Re: The US economy lost 17,000 jobs in January repost

On Feb 10, 12:29 am, Dan <dnada...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
hot-ham-and-che...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 8, 9:44 pm, Bob Brock <bbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:42:00 -0500, Observer <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 17:20:46 -0800 (PST),
hot-ham-and-che...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 8, 7:26 pm, Observer <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 15:07:37 -0800 (PST),
hot-ham-and-che...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:57 pm, Observer <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 21:24:45 -0800 (PST),
hot-ham-and-che...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:14 pm, Observer <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 04:09:30 -0800 (PST),
hot-ham-and-che...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 6, 8:35 pm, Observer <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:35:32 -0800 (PST),
hot-ham-and-che...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 6, 4:52 pm, Observer <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:53:09 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
TMT
Actually if you lose a great job, to an off-shore company, and have to
take 2 McWage jobs to survive, that helps inflate the "New Jobs
Created" number eh?
Ditto for a one wage-earner family having to go to a two wage-earner
family.
Heck of a job, W.
I seem to recall FDR putting all the gals to work way back when...
Heck of a job is right.
You must be a lot older than I estimated.
Nice diversion.  Was FDR a NEOCON?  Would you'se guys care to revise
your stories?
More a diversion than introducing FDR, when we were discussing W?
I'll leave the revisionism to you and your ilk.
You introduced women having to work.  Do you want to take it back?
No.  Since MY addition was appropriate for the discussion at hand.  
As was mine.
Really?  
Yes.
Exactly HOW does FDR relate to W's economy?
Exactly as I responded to your claims about W forcing women into the
workforce.  W was way, way, way late on the scene for that one.
Reread what you snipped.   Quit claiming things I didn't say.  
That's one of his main tactics in making an argument.  He says you
said something that you didn't say and then proceeds to prove that you
were wrong about what you didn't say but he says that you did say.

"Two wage earner" family is referring to a homosexual union?  Yes?  No?

Why do you keep harping on that non-sequitur? (So far, three posts with
the same nonsensical and non-helpful remark)  YOU are the only one
having a problem with the history.

Dan

Apparently not.

Working wives (women) have been a fact of life for several
generations, regardless of what you, Winton, Brock, and Observer (The
Bobs) might like to think.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Jobs vs. Gates
    ... Woz... ... Heck, in the case of ... Jobs he did so with few people knowing it was him - and, no, of ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Is it just me?
    ... posting record profits and bringing jobs back from overseas with raises. ... Where the heck have you been?!? ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: Jobs vs. Gates
    ... Heck, in the case of ... Jobs he did so with few people knowing it was him - and, no, of ... That Jobs doesn't make a big deal out of what he does with his money ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Nasa moving shuttle back to the pad, not a good idea
    ... All that matterts is play the odds and keep on flying. ... Safety included. ... Heck if we dont fly our budget will get zeroed and we all lose our ... The futrure of our jobs are at stake we have no choice:( ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Sheetrock question
    ... Ditto. ... take me a while I can complete most jobs to a fairly good ... to "rescue" my last attempt at same which SWMBO has ...
    (alt.home.repair)