Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

No, goofy. Republicans are REAL people, real

Posted By: workers who dont want govt control.nm on 2008-10-16
In Reply to: Oh sure - and the republicans are all just so warm - and cuddly. Makes ya wanta hug 'em.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

You Republicans? Are you for real?
Shame on your ignorance. What a waste of space each time you post.
If the real folks, with real hope, faith, and
and for our country's future who participate here on this forum were just a tad as healthy, wealthy and wise as this poster considers herself, we probably wouldn't be sitting in front of these silly computers trying to make a living!! Can't figure why she is here other than tell us how healthy, wealthy and wise she is and we are not!
Are you people for real?
Either you are all incredibly gullible (which would explain your support for McPalin) or you are taking yourselves WAY too seriously.

For heaven's sake. It was a joke.

But you aren't the only one who doesn't recognize sarcasm when you read it!

are you for real? People of every color?
what kind of post is that? yea it will be a grand celebration and who's paying for it?
Do people in your real life let you speak to them that way?
I'm just wondering, because I have been nothing but respectful this evening, and in fact, had quite a nice debate with several people.  You like to say that debate is welcome here, but your post just now proved that you are wrong.  If you can't see the hypocrisy in your post, then it is useless to try and explain it to you. 
Here's a real nice conservative statement. How to make friends and influence people.

"Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air Monday, Aug. 22, 2005, that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."


Get real. sm

Have you heard the new saying....everyone knew Foley was a Republican because he  resigned and said he was sorry. Democrats just never do that.  As far as the New York Times, I would say their past pretty much makes anything they print questionable...can we say Jayson Blair.  Also, the fact that they published articles that put this country at risk is pretty egregious but then that's just me, a stupid old Republican. 

Are you for real
That has got to be the most bigoted thing I ever heard. Who gives a you know what what his middle name is. I guess if you say it enough times some ignorant person is going to believe it...yeah, look at his middle name....can't vote for him. Well what do you think a middle name for a President should be. Sheesh! You know I don't even have any idea what Bush's middle name is or what Bill Clinton's middle name was (oh wait, think it was Jefferson). I don't know what AL Gore's middle name or John Kerry's either. But that's not the point! To me it sounds like you only want someone in there who has a "Christian" name? Please do let me know what a Christian name is. I know...why don't you pick one out and then send that suggestion to the campaign trail.... Man o man...give the guy a break - less we forget...He is half white/ half African American, he is a Christian, goes to a Christian church, swore oath on the Bible, etc, etc. This candidate is the first person in a long time who give people hope. He doesn't have to read speaches from notes, can think on his feet and is a better speaker than the other two weezles, but that discussion is for another board. I did read your post that says your not for or against him, but I'm just highly dissapointed in anyone who thinks this way, and as for your antichrist comment. You should be ashamed of yourself!
LOL for real
for real, though
to drive a car for goodness sake
Maybe she was just being real.
What I felt and saw was a woman who loves her husband and family. I think it was very difficult for her to talk about her family to the nation, especially her father. I can relate to that having lost mine four years ago. I still miss him.

I, too, can also talk slang and choose my words and enunciate when needed. I did not take offense to anything she said. She just clearly loves her family and said so.

Yes, there is a lot of negativity in this race, but isn't there always? I have been voting for a long time (I'm 50) and that's just politics. It is a contest.
R U for REAL?!
She literally looked like a "moose" caught in the headlights!? People were smiling because she was so clueless?! I don't know what debate YOU watched.   Obama will be elected, very soon!!!!  Can't wait!!!
This is not the 60s. This is for real and its
going to contine to happen and get worse if we elect Obama.

If you are not repulsed by the video then I just say shame, shame, shame.
a real
This is absolutely a repeat of the great depression, only with modern twists and turns. Everyone should do everything they can do or can think of to prepare.
Is this real?
This is scary as H___. I would like to know if anyone has more info on this. Any "other side" to contradict this? Could be reason to pull it out now and pay the fines rather than just let it be taken away.
It does not get more real than
pausing for a moment to admire any man who has the intestinal fortitude to take on the piles and piles of garbage W has set out on the back stoop, waiting for pick-up. The economy, the wars, an immediate foreign policy crisis, the bail-outs, crumbling infrastructure, health care crisis, eroded constitution and abysmal world standing perceptions. It doesn't get more real than that.
This is my real ID
I always use my real ID that I use here.  I'm not afraid...
Just saw it on CNN too. This is real!
Are you for real?
Dear, do you not realize that the president of the United States is SUPPOSED to be judged by us, the American citizen? That is exactly what we are supposed to do......do you have any idea what your position is in society and what position government is supposed to have? Obviously not or you would know that you have every right being judge and jury of your president, regardless of whom he/she is. Presidents in THIS country are determined by thge people.... Obama may think he is royalty but he isn't; therefore, he has no rights of royalty. He wasn't born into this position......HE WAS ELECTED!!! And in four years, he will be kicked out.... simple as that!
Is he for real?

In speaking about Iran, Obama actually said people should have a "govt that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people.......freedom to live as you choose"  What a hypocrit!  Transparency!!??? This man yapped about transparency of government yet has NEVER done so since being elected! 

Steal from the people?  What the h@ll does he call trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars that he has stolen from us to give to automakers, banks, ACORN, and now just plain taxing the crap out of us to pay for all of it, not to mention govt healthcare he is trying to force down my throat.....

What world is he living in? 

Let's just keep things real. That is all I am saying. NM

Real mature

Oh yeah, he is a real

John Edwards, Little Man?
August 15, 2004 - Senator John Edwards of North Carolina was added as a folksy candidate to hide the abrupt coldness of John Kerry. John Edwards was also a Southerner, and in a tight election, the Democrats wanted a touch of populism to add to their ticket. On the way to moderation, though, the Kerry campaign settled for a candidate almost as liberal as Kerry himself. Despite the southern drawl and eloquent speaking, Senator Edwards has no clue about average America.

The freshman Senator from North Carolina was considered difficult to contact by many of his constituents. When Hurricane Isabel ravaged North Carolina's coast, Senator Edwards made only a quick trip to his Raleigh office, far from the coast. Most North Carolinians have seen Edwards' lack of compassion for their issues as a sign that he is only concerned about personal advancement. North Carolina has had a shot to know Edwards best, and they like him least. Up for re-election this year, Edwards had terrible approval ratings. Even after his addition to the ticket, North Carolina, referred to as a battleground state by ABC News, had a Bush lead of over 15 points.

Although he is the son of a mill worker, that story has only gotten Edwards so far. The Senator made his fortune as a trial lawyer. Many of his cases dealt with cerebral palsy, a brain condition that impacts many children. Edwards used science which stated that doctors could cause cerebral palsy, and he won millions while suing doctors out of business and helping lead to soaring malpractice insurance costs. Now, the medical community has refuted those claims and many believe that Edwards' cases were not based on science but emotion. Making care from doctors more difficult has not helped the average American.

In the Senate, Edwards has helped his lawsuit-happy trial lawyers and fought against tort reform. This has also hurt average Americans. Tort cases revolving around the asbestos industry have caused severe problems. Already, over 80 businesses have gone bankrupt and 60,000 Americans have lost jobs due to the largely frivolous and expensive lawsuits. Many more are expected to lose as the saga continues. However, Edwards still has not cast a vote for average Americans. Although his Senate website featured some of his gallant addresses on the American economy, Edwards has helped tarnish that economy with frivolous lawsuits.

Most of the little people Edwards claims to represent have never had an immense respect for trial lawyers. That has come with good reason as frivolous lawsuits cause inflation, dramatically increase malpractice insurance, and have cost working Americans jobs. However, Edwards has continued to claim to support the little people. In his presidential campaign, he accused Bush in a letter to MoveOn.org: He honors wealth while I honor the work that creates it. Edwards went on to say: I am running for president because I believe in an America where Main Street has as much value as Wall Street.

Edwards may have little support for Wall Street, because as a tort lawyer, he could have sued many of Wall Street's companies. However, John Edwards' working man image is a fantasy. Despite his southern drawl and charisma, John Edwards was the fourth most liberal Senator last year. As a wealthy liberal, he cared little for cutting taxes for hardworking Americans. Although he claims to want to help the working class, Americans for Tax Reform gave Edwards a 0% rating, and the Citizens Against Government Waste gave John Edwards a 13% rating. Edwards may not protect the Wall Street that has created jobs for the prosperity of millions of Americans, but he does protect his fellow trial lawyers. Besides trial lawyers, Edwards protects his liberal interests.

Despite his play for mainstream support, Edwards' presidential run proved how isolated he was from average America. What he claimed to be a grassroots campaign was a mixture of Hollywood studios, accounting firms, and real estate, but most were wealthy trial lawyers. Of Edwards' largest 25 donors, 22 were trial lawyers. Edwards collected an astonishing 56% of funds from large donors ($2000 or more), more than any other Democratic candidate. That percentage even exceeded the percent of funds President Bush received from large donors.

Doubts have also been cast on the integrity of John Edwards and his donors. As have most liberals, John Edwards promoted his presidential run on MoveOn.org, George Soros' soft-money organization designed to escape campaign-finance reform laws. Average Americans could never give enough to satisfy Edwards' political aspirations, and neither did MoveOn.org. Some of Edwards' wealthy trial lawyer friends could not resist violating laws. One of Edwards' donors, C. Tab Turner of Turner and Associates has been accused of campaign finance violations. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Turner may have used other employees to donate to Edwards' campaign on his behalf. Among the wealthy Hollywood firms, liberal activist groups, and wealthy trial lawyers, John Edwards still claims to understand average Americans.

People have asked before and after the conventions: Who is John Edwards? He would call himself the son of a mill worker who wants to work as vice president in an effort to give a voice to the little people. That was the essence of his speech. However, on convention night, it was what was not said that was so important. Edwards forgot about his millions made as a trial lawyer. While Edwards has spoken virtuously of trial lawyers, he has forgotten that they have also spawned some of the economic problems now facing America. Who is John Edwards? He is not the southern choice. He has no concern for middle America. Even constituents in his own state had difficulty contacting him. John Edwards is a Southern liberal who knows nothing of American values. This is what Democrats call a populist. It is what Americans call a liberal in disguise.

I wish they would be real Christians. Just once.
It's very hard to understand how those who cheer war, torture and the fleecing of the poor think that their values are Jesus-oriented. It is scary to think what they have made of Jesus in their own minds, to believe he is applauding what they do.
No, it started with a real
when they couldn't find anything, they dug up the sex scandal. Clinton was investigated for 7 years; can you name a high-level Clinton administartion official indicted? I know Clinton can't practice law; he was also impeached...what's your point?

LOL. Coulter. Now there's a real gem.

Thanks, Starcat.  Poor souls.  That's all they know how to do.  Swiftboat others.  I suppose everyone has to be good at something.  I don't even remotely expect it to stop, and yes, sure looks like I did hit a nerve, otherwise they wouldn't bother to keep trying to discredit me.  The way I figure it, the more *Swiftboating* that goes on, the closer I came to exposing the truth, so in a way, their *feedback* is very helpful.

The only reason I posted the second post (which I addressed to Liberals) was that I fully realized how bizarre the whole concept sounded.  Who in their right mind could believe something like that could happen here in America, that the lunatic fringe was comprised of so many people?  I guess that's what makes it so darn frightening.

You have a nice day now.  As for me, I'm going to go check the stock prices for Kool-Aid.  Might be time to invest. 

Real story from the MSM?.....sm
Bush controlled, corporate crony owned media telling the truth - not going to happen. That only happens when you have a democratic republic, not a corporate plutocracy. TV news definitely lies, suppresses, and distorts news.
Is Rush for real?

Did anyone hear R. Limbaugh's comments?  I only caught part of it, but it sounded like he was talking about liberals as though we are satan or something.  "You can't let them do this, or you can't let them do that".  All the time saying "them" like it's a dirty word.  Years ago I used to like him.  Now he disgusts me.   Now more than ever do we need a democrat president - just so I can see their faces and hear them whine.....oh wouldn't that be good.

The real facts....(sm)


Did electing a Democratic Congress in 2006 really lead to increased unemployment, higher gas prices and more home foreclosures?

I received this by e-mail and Ive also seen it posted as a comment on a lot of blogs and news sites. Is there any truth to it?

You Want Change?

A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we're [sic] seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) the cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!


No, and most of the figures in a widely-circulated e-mail are made up. In fact, the entire premise of the e-mail is a logical fallacy.

Like most of the chain e-mails making the rounds, this one is inaccurate. Some claims are outright false while others are grossly out of context. Overall, the e-mail commits the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (or after the fact, therefore because of the fact).

Here's what we found:

  • Consumer confidence has fallen since October 2006, but it was not at a 2 1/2 year high prior to the elections. In fact, consumer confidence varies less with elections than it does with general economic conditions, many of which have little to do with the actions of politicians.

  • Gas prices were not at $2.19 per gallon before the election, but did reach that point nearly a year before the election and again (briefly) two months afterward.

  • The e-mail actually understates the equity drop by $500 billion. In fact, the stock market lost $2.8 trillion in equity from its most recent high point. But the e-mail fails to make clear that the high point happened nearly a full year after the election. It also neglects to mention that the market is higher now than it was in November 2006.

  • There's no clear figure on how much home equity has been lost since 2006 (the two most widely used measures give vastly different sums). But home equity loss and higher foreclosures have more to do with some unsavory lending practices and some bad decisions by homebuyers than they do with congressional activities.

  • The e-mail commits a whole series of post-hoc fallacies. That is, it assumes, without offering any evidence, that because one thing preceded another, the first must have caused the second.
We did find one accurate assertion, though. The unemployment rate really did increase from 4.5 to 5 percent.

The Two-and-a-Half-Year High That Wasn't

Because the e-mail has been around for a while and is undated, we can't say exactly when "a little over one year ago" is supposed to begin. Well assume that it means sometime shortly before the 2006 elections. Adding to the confusion is that there are two different surveys of consumer confidence. But we are certain that neither index shows consumer confidence at a two-and-a-half-year high prior to the 2006 mid-term elections. Here are the results from the Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index:


As you can see, in the months leading up to the November 2006 election, consumer confidence actually declined. It was not at a two-and-a-half-year high. In fact, it had dropped 4.7 points between April 2006 and October 2006. And April 2006 actually represented a nearly four-year high. Consumer confidence last topped the April 2006 number in May 2002. Consumer confidence then climbed after the 2006 election, peaking in July 2007 before it began to fall off.

The University of Michigan's Index of Consumer Sentiment shows similar results:


Here, too, we see that October 2006 does not represent a two-and-a-half-year high point in consumer confidence; January, February, June and July 2005 all saw higher totals.

Leaving aside the incorrect numbers, the e-mail is misleading to suggest that the November 2006 congressional elections caused a decline in consumer confidence. By that sort of logic, one could also suggest that George W. Bush's election caused the 10 percent decline in consumer confidence recorded by the Conference Board between December 2000 and January 2001, or the 12 percent decline in consumer sentiment that the University of Michigan measured between November 2000 and January 2001. But in fact, those drops had a much greater connection to the bursting of the dot-com bubble than they did to an election. The same is true of the decline in the last half of 2007, which owes far more to generally worsening economic conditions  or at least to the public perception that economic conditions are generally worsening
than it does to an election.

Did You Know That Congress Sets Gas Prices?

Despite what this e-mail implies, Congress little or nothing to do with setting the price of gasoline. Gas prices rise and fall with fluctuations in supply and demand. Prices go up when the supply decreases or the demand increases. Prices fall when supply goes up or demand goes down. There are those who believe that oil companies are manipulating supply, but if so that's the doing of oil-company executives, not Democratic senators or House members, some of whom in fact are calling for yet another investigation of oil-company practices.

U.S. policy can have some effect on global oil markets
wars in major oil-producing nations tend to reduce the oil supply, at least in the short-run but foreign policy is primarily the province of the executive, not the legislative, branch.

What's more, the e-mail includes some carefully cherry-picked figures, as this chart from the Department of Energy shows.


The e-mail implies that gas prices were at $2.19 per gallon just prior to the 2006 election. Gas prices did in fact dip as low as $2.19 per gallon, but they did so in January 2007, after the congressional elections. Gas prices also dipped below $2.19 per gallon in November 2005, a full year before the election. The e-mail also fails to mention that prices climbed to more than $3.00 per gallon in August 2006, 
when Republicans controlled both branches of Congress and the White House.

That Pesky Stock Market

The claim that Americans have lost $2.3 trillion in stock and mutual fund equity is not quite right. Economists use the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index, an index that tracks nearly every U.S. stock, as the best measure of the entire U.S. stock market. On Nov. 7, 2006, (the day before the congressional elections), the Wilshire 5000 closed at 13,871.50. On April 30, 2008, the Index closed at 13,991.10. That represents a gain of about $119.6 billion in equity since the 2006 election.

But that's not to say that it's been a steady gain. On October 11, 2007, the Wilshire 5000 peaked at 15,819, then plunged to 13,037.3 on
March 19, 2008, a loss of $2.8 trillion in equity, or $500 billion more than the e-mail claims. Market gains since March have reduced the number to $1.8 trillion since that low point, which is somewhat lower than the e-mail indicates. There are lots of ways to look at numbers: between the 2006 election and October of 2007, the stock market gained over $1.9 trillion in equity, then lost $2.8 trillion before gaining $954 billion back again. But the fact is that anyone who invested in a reasonably broad-based array of stocks in early November 2006 and held all those stocks until today has seen a modest increase in their value.

Moreover, it is inaccurate to say that all these losses have been experienced by American households. Its true that the percentage of U.S. households owning stock continues to increase. A 2005 joint report from two organizations representing investment companies and security firms estimated that about half of all U.S. households now own stock (mainly through mutual funds). But institutional investors retirement funds, college and university endowments, investment companies like J.P. Morgan Chase and insurance companies
control a large portion of stocks. At Microsoft, for example, around 63 percent of the stock or just under 6 billion shares is owned by just 2,300 different institutional investors. These institutional investors bear some of the brunt of equity losses, so its just wrong to imply, as the e-mail does, that "households" account for all the lost stock market equity.

My Kingdom for a House!

The e-mail is right about the bare facts of the housing crisis. It's true that about 1 percent of American homes were in some stage of foreclosure in 2007, and for the first time since 1945, home equity value fell below 50 percent (that is, Americans' mortgages are more than half the value of their homes).

Whether Americans have actually lost $1.2 trillion in home equity depends on what measure one uses. There are two different indexes used to track home value. Standard & Poor's Case-Schiller Home Price Index measures residential housing prices in 20 metropolitan regions and then constructs a composite index for the entire United States. Freddie Mac's Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index (or CMHPI) measures the value of single family homes that qualify for Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae underwritten mortgages, which, in practical terms, means that the CMHPI excludes any house valued at more than $417,000.

Measured by the Case-Schiller index, the crisis is actually worse than the e-mail says, at least for homes in those 20 regions. Case-Schiller shows a 12 percent decline in home value since November 2006. Standard & Poor's estimated the 2006 value of residential real estate held by individuals and nonprofits to be around $22.4 trillion. A 12 percent decline works out to about $2.7 trillion in lost home equity.

The CMHPI paints a very different picture. Its U.S. index, which is given in quarterly rather than monthly figures, shows a fourth quarter 2006 composite of 294.5 and a fourth quarter 2007 (the last quarter available) of 295.3, or about three-tenths of a percent increase.

The truth lies somewhere in between. As this map of foreclosure rates shows, many of the areas hardest hit by falling home prices are large, high-growth areas
in other words, major metropolitan areas where a lot of homes are priced at more than $417,000:

Source: The Atlantic

Because the Case-Schiller index focuses on some of the metropolitan areas hardest hit, it likely overstates the amount of equity lost. By excluding homes valued at more than $417,000, the CMHPI understates the problem.

In any event, the e-mail is wrong to imply that the crunch is related to congressional elections. Indeed, blame really rests with two entirely different groups: lenders who (in some cases) fudged loan applications for buyers who weren't really qualified for loans, and home buyers who signed mortgages that they couldn't afford. Operating on the assumption that houses would always increase in value, some Americans essentially gambled on their home purchases. They were aided, in many cases, by subprime loans which generally have very low interest rates for a few years, but which later jump higher
sometimes much higher than rates for conventional mortgages. Many people used subprime loans to buy houses that they could afford (barely) for the first few years with the thought that they could always sell the house for a handsome profit just before the higher interest rates (and hence higher payments) kicked in.

Unfortunately, house prices didn't continue to rise. In fact, the frenzy to purchase houses resulted in unrealistically high prices
much like the stock market bubble in the late 1990s. And so, like that stock market bubble, when investors stepped back for a moment, they realized that they were overpaying. Since houses (like everything else) are worth only what someone is willing to pay for them, when new home buyers paused, housing prices leveled out and then began to decline, falling 8.9 percent in 2007. Many homeowners thus found themselves with the double whammy of a house that was worth less money than they owed and an increased payment that they could not afford.

Latin Alert

The e-mail is a classic example of the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Post hoc fallacies assert that A caused B because B happened after A without offering any evidence that A and B are causally related. It's one of the most common fallacies, and not just in the political arena, either. They're very easy to construct: Just pick two things you don't like and attribute the second one to the first. It's that sort of thinking that might lead a sports fan to believe that his team wins only when he wears his "lucky" cap turned backward.

A simple rule of thumb is to treat any sort of "we did this and some really bad thing happened" argument with extreme skepticism. Causal arguments work only if there is an actual connection between the two events. A good argument can't just assume a connection; it has to show that one really exists. In case you want to delve further into this subject, we'd suggest you visit our sister site for educators and students, FactCheckED.org, and take a look at the lesson plan "Monty Python and the Quest for the Perfect Fallacy."

When you see this sort of claim presented without any evidence at all, you probably ought to just assume it's false. And if that claim happens to arrive in the form of a chain e-mail? Then we hope you'll take our advice and give your delete key some exercise.

- Joe Miller


Block, Sandra. "Home Equity Falls Below 50% for First Time on Record." 7 March 2008. USA Today. 18 March 2008.

Christie, Les. "Foreclosures up 75% in 2007." 29 January 2008. CNN Money. 18 March 2008.

FactSet Research Systems. "Microsoft Corp: Institutional Holders." 7 April 2008. Reuters.com. 7 April 2008.

Freddie Mac. "CMPHI Data: Census Division and National Series (1Q1970 - 4Q2007). December 2007. Freddie Mac. 7 April 2008.

"Historical Prices for Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 TOT: 7 November 2006 - 4 April 2008." 7 April 2008. Yahoo Finance. 7 April 2008.

Leonhardt, David. "Cant Grasp Credit Crisis? Join the Club." 19 March 2008. The New York Times. 19 March 2008.

Manning, Jeff. "Chase Mortgage Memo Pushes 'Cheats & Tricks'." 27 March 2008. The Oregonian. 4 April 2008.

Nutting, Rex. "Home prices post first yearly drop in 16 years." 26 February 2008. Market Watch. 18 March 2008.

Reuters/University of Michigan. "Index of Consumer Sentiment: January 2000 - September 2007." 7 April 2008. Surveys of Consumers. 7 April 2008.

Standard and Poor's. "Case-Schiller Home Price History." January 2008. Standard and Poor's. 7 April 2008.

TNS. "Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index." 16 March 2008. Polling Report: Economic Outlook. 18 March 2008.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted. 1998 - 2008, 18 March 2008.

Wilshire Associates. "Dow Jones Wilshire Broad Market Indexes." 7 April 2008. Wilshire Associates. 7 April 2008.

Yglesias, Matthew. "There Goes the Neighborhood." January 2008. The Atlantic. 7 April 2008.



The chips are definitely real. sm
Here is an article in Computer World about the RFID chip.


Also, Google Real ID. They want to microchip that too. You will not be able to fly without it.

Is Hillary for real?
Talk about being out of touch with Americans.  She cannot relate to what we go through at all.  She came from a weathly family yet she portrays in her ads that she is like everyone else.  Then on top of that seems like every state she campaigns in she says she is from.  So I'm confused...Is she from Arkansas, New York, Pennsylvania, now Indiana?  Give me a break!  She's so full of it.  She came from a wealthy family, married a wealthy guy and she's never had to worry where the money for her food is coming from.   She's never had to pump her own gas (by her own admission).  This is all a "photo stunt" into making people think she's out there pumping gas and dealing with the problems and issues we are facing.  She didn't even know what a gallon of gas cost before just a couple days ago.  I'm sure she also doesn't know what a gallon of milk or loaf of bread cost.  And her gas stimulus or whatever it is she's trying to pass off as some great program.  Basically it boils down to you will get one free fill up for your vehicle for the day.  Right - like that's going to solve the problems.  The sooner that hag loses the better for America (also the better for my blood pressure to finally resume its normalcy).
you can spit it but can't take it?
sounds like you're the "lady" like you posted to me in the other post. First of all I am a young woman, second of all, i will again say WHO SAID I WAS CHRISTIAN? Let me explain one thing to you, just because someone is pro-life does NOT mean they are Christian, had to make that point since you seem so offended by that. how about you learn to spell IMMACULATE. lol i laugh at sorry souls like you! but keep up the personal attacks, it reminds me I'm better than you :)
Wise Up and Get Real

I am without question loudly and proudly supporting Barack Obama.  I am not supporting him because of the color of his skin, nor am I not supporting John McCain because of the color of his skin.  I am supporting Barack Obama because he has inspired something in me.  The belief and hope and optimism that there are actually people in politics who feel as I feel and will make a difference towards that end.  The belief that people are people and that my neighbors next door and the people who live on the other side of town and the people who live in the next state and the people who live in the south and the people who live in the north all matter regardless of their ethnicities, regardless of their incomes, regardless of their education or lack thereof, regardless of whatever circumstances they have been born into.  We are all Americans and we all deserve a chance to be educated, a chance to have healthcare, a chance to have hopes and dreams, and the opportunity to work for those hopes and dreams. 

John McCain is not going to provide any of that, least of all hope.  It is actually scary that the people who are so dead-set against supporting Barack Obama are the people who would reap so much of the benefits of his presidency.  And I wonder why you don't support him?  Gee, that is such a mystery!  Yet you all go on about McCain picking a woman as his VP.  Big deal!  A woman or man can do the same job, but if you were smart you would realize it is about the right person and gender has nothing to do with smarts, compassion, fairness, hope, inclusion, and inspiration. 

Wake up or you people are going to be in the same situation 4 years from now that you are in now.   After all, how smart can you be if you voted for Bush over Gore.  And better yet, how smart can you be if you gave Bush another 4 years and actually believed the lies about Kerry.  My conscious is clear, I didn't vote for Bush.  I voted for Gore and I certainly voted for Kerry after the first horrific 4 years.  Please educate yourself and wise up.  Fear is the reason Bush is president.  Let go of it and make better decisions.     

And if you are wondering who I am, I will be happy to tell you.  I have been an MT for 5 years.  I am a single parent.  I own my own home and purchased it myself.  I have 1 son.  I homeschool him and he is above grade level in all subjects.  I  also happen to be African American and my son is of mixed race, as his biological father is Caucasian.  I state these facts loudly and proudly just as I loudly and proudly support Barack Obama the best person for the most important job in the world. 

real issues

such as celebrity, Ayers, etc.??


The real context for this

manufactured outrage is to create the impression that O and media are against SP.  That way, as more and more damaging information is revealed with investigations by reporters in alaska, hopefully the limited-information voters will disregard the facts that are revealed.


thats real noble of ya why then

did you post a list of inflammatory statements about race out of any context whatsoever.


real mature
wink - real

snappy comeback, babe.  Snap your gum for me, its so sexy.


the real fools

Are those who actually think the UN is worth more than (insert your choice of naughty words here).  Many Americans often forget that we're picking up the tab for that trainwreck, too.  I could fill up this forum with posts about them over the years and the huge $ grab it is.

But the Dems love to pay taxes, so my solution is to just raise their taxes and let the rest of us just "be."

Drives. Me. Crazy.

you have real issues
Hope? Get real nm

Oh well....isn't that real mature of you.

Once again, another liberal calling names instead of using substantial facts to prove their point. 

Here is the REAL problem sm
We are arguing with a bunch of under 30 year old republicans who have no life experience and get their politics from their redneck parents.
What I see as the real point...
Obama's idea of "spreading the wealth" is really going to hurt people like myself. I am not poor enough to have some of it spread my way, nor wealthy enough to have it taken, but I am the one who is ultimately going to foot the bill when I buy anything!
As if Nanaw is your real name!
Shucks, I guess you are just being obnoxious again.
Please do not mistake this for the real
And then you can tell her the real website
Real issues
Read or heard on the news yesterday that in 2009 it will be the big investors in the commercial real estate market who will be facing disaster.  Will they be the next to get a bail-out?  I'd bet they will be trying.  I hope Obama and the Congress will put a big fat NO to any more bail-outs.
It doesn't get more real than
pausing for a moment to admire a man who has the intestinal fortitude to take on the piles and piles of gargage the W has set out on the back stoop, waiting for pick-up.
Real America?
That guy's writing a book so he can cash in on the irrational Obama adulation. Cha-CHING!!!!! It's so funny what you people will fall for, so long as it's spoon fed to you by your beloved media gods.
Real pressure? (sm)
Guess what....he's already under some *real* pressure and thus far has handled it quite well.  Let's see, 2 wars, an economy that's in the $hitter, failing education, failing healthcare, a renegade Israel, etc......nope...no pressure there.