j_b

right, trying to follow JayB twisted logic is sure to get one lost .... even when it is retroactively made to be sarcastic.

no PP, as JIm indicated the only link you provided doesn't contain the data you cited. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, this time only. yet, i still would like to see a link to the data you cited. your refusal to provide a link can be interpreted a number of ways; however, none are too pleasing ....

oh, really! i can tell, you must have failed basic logic in school, which would explain the need for zealotry. Yes. Had I passed it, I would no doubt see the truth behind the proposition that nothing leads to sustained increases in employment and wages like absent, marginal, or declining profits. your readers will be amused at your inference that ""The economic growth that has occurred has flowed to corporate profits to a degree unseen in the post-World War II period, leaving relatively little for compensation" means "nothing leads to sustained increases in employment and wages like absent, marginal, or declining profits". geez, i won't bother explaining to you the difference between the 2, i suspect it wouldn't do much good to sustain blind faith ...

no PP, as JIm indicated the only link you provided doesn't contain the data you cited. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, this time only.

yes, you provide links to right-wing tripe but rarely to reputable sources. i have pointed out a number of times when you didn't provide links that would have been critical to substantiating your assertion. whether it's subtantial is matter of opinion; however, that it contains the analysis leading to the comments pasted in this thread is undeniable. anybody is thus encouraged to follow the following link and see what PP calls unsubstantiated opinion: http://www.cbpp.org/2-16-05ui.htm (also note the "full report" link on the right) see above as if you could really assess such thing all the while keep making a fool of yourself on this board ... i must have struck a nerve .... somewhere ... is this the point when i am supposed to repeat what i already said?

AND STILL .... NO LINK TO THE DATA .... what are you hiding PP?

oh, really! i can tell, you must have failed basic logic in school, which would explain the need for zealotry.

so we are supposed to take your word for it? i am also free to point out that until you provide a link to the data you cited it doesn't mean anything (although even if you did I just don't see how it would negate the data throught hte end of 2004). you have this annoying habit of almost never substantiating (i.e. providing links to reputable sources) your saliant points. right, this is also what you said every few month for the last few years, but i have yet to read a single retraction from you once the complete data came in and proved you wrong .... every single time!

wtf? first, why don't you provide a link (for a change) so that we know what you are talking about. second, i just don't see how ignoring the last year of data is helping you make your point. it's actually pretty simple: the cbpp analysis shows that through the end of 2004 the economic picture was grim. have things improved since then? (please answer the question this time)

let's also not forget that most jobs created in the last few years are linked to the housing bubble .... .... ....

let's unspin the above: "the only education group that experienced wage gains was the group where workers had been to graduate school. All other groups — workers with less than a high school education, with a high school education, with some college, or with a college degree — experienced either flat or falling wages" [...] The net result has been that among most workers wages are now failing to keep pace with inflation "Over the course of 2004, job growth fell 1.4 million short of the amount that would be typical for a recovery". [...] The average size of the labor force in 2004 was only 0.6 percent larger than it averaged in 2003. This represents the slowest rate of labor force growth since 1991." "Due to the relatively modest amount of job creation, long-term unemployment levels remained exceptionally high, with the number of unemployed individuals exhausting their regular state, unemployment benefits and not receiving additional aid hitting a record level of 3.5 million. [...] The long-term unemployed have been more than one in five of the unemployed for 27 straight months, an unprecedented development in the post-WWII period." "Also, in 2004, some 3.5 million individuals used up all their regular unemployment benefits before they found a new job, and did not qualify for additional federal aid. For some period of time, they thus went without either a paycheck or an unemployment check. This level of unmet need was larger than during any other year on record, with data going back to 1973." "The economic growth that has occurred has flowed to corporate profits to a degree unseen in the post-World War II period, leaving relatively little for compensation.[8] These economic conditions stand in stark contrast to those that prevailed at the end of the last business cycle, where full employment ensured that the benefits of the growing economy lifted the living standards of working families. http://www.cbpp.org/2-16-05ui.htm

wow! the unthinkable (this kind of climbing close to bham) happened and it looks great!

monbiot had an interesting piece on bio-fuels: "A few thousand greens in the United Kingdom are running their cars on used chip fat. But recycled cooking oils could supply only 100,000 tonnes of diesel a year in this country,(3) equivalent to one 380th of our road transport fuel. It might also be possible to turn crop wastes such as wheat stubble into alcohol for use in cars – the Observer ran an article about this on Sunday.(4) I’d like to see the figures, but I find it hard to believe that we will be able to extract more energy than we use in transporting and processing straw. But the EU’s plans, like those of all the enthusiasts for bio-locomotion, depend on growing crops specifically for fuel. As soon as you examine the implications, you discover that the cure is as bad as the disease. Road transport in the United Kingdom consumes 37.6 million tonnes of petroleum products a year.(5) The most productive oil crop which can be grown in this country is rape. The average yield is between 3 and 3.5 tonnes per hectare.(6) One tonne of rapeseed produces 415 kilos of biodiesel.(7) So every hectare of arable land could provide 1.45 tonnes of transport fuel. To run our cars and buses and lorries on biodiesel, in other words, would require 25.9m hectares. There are 5.7m in the United Kingdom.(8) Switching to green fuels requires four and half times our arable area. Even the EU’s more modest target of 20% by 2020 would consume almost all our cropland. If the same thing is to happen all over Europe, the impact on global food supply will be catastrophic: big enough to tip the global balance from net surplus to net deficit. If, as some environmentalists demand, it is to happen worldwide, then most of the arable surface of the planet will be deployed to produce food for cars, not people. This prospect sounds, at first, ridiculous. Surely if there was unmet demand for food, the market would ensure that crops were used to feed people rather than vehicles? There is no basis for this assumption. The market responds to money, not need. People who own cars have more money than people at risk of starvation. In a contest between their demand for fuel and poor people’s demand for food, the car-owners win every time. Something very much like this is happening already. Though 800 million people are permanently malnourished, the global increase in crop production is being used to feed animals: the number of livestock on earth has quintupled since 1950.(9) The reason is that those who buy meat and dairy products have more purchasing power than those who buy only subsistence crops. Green fuel is not just a humanitarian disaster; it is also an environmental disaster. Those who worry about the scale and intensity of today’s agriculture should consider what farming will look like when it is run by the oil industry. Moreover, if we try to develop a market for rapeseed biodiesel in Europe it will immediately develop into a market for palm oil and soya oil. Oilpalm can produce four times as much biodiesel per hectare as rape, and it is grown in places where labour is cheap. Planting it is already one of the world’s major causes of tropical forest destruction. Soya has a lower oil yield than rape, but the oil is a by-product of the manufacture of animal feed. A new market for it will stimulate an industry which has already destroyed most of Brazil’s cerrado (one of the world’s most biodiverse environments) and much of its rainforest." http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/

Lance is great! However, the tdf alone wouldn't sustain the pro circuit.

woohoo! number 1.

duuude, that was funny (how am i doing? next time, i'll even try to include a reference to horsecocks and snafflehounds)

and me, who thought that was a funny article. i am crushed

"it's fun to occasionally point out tidbits from history"

"George W. Bush’s war in Iraq may not be going as planned. But for those who’ve stopped believing the myth that prewar Iraq represented any sort of threat to the United States, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence mounting that the real reason for the American invasion of Iraq was the most obvious one: Oil." http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050718/oilcontrol_formula.php

so PP isn't going to provide a link to wilson's quote in spite of my request for one ... which, by the way i did a search for and couldn't verify. perhaps, PP shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt ...

way too late fairweather. like all wingnuts, for the last few years you have been busy applying the labels "unamerican", "unpatriotic" to anyone who opposes bush policies. your disgusting baiting to beat folks into line does not work anymore. ironically, for once that you could demonstrate the values you claim to hold dear, you end up supporting a 2-bit thug who places dirty partisan politicking ahead of the interests of the nation. way to go, hypocrite. orwell is sure to roll in his grave. for the record, i challenge you to cite one thing i ever said that was "unpatriotic". i am not holding my breath considering your appalling record at substantiating any of your opinions.

well, since these are supposedly your values, why don't you be consistent and call for rove's head? hypocrite.

i seriously doubt it. the agency said a crime was committed which clearly invalidates your spin. anyhow, since when do you expect us to believe the GOP talking points if you don't provide a link to the evidence for your assertions? what did he say really: "she was not one that day .... because she was on a 2 week vacation"

since THE market has spoken, they'd move the operation a few miles offshore to get away from these pesky laws. wouldn't cost as much hay and apples too!

i am just not sure that the probabilty of rain induced rockfall is negligeable everywhere i.e. summit slope of little tahoma, boving on dtail, various descent gullies, etc ...