The Watering Hole

Hookbender — Aug 09, 2010Where did I say reducing taxes was so great? You've been searching, could you not find that?

I never said that you said....bla bla bla

Otherwise you slipped by my spin:)

Go drink your ale ya teabagger. The other kind. ;D

You implied it in your post. I didn't take the bait.

You mouth breathing human snot faucet. :D

charger — Aug 09, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/75#94 date=1281389821][quote author=charger link=1280462265/75#89 date=1281329448]If you are willing to vote for Palin, you have no reason to even be in this thread.  This is about reality.

By the way, I find it immensely ironic that you have no problem endorsing a Sarah Palin quote.  Sarah Palin is not one quote.  She is a whole body of ignorance.  Palin is one of those number that believe that if we just reduce spending, cut social programs, close the borders, and deregulate business, we'll be kicking ass in no time.  As if we haven't been there and done that.  Oh, and don't forget "drill, baby, drill."  

Did she pose yet in a bikini on a Louisiana beach amongst the tarballs, and talk about how smart a combination of more drilling and more deregulation would be?  That would be perfect.

Why don't I need to be in this thread? Because a potential vote for Palin is a show of opposition for the Almighty one?

I agree with that one particular quote, yes. And that one quote is very important to me at voting time. I agree we need to reduce spending, probably cut "some" social programs....but more importantly the social programs need to have checks and balances, as far as to the recipients of those benefits. I agree we need to close the boarder. I also think we need to continue to drill, but with regulation.

I'll just take the last one.  As someone who vociferously ripped the administration for their oil spill response, are you prepared to allow the same thing to happen again?  And are you going to blame the administration again when it can't be fixed?  Because our government is not adequately prepared to handle a deep-water drilling disaster.  Blame Obama, or tell me about the warehouse full of boom again... the fact of the matter is we do not have the technology or the expertise to stop a well leak at that depth.  If BP had walked away, or taken us to court and tied us up in litigation, we would have had no recourse at all and that well would still be pumping.  You have blamed the response in full.  Yet you are totally willing to allow the companies to continue, knowing full well that there is no way it can be 100% safe, and knowing full well that the only people who can stop it are the ones who start it, and it might take them 3 months to do it.  I think that your position on this issue is flawed.

Keep in mind that even if it is almost surely safe, it only takes one disaster to destroy the ecology of a region.  Just one.  And we've already had the biggest one in history.

I think you do what Obama proposed to do or did. Stop the deep water drilling and investigate what happened this time and make corrections. Come up with a fix, and continue to drill. If a accident happens again, have a plan to deal with it, or be able to deal with it. Then continue to drill. We put a man on the moon. We have people in space at space stations. We can come up with a fix so this can't happen again. I think we've learned a hell of a lot this go round. I do think that we need a solution to this kind of problem before we continue. But, we need to drill for oil.  

I have a simple but expensive solution every well must have relief wells ready drilled before it is opened.
So in the event if a leak they can kill the well within a week.

fingers — Aug 10, 2010I have a simple but expensive solution every well must have relief wells ready drilled before it is opened.
So in the event if a leak they can kill the well within a week.

Then multiple wells will somehow burst at the same time.  ;)

probably if they fuck up

relief wells don't go into the oil reservoir -  - they are drilled to intercept the deeper central oil producing well if it blows out and seal it with cement.
It would be very expensive no doubt  - probably double the cost of drilling.
But if one was ready drilled back in April, a safe distance short of interception of the main well, a kill could probably have been attempted within a week of the blowout.

Just googled and this idea is already out there - not surprisingly.

The claim is that relief wells  have  risks, but all  the risks I have seen explained involve  making the interception with the main which only happens in a blowout.
And if that is so risky why doesn't that prohibit the drilling of relief wells after a blow out ?

This ideas worth should be decided only the risks of drilling a relief well that is not used for interception.

If relief wells  are fundamentally too risky to stop a blow out  that impacts heavily on the risk assessment on whether to allow drilling in deep water - period

Hookbender — Aug 10, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/75#99 date=1281395174][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/75#94 date=1281389821][quote author=charger link=1280462265/75#89 date=1281329448]If you are willing to vote for Palin, you have no reason to even be in this thread.  This is about reality.

By the way, I find it immensely ironic that you have no problem endorsing a Sarah Palin quote.  Sarah Palin is not one quote.  She is a whole body of ignorance.  Palin is one of those number that believe that if we just reduce spending, cut social programs, close the borders, and deregulate business, we'll be kicking ass in no time.  As if we haven't been there and done that.  Oh, and don't forget "drill, baby, drill."  

Did she pose yet in a bikini on a Louisiana beach amongst the tarballs, and talk about how smart a combination of more drilling and more deregulation would be?  That would be perfect.

Why don't I need to be in this thread? Because a potential vote for Palin is a show of opposition for the Almighty one?

I agree with that one particular quote, yes. And that one quote is very important to me at voting time. I agree we need to reduce spending, probably cut "some" social programs....but more importantly the social programs need to have checks and balances, as far as to the recipients of those benefits. I agree we need to close the boarder. I also think we need to continue to drill, but with regulation.

I'll just take the last one.  As someone who vociferously ripped the administration for their oil spill response, are you prepared to allow the same thing to happen again?  And are you going to blame the administration again when it can't be fixed?  Because our government is not adequately prepared to handle a deep-water drilling disaster.  Blame Obama, or tell me about the warehouse full of boom again... the fact of the matter is we do not have the technology or the expertise to stop a well leak at that depth.  If BP had walked away, or taken us to court and tied us up in litigation, we would have had no recourse at all and that well would still be pumping.  You have blamed the response in full.  Yet you are totally willing to allow the companies to continue, knowing full well that there is no way it can be 100% safe, and knowing full well that the only people who can stop it are the ones who start it, and it might take them 3 months to do it.  I think that your position on this issue is flawed.

Keep in mind that even if it is almost surely safe, it only takes one disaster to destroy the ecology of a region.  Just one.  And we've already had the biggest one in history.

I think you do what Obama proposed to do or did. Stop the deep water drilling and investigate what happened this time and make corrections. Come up with a fix, and continue to drill. If a accident happens again, have a plan to deal with it, or be able to deal with it. Then continue to drill. We put a man on the moon. We have people in space at space stations. We can come up with a fix so this can't happen again. I think we've learned a hell of a lot this go round. I do think that we need a solution to this kind of problem before we continue. But, we need to drill for oil.  


Sure, we put people on the moon and in space stations.  But the failure rate for space missions is not a good example for the oil drilling industry!  1 in 65 space shuttle missions failed.  If we went with that failure rate, we'd have 60 catastrophic failures of the 3900 wells in the gulf of Mexico alone.  

We put people on the moon but we can't put people down to that depth in water.  Relief wells are required in other parts of the world, they should be required here.....of course drilling and concreting should not be nickel and dimed and tested thoroughly...add a little redundancy in BOP's and it could get a bit safer.

The point is Charger, is that we can come up with a solution. Then drill in deep water.

BINGEWOOD — Aug 10, 2010We put people on the moon but we can't put people down to that depth in water.  Relief wells are required in other parts of the world, they should be required here.....of course drilling and concreting should not be nickel and dimed and tested thoroughly...add a little redundancy in BOP's and it could get a bit safer.

And if you require relief wells, you create jobs and tax revenue. 2 for 1.

And here's the problem. DO you make takes fair for all and cut tax breaks and shit for oil companies and then tell them they must add relief wells to every rig they have? Huge....Huge....problem. Huge I say.

Do you agree with this? Apparently is doesn't add to the deficit, so lets take that out of the question.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/ap_on_bi_ge/us_jobs_bill

Hookbender — Aug 10, 2010Do you agree with this? Apparently is doesn't add to the deficit, so lets take that out of the question.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/ap_on_bi_ge/us_jobs_bill

Yeah, sounds good to me.  Unfortunately, states probably need a lot more aid than that.  I'm interested to see where it goes.  I'd be a lot happier if it was just going to teachers, too.  They get the most consistently fucked of just about any profession.

Hookbender — Aug 10, 2010[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/100#108 date=1281477786]We put people on the moon but we can't put people down to that depth in water.  Relief wells are required in other parts of the world, they should be required here.....of course drilling and concreting should not be nickel and dimed and tested thoroughly...add a little redundancy in BOP's and it could get a bit safer.

And if you require relief wells, you create jobs and tax revenue. 2 for 1.

And here's the problem. DO you make takes fair for all and cut tax breaks and shit for oil companies and then tell them they must add relief wells to every rig they have? Huge....Huge....problem. Huge I say.


I don't think oil companies should get tax special tax breaks.  Look, they are removing a resource that we will never replace.  Our country will never have that oil again.  So why should they get some sort of special treatment?  Just because they provide jobs?  Lots of companies provide jobs.  And oil rigs don't provide all that many.  GM and Chrysler employ more people, and you had no problem cutting those.

Also, drilling relief wells reduces tax revenue, as more money, perhaps twice as much, will go into the cost of drilling, cutting the profits, which is the part that is taxed.  At this point I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to tax oil like we tax cigarettes.  Something harmful to our environment.  Give people a real incentive to "quit"--in this case, to move to more alternative energy sources.

Hookbender — Aug 10, 2010[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/100#108 date=1281477786]We put people on the moon but we can't put people down to that depth in water.  Relief wells are required in other parts of the world, they should be required here.....of course drilling and concreting should not be nickel and dimed and tested thoroughly...add a little redundancy in BOP's and it could get a bit safer.

And if you require relief wells, you create jobs and tax revenue. 2 for 1.

And here's the problem. DO you make takes fair for all and cut tax breaks and shit for oil companies and then tell them they must add relief wells to every rig they have? Huge....Huge....problem. Huge I say.


i think they should pay taxes and drill as safely as possible....call me crazy.  I don't know about all rigs, but the deep water rigs where we can't send people should be run as safely as possible.  This is like 35 wells out of thousands out there.  These are the wells affected by the "pause".  I would think these companies would just want to do things right in the first place but it shows you how profit rides in above all else.  Manimal is a selfish beast.

charger — Aug 10, 2010I don't think oil companies should get tax special tax breaks.  Look, they are removing a resource that we will never replace.  Our country will never have that oil again.  So why should they get some sort of special treatment?  Just because they provide jobs?  Lots of companies provide jobs.  And oil rigs don't provide all that many.  GM and Chrysler employ more people, and you had no problem cutting those.

Also, drilling relief wells reduces tax revenue, as more money, perhaps twice as much, will go into the cost of drilling, cutting the profits, which is the part that is taxed.  At this point I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to tax oil like we tax cigarettes.  Something harmful to our environment.  Give people a real incentive to "quit"--in this case, to move to more alternative energy sources.

They should pay extra because they are removing a resource that should belong to the gulf states anyway.  Palin had one thing right...redistribute wealth in the form of oil profits back to the people of the state..sheza closet socialist.

charger — Aug 10, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/100#110 date=1281480609][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/100#108 date=1281477786]We put people on the moon but we can't put people down to that depth in water.  Relief wells are required in other parts of the world, they should be required here.....of course drilling and concreting should not be nickel and dimed and tested thoroughly...add a little redundancy in BOP's and it could get a bit safer.

And if you require relief wells, you create jobs and tax revenue. 2 for 1.

And here's the problem. DO you make takes fair for all and cut tax breaks and shit for oil companies and then tell them they must add relief wells to every rig they have? Huge....Huge....problem. Huge I say.




I don't think oil companies should get tax special tax breaks.  Look, they are removing a resource that we will never replace.  Our country will never have that oil again.  So why should they get some sort of special treatment?  Just because they provide jobs?  Lots of companies provide jobs.  And oil rigs don't provide all that many.  GM and Chrysler employ more people, and you had no problem cutting those.

Also, drilling relief wells reduces tax revenue, as more money, perhaps twice as much, will go into the cost of drilling, cutting the profits, which is the part that is taxed.  At this point I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to tax oil like we tax cigarettes.  Something harmful to our environment.  Give people a real incentive to "quit"--in this case, to move to more alternative energy sources.

They are removing a resource that our country, damn near everything about our country, depends on everyday that YOU and I MUST have. I had no problem cutting those.....what?

It's not gonna cut profits. The cost will be passed along to us, the consumer. At this point? Right now? In a recession, horrible economy, where people are just getting buy? Now you want to raise gas prices even higher than they are? Are you crazy? ::)

BINGEWOOD — Aug 10, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/100#113 date=1281483916]I don't think oil companies should get tax special tax breaks.  Look, they are removing a resource that we will never replace.  Our country will never have that oil again.  So why should they get some sort of special treatment?  Just because they provide jobs?  Lots of companies provide jobs.  And oil rigs don't provide all that many.  GM and Chrysler employ more people, and you had no problem cutting those.

Also, drilling relief wells reduces tax revenue, as more money, perhaps twice as much, will go into the cost of drilling, cutting the profits, which is the part that is taxed.  At this point I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to tax oil like we tax cigarettes.  Something harmful to our environment.  Give people a real incentive to "quit"--in this case, to move to more alternative energy sources.

They should pay extra because they are removing a resource that should belong to the gulf states anyway.  Palin had one thing right...redistribute wealth in the form of oil profits back to the people of the state..sheza closet socialist.

I'm not aware of any state in the Gulf of Mexico.  ::) Since it's called the Gulf of Mexico, maybe the profits need to go to Mexico.

Hookbender — Aug 11, 2010[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/100#115 date=1281484741][quote author=charger link=1280462265/100#113 date=1281483916]I don't think oil companies should get tax special tax breaks.  Look, they are removing a resource that we will never replace.  Our country will never have that oil again.  So why should they get some sort of special treatment?  Just because they provide jobs?  Lots of companies provide jobs.  And oil rigs don't provide all that many.  GM and Chrysler employ more people, and you had no problem cutting those.

Also, drilling relief wells reduces tax revenue, as more money, perhaps twice as much, will go into the cost of drilling, cutting the profits, which is the part that is taxed.  At this point I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to tax oil like we tax cigarettes.  Something harmful to our environment.  Give people a real incentive to "quit"--in this case, to move to more alternative energy sources.

They should pay extra because they are removing a resource that should belong to the gulf states anyway.  Palin had one thing right...redistribute wealth in the form of oil profits back to the people of the state..sheza closet socialist.

I'm not aware of any state in the Gulf of Mexico.  ::) Since it's called the Gulf of Mexico, maybe the profits need to go to Mexico.


It might help get them off the dole.  So you just consider the oil to be theirs?  I guess they just kicked you guys hella free oil then.  Nicer way of looking at it, thanks!

charger — Aug 10, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/100#111 date=1281482100]Do you agree with this? Apparently is doesn't add to the deficit, so lets take that out of the question.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/ap_on_bi_ge/us_jobs_bill

Yeah, sounds good to me.  Unfortunately, states probably need a lot more aid than that.  I'm interested to see where it goes.  I'd be a lot happier if it was just going to teachers, too.  They get the most consistently fucked of just about any profession.

But, but....don't teachers belong to the great Union? Why doesn't the Union take care of them? Isn't this 26 billion bucks going to the Union?  8-)

Hookbender — Aug 11, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/100#112 date=1281483392][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/100#111 date=1281482100]Do you agree with this? Apparently is doesn't add to the deficit, so lets take that out of the question.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/ap_on_bi_ge/us_jobs_bill

Yeah, sounds good to me.  Unfortunately, states probably need a lot more aid than that.  I'm interested to see where it goes.  I'd be a lot happier if it was just going to teachers, too.  They get the most consistently fucked of just about any profession.

But, but....don't teachers belong to the great Union? Why doesn't the Union take care of them? Isn't this 26 billion bucks going to the Union?  8-)



Did a union member tell you that?  A broadcast union member thad izzz.

Thats the conservative view of the bill. Duh.

Hookbender — Aug 11, 2010Thats the conservative view of the bill. Duh.

The conservative view of the bill is: "My kid goes to private school."

That would be the people who can afford to do it's view. I would to if I could afford it.

Let's just extend unemployment benefits to everyone for fucking how ever long they feel the need to fuck off.

We are working on 2.4 years now. Lets just make it 10 and forget about it. WTF?????


http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110277/some-firms-struggle-to-hire-despite-high-unemployment

Hookbender — Aug 11, 2010Let's just extend unemployment benefits to everyone for fucking how ever long they feel the need to fuck off.

We are working on 2.4 years now. Lets just make it 10 and forget about it. WTF?????


http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110277/some-firms-struggle-to-hire-despite-high-unemployment

Those lazy fucks!  I mean congress btw, with their 3 day work weeks...

So you favor the extension?

I favor the extension of the work week for congress.  

I also understand that people on unemployment spend all of their money on life and, though I've never taken unemployment in MY life, I see how the movement of money can help the economy.

Hookbender — Aug 11, 2010Let's just extend unemployment benefits to everyone for fucking how ever long they feel the need to fuck off.

We are working on 2.4 years now. Lets just make it 10 and forget about it. WTF?????


http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110277/some-firms-struggle-to-hire-despite-high-unemployment

Do you really feel like people who aren't employed now are that way by choice?  Yes, some firms are struggling to hire people.  Sure.  My company is looking for 40 fucking software engineers right now.  Unfortunately, Americans are so shoddily educated that every few days I see a new H-1 hiring notice go up in our lunchroom.  That's right, the jobs are going to foreigners because we're not getting qualified American applicants.  And these aren't $10 an hour jobs.  The last few H-1 posts I saw were for senior software engineers with a pay range of $128k to $180k annually.  Would you like for Americans to get those jobs?  Where, pray tell, could we start to get people educated to do them?  In... school?

What I've noticed is that most of the IT job openings that I've seen are for very senior positions.  Fine when what I was an "expert" in was still around, but try to get a position that requires some learning and good luck!  Also, the "experts" that are being hired are being required to do the work from entry-level people on up to their level because companies can't afford to hire lower level employees (right before my last layoff I was doing nine people's jobs because I was in the final wave of layoffs).  I'm wondering what will happen when the top people get burnt out and quit with no one trained to take their places...

Another hurdle out there that I've heard from three headhunting companies is that you have to have two years of recent experience or else they won't even get you an interview.  Tough if you've been technically "unemployed" for at least that long!

I was unemployed once for a month and a half after a layoff in 2002.  I took unemployment for, I think, 4 weeks.  I had job interviews within two weeks and a job offer within four.  But nothing moves very fast in the world of high tech, and it took another two weeks for me to get on board.  And then, I didn't get my first paycheck til two weeks after that.  Granted, unemployment was some ridiculously low amount--something like $390 a week.  My salary at that time was around $1900 a week.   If I hadn't had five weeks of combined severance and vacation pay, I would have been totally screwed.  I've got no problem with unemployment, but I do have a big problem with the fact that many American workers just don't have the skills or intellect to work in the industries that have the jobs.  Tech is not going away.  Biotech is not going away.  There will always be jobs there.  Yet Americans (not all, but many) don't have the reasoning or critical thinking skills to figure this shit out.  We're a stupid country.  It's sad and depressing but... I look at what dominates the news, and the things that people think, and the movements that form, and I am just not surprised that we are getting kicked in the fucking ass by this recession.

CraigBert — Aug 11, 2010 Also, the "experts" that are being hired are being required to do the work from entry-level people on up to their level because companies can't afford to hire lower level employees (right before my last layoff I was doing nine people's jobs because I was in the final wave of layoffs).  I'm wondering what will happen when the top people get burnt out and quit with no one trained to take their places...

I'm totally confused by this.  I've never seen this... we would never hire someone for $160k then give them grunt work.  We need people who can solve problems and we'll pay for it.  

Sure, gaps in employment history can be an issue, but believe me, I have sat in a lot of interviews in the last ten years, and if a person is smart and the right person for the job, they get it.  Everything on the resume pretty much melts away when you talk to the person and get a feel for them.  The right person gets the job nine times out of ten.

I'm not aware of any state in the Gulf of Mexico.   Since it's called the Gulf of Mexico, maybe the profits need to go to Mexico.

Jackass

Did a union member tell you that?  A broadcast union member thad izzz.  
Back to top  

Yeah.....The Rush Limbo Union.

Heard his rant about it yesterday.

According to him it's going to save the "permanent vacation" they get when they retire. Snergly confirms nobody at the EIB Institute will get that kind of vacation.

That would be the people who can afford to do it's view. I would to if I could afford it

BS

Nationally, the average tuition for a private school is $3,116. (Public schools spend an average of $6,500 per pupil, roughly twice the amount.) However, many of the top private schools can cost as much as $10,000 to $15,000 a year and may be out of reach of most families. But don't make the mistake of thinking that only rich kids can afford a top private school. "Some schools offer financial aid to nearly half their students," says Selby McPhee of the National Association of Independent Schools.

Perhaps a little priority shift...a little sacrificing.

for fucking how ever long they feel the need to fuck off.

Damn bums.....they just need to get out there and get work. They could find work if they wanted.


But....At this point? Right now? In a recession, horrible economy, where people are just getting buy? Now you want to  throw the bums out on the street Are you crazy?    ;D ;D

charger — Aug 11, 2010[quote author=CraigBert link=1280462265/125#129 date=1281516234] Also, the "experts" that are being hired are being required to do the work from entry-level people on up to their level because companies can't afford to hire lower level employees (right before my last layoff I was doing nine people's jobs because I was in the final wave of layoffs).  I'm wondering what will happen when the top people get burnt out and quit with no one trained to take their places...

I'm totally confused by this.  I've never seen this... we would never hire someone for $160k then give them grunt work.  We need people who can solve problems and we'll pay for it.  

Sure, gaps in employment history can be an issue, but believe me, I have sat in a lot of interviews in the last ten years, and if a person is smart and the right person for the job, they get it.  Everything on the resume pretty much melts away when you talk to the person and get a feel for them.  The right person gets the job nine times out of ten.

That's probably part of the reason 1 out of 8 people are unemployed up here (and most of that 12.5% come from decent $80k to $100k jobs - equivalent to the $120k to $160k range in California)...

Oh, one comment about that interview, up here it's nearly impossible to GET an interview without having exactly what an employer is looking for on your resume and two years of recent experience.  Two years ago, I'm pretty sure that I would have passed any interview, but never was able to get one.  I finally got two small contracting jobs through a friend that knew what I could do.

It strikes me as strange that you would be looking for a tech job in a place that has very few tech jobs.  I don't know your reasons for moving where you did but I assume it wasn't to work in technology.  It seems obvious to me that it's not going to be easy to get an interview when there aren't many tech jobs to be had in the area.  What piece of the puzzle am I missing?

Hook thinks bailout... gov't agrees! heh.

http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2010/HUDNo.10-176

Let's hope it helps.  This recession is looking ugly right now.  Confidence is low, numbers are low, everything's low.  Ugly.

I doubt it will in a macro sense... but a few people, who could really use it, will catch a break - which is nice.

overall, yeah, pretty bleak.

The question is, how much worse is it to default than to try to keep a house you can't afford?  I don't know the answer to that, but I know that the more defaults we allow, the worse the whole housing market gets, and it spirals out to the rest of the economy.

charger — Aug 11, 2010Let's hope it helps.  This recession is looking ugly right now.  Confidence is low, numbers are low, everything's low.  Ugly.

Wait. Aren't you the one who recently bragged about how well the economy was doing?

I know you've said many times you are happy with the job Obama is doing. So, where are the results of what makes you so happy.

Comment by Binge-reference, Palin...

"They should pay extra because they are removing a resource that should belong to the gulf states anyway.  Palin had one thing right...redistribute wealth in the form of oil profits back to the people of the state..sheza closet socialist."


"I'm not aware of any state in the Gulf of Mexico.   Since it's called the Gulf of Mexico, maybe the profits need to go to Mexico.'


"Jackass"

Picko


Ahhh, that comment was meant for Palin, not Binge........Dumbass.

charger — Aug 11, 2010The question is, how much worse is it to default than to try to keep a house you can't afford?  I don't know the answer to that, but I know that the more defaults we allow, the worse the whole housing market gets, and it spirals out to the rest of the economy.

yeah, I don't know either - this was just for the unemployed it seems, and there is a requirement that they "reasonably" expect to be employed in the next two years. so a couple more billion in unemployment but in zero interest loan form, I guess.

Hookbender — Aug 11, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/125#136 date=1281549117]Let's hope it helps.  This recession is looking ugly right now.  Confidence is low, numbers are low, everything's low.  Ugly.

Wait. Aren't you the one who recently bragged about how well the economy was doing?


Yeah...how about it charger??

To Hook:
.......don't ask Hook...post it before it's gone. ;D

Hookbender — Aug 11, 2010Comment by Binge-reference, Palin...

"They should pay extra because they are removing a resource that should belong to the gulf states anyway.  Palin had one thing right...redistribute wealth in the form of oil profits back to the people of the state..sheza closet socialist."


"I'm not aware of any state in the Gulf of Mexico.   Since it's called the Gulf of Mexico, maybe the profits need to go to Mexico.'


"Jackass"

Picko


Ahhh, that comment was meant for Palin, not Binge........Dumbass.

;D ooops......sorry :)

charger — Aug 11, 2010It strikes me as strange that you would be looking for a tech job in a place that has very few tech jobs.  I don't know your reasons for moving where you did but I assume it wasn't to work in technology.  It seems obvious to me that it's not going to be easy to get an interview when there aren't many tech jobs to be had in the area.  What piece of the puzzle am I missing?

This long story doesn't need to pollute this thread so I'll answer it in a separate topic.

Wouldn't bother me Craig. I need a break. ;D

Hookbender — Aug 11, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/125#136 date=1281549117]Let's hope it helps.  This recession is looking ugly right now.  Confidence is low, numbers are low, everything's low.  Ugly.

Wait. Aren't you the one who recently bragged about how well the economy was doing?

I know you've said many times you are happy with the job Obama is doing. So, where are the results of what makes you so happy.

In case you haven't noticed, the news changes all the time.  Things are definitely spiralling.  I don't think it's Obama's fault, I think there is a toxic environment and he's damned no matter what he does.  The economists who were pushing for a bigger stimulus were probably right.  You seem to know a lot about it and think that no money should be spent so: what is your idea to fix it?

As far as the job Obama is doing, the guy got healthcare, reasonable economic reform, credit card reform, the stimulus did work (most experts saw us heading towards 11% unemployment), allowed stem cell research, he's got the combat troops coming home from Iraq in, I think, two months(!), 2 supreme court justices approved, killed the F-22 waste program, got a $20 billion fund set aside by BP to clean up the gulf... (oh and maybe you can tell me how that went because what I hear now is that the oil has somehow vanished?)--all while parrying an entire protest movement aimed solely at him, a refusenik Republican party, and all the vitriol that's fit to print.  Under the circumstances I think he's done exceedingly well.  I wish our country was more unified, but I can hardly blame Obama for that.

Hookbender — Aug 11, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/125#136 date=1281549117]Let's hope it helps.  This recession is looking ugly right now.  Confidence is low, numbers are low, everything's low.  Ugly.

Wait. Aren't you the one who recently bragged about how well the economy was doing?

I know you've said many times you are happy with the job Obama is doing. So, where are the results of what makes you so happy.

I voted for him, and I'm happy with what he's doing.  I could be a lot happier, but that doesn't mean I think he's doing a bad job.  On the contrary, I am never going to agree with a sitting president 100%.  I am a liberal.  I will never see a president with my views.  Ever.  I hear liberals now ripping Obama all the time.  Why?  Did they think he was a liberal?  Or that America would elect a liberal president?  We're going to elect fairly conservative Democrats and fairly moderate Republicans, always.  Palin and a heart attack was the hard right's best chance but that's gone.  

I don't think, contrary to popular belief, that Obama caused the economy to implode, or that he can fix it himself.  He's not perfect... what is with his gay marriage stance?  That just sounds dumb.  And why all the appeasement of the Pubs?  He spent an awful lot of time and energy courting a few Republican votes that never materialized.  He should be pressing the fact that Republicans by and large have not supported him on anything--even things that are good.  Even credit card reform!  Everything.  Fuck them.  What a waste of a decent body of legislators.  We could have elected a bunch of illegal immigrants who only knew the English word "no" and they would have done the job the Republican House and Senate has done for the last two years--at 1/1000 of the cost.

I do agree on his spokesman calling out the "professional left".  They are in total disarray because things aren't going perfectly according to plan.  Of course it's not.  Even with a president who is willing to compromise more than anyone on the left is happy with, the Republicans remain mono-syllabic.  Unless it's a war funding bill.  Which, by the way, should end.  I'm tired of both these wars.  I think the chances of winning in Afghanistan are somewhere between 0 and 1%.  And I'm being optimistic.  Our presence there only serves to draw more people to the fight against us.  The hearts and minds are not there to be won.  Afghans don't want to be westernized.  They want to be left the fuck alone.  So, give them what they want.  And grab some of those sweet, sweet poppies on the way out.

It almost makes you think they all work together to do the bidding of businessmen, o wait...

charger:

Afghans don't want to be westernized

I'll bet alot of the women would. Especialy the ones that have their nose and ears cut off.....and other parts.

Or the daughters of stoned to death mothers .