everything they've said. Look at the Cambodia thing Kerry's been talking about years. Turns out that's a lie too.
There's an easy way to end all of that Swift Boat stuff too.. Just have Kerry release his 180 form that last April he told Russert he'd disclose. He hasn't yet.
One contributor, who happens to be for Bush (shockers) contributed $100,000.
...which is kind of an ironic name, don't you think? Shouldn't they have "moved on" by now?
Nothing from the RNC. Nothing from the White House.
That compares to $16 Million that Soros gave to MoveOn.org.
Wait...you think using the word "liberal" is hate speech?
What....you mean like caging protestors at a convention? Oh, wait...that was the Democrat National Convention....whoops
If people don't think that there were people in the UN that didn't have a vested interest in seeing Saddam remain in power, they should read this:
/ mi ddleeast/13food.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/international
for more info on how people that UN people scammed a LOT of money from the oil for food program. They knew that if the US went to war, the gravy train would stop.
Pre 1991? How do you know they aren't newer than that? What's the source?
Oh, right..you don't have one.
Chemical munitions can do a lot more damage...even just one.
Btw, BBC isn't exactly a paragon of truth.
OK, here's a link, or just read the Tribune story above.
0 70 278aug07,1,7014346.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0408
Who said anything about taking a job in a one-company town? Move to a place were there are multiple companies you can go to if things don't work out. That is just common sense.
My point was that too many times people are married to where they're living now, and are unwilling to move to a new place. There are companies that do full-relo packages, so leaving out the "I can't afford to go" argument, the real bottom line is that people don't want to move.
And that's a helluva lot different when people say "I can't find a job". That's fine... I just wish people would say "I like this city, I don't want to move, and I can't find a job here".
Moving sucks. Moving away from a place you like to live in REALLY sucks. But if it comes down to it, you either have to be willing to move to a new job, or you're trapped in the old place with a great city to live in, and a rapidly dwindling bank account.
I said that jobs were added last month, after a couple of people said that there were job loses. Unemployment is down from June to July, 5.6 to 5.5.
Unemployment went DOWN last month. From 5.6 to 5.5 percent.
From the Chicago Tribute, today
You're wrong. Case closed.That's why I specifically said to use monster.com or hotjobs. You can tell what companies are advertising with them.
Resumes sent into sites like that are a sure way of NOT getting hired. Every headhunter that sees that resume, grabs it, and throws it to every company they can. Multiple resumes come into a company from different sources, and if HR is screwed up enough (and they usually are) to not date it, they'll toss a candidate rather that look at the lawsuits.
Faulty logic, dude.
Overall, jobs were added. Jobs weren't lost.
Jobs were added in the last period. It said nothing about jobs being lost. If there were, the papers would be screaming that. But they're not.
:-)
You can trot out all the little stats you want, but if they were in fact true, the papers would be reporting it that way.
They're not.
So, you're wrong.
Wrong, added jobs are added jobs. No amount of spin changes that fact. Apparently you WISH what you're saying is the case, but it's not. Sorry. :-)
....Oh, right...you don't have one. People bring that out to have this mysterious, scary "people leaving the workforce" when they start losing the argument.
And where is your source for those permanently leaving the workforce?
Face it: Jobs are being created. That might not do whoever you wish becomes president much good, but just saying that jobs aren't being created doesn't make it true.
I didn't say post your resume there. I said look for jobs there. People that post resumes there are looking for trouble.
If you do what I said, and look for the jobs there, companies do post them. If you see a company you want to apply to, contact them directly.
This DOES work.
How else do you get a job at a company that you have no inside contacts with?
Pure FUD, Mr. AC.
You use those websites to do a mass search of jobs, and then check the real companies to see what they have posted.
Try it. It works.
Wait a sec... you mean all those jobs on Monster.com and HotJobs.com that employers (not agencies...I never trust them) are posting are FAKE?
...Or is it that they're not willing to move or to take those jobs, even if it means not getting a pay check.
People can't go out and interview for them?
The jobs are out there folks. One of them might not be your DREAM job, but it's a job that'll get those paychecks coming in while you look for a better one.
Mod parent response up on this.
NEVER EVER take a counter-offer. More money isn't going to change why you were looking in the first place.
A couple of things the parent post didn't mention:
If they have layoffs, your name will be on the top of the list.
Salaries are generally in one pool of money. If you get a raise now, you'll either NOT get one next time raises go around. It's also probable that the people you work will think they won't get as big of a raise because of YOU if the raise they get doesn't meet expectations.
Plus, if you really want to work for that other company, turning them down how will make it much much harder to go back there to ask for a job. Oh, you can do it, but they'll likely say "oh, that's the guy who was just looking to make more money at the place he was at... don't bother".
There are MANY more reasons never to take a counter-offer. Do yourself (and your career) a favor, and don't take it.
Good luck
Basing how you're going to vote for someone based on whether you have a job or not, is stupid.
Do yourself a favor. Go to Monster.com, or HotJobs.com, and look for jobs there. Not just in your area. Move if you have to. The jobs are out there. You just have to be willing to move to get one if there isn't one in your area.
If you can't find one after that, go into consulting for a while.
If you still can't find one, the problem isn't the lack of full-time or consulting jobs.
It's the person who's trying to get hired.