Obama best in 47 years or dismal failure? on the Peoria.com Forums - Page 4

I believe it also refers to those that have taken part time employment in lieu of a full time job.

The "real" (loosely termed) unemployment number has, and always will be higher than the government reported unemployment number. But unlike what Seal wants us to believe, these "real" numbers were here far before Obama, and will be here far after.

Depending on who you ask, "real" unemployment numbers can mean a number of thigns.

The offical government number refers to people who are out of a job completely, and are actively seaking work. THere have been times in the past where unemployment has gone down, but it was mainly becuase of more people that stopped looking.

Most of the jobs created in the past 9 months or so are public sector jobs, mainly temporary census jobs. The increase in jobless claims the past few months have been in large part becuase those jobs have ended.

When most people refer to "real" unemployment, they refer to anyone in working age, usually 18-65, who is out of a job, or needs a full time job but is working part time.

That number lately has been closer to 20%, but some of those people are working 2 or 3 part time jobs to make ends meet.

Unemployment is one of those thigns that is really tricky to quantify, and you can generally make the numbers show anything you feel like

This actively seeking work thing is mesleading. First, how does the Government keep track of the number pf people that are actively seeking work, but not receiving unemployment??

I think a much better indicator to use, other than the flawed Unemployment rate is the job growth/loss rate.

It happens to me all the time on here (in fact, AV8R can't get through a single response to me without relying on snide, meaningless comments that say something like "typical liberal" or "cabbie" or "pothead" whatever marginalizing BS he needs in lieu of an actual argument), before I ever went on the offensive, but no one cares. Neither do I. The only difference between me and them is I'm better at it, I do it openly instead of passively aggressively and I don't act like a little bitch with a skinned knee every time someone insults me.



AV8R - Yes, I did read and understood the precedents before you posted them...and no, I didn't learn any of this from wiki, that's called citing a source, which you seem unfamiliar with. It's just a convenient way of referencing information to support what you're saying.

OK so you were going from the oath of office that Federal judges take. That's wonderful, but maybe you should broaden your scope and realize that just because it isn't worded specifically that way, or overtly included in their oath, that interpreting laws and the Constitution doesn't somehow fall outside their jurisdiction. All I was saying was, the responsibilities of the Judiciary is something taught in basic civics, and by suggesting I'm unfamiliar with the oaths they take, you have not contrasted my point at all.

With this in mind, it doesn't seem all that irrelevant that you're completely unqualified to decide the case...since you don't even know the responsibilities of the court. But, hey, I'll go along.

Yes, local police can enforce Federal immigration policy, but requiring them to investigate every time they suspect a Hispanic might be here illegally makes the practical application of this law a Constitutional issue.

The Supremacy Clause comes into play here not because local police shouldn't enforce Federal laws, but because the State Legislature is telling them how to enforce Federal Law. If the Federal Government doesn't want resources wasted in this way, then it's their call because it's their law. Beyond that it has implications on Foreign Policy and invasion of privacy.

I'm not assuming she is correct, I think she is doing what's best for Arizona and the country. It's just an opinion. I also doubt it will be overturned, certainly not by the Supreme Court. But we'll see.

I have to say Tyler, AV8R and I don't agree on the immigration matter whatsoever. But at NO time has he ever been snide or rude to me.

If you will go back and read your earliest posts directed at people you will notice your pattern and see what happens. People here have been debating things back and forth sometimes very hotly for a few years now. But in my experience you seem to make things personal far before anybody else.

Being passive aggressive is definitely not my style, I am an in your face type of person and will openly call you out for being an obnoxious jerk if the time comes and I fell it is necessary. If you doubt it, ask any mod how many warnings or "time outs" I have been given. For that matter ask Tapeworm or HipKat.

yes you do.

That's funny!

I have Verizon, which I believe you do too, so I dialed 611.

I dialed their 866 number...611 is internal.

Are you implying that the federal government needs even MORE power than they already have usurped? That the federal government should be able to dictate to a sovereign state how that state is allowed to spend it's funds enforcing the law just because the law is codified as a federal statute?

State legislatures certainly DO have a right to tell their officers how to enforce the law. One need look no further than zero tolerance domestic violence laws which MANDATE an arrest be made in certain circumstances. Held to be Constitutional time and time again.

Well, I'll give you credit where credit is due Tyler: at least you've finally struck something in the whole argument that actually IS unconstitutional. The feds telling state legislatures how their officers are to enforce existing law.

You already admitted in your first sentence that there is no prohibition on state officers enforcing federal law, so you're making progress. You must be reading my legal citations. Stick to it young man, you might learn something on here. And for the record, I have never called you "cabbie" or "pothead." I confess to "typical liberal" because it fits. It was not meant to be derogatory. I'm a typical conservative.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment.

Seal...I called the number, 1-800 number, and had to press 3 for Spanish.

It is 8 6 6, no 8 0 0

Seal...what number did you call that you had to push a button to speak English? I looved on Verizon and the number was an 800 number. You have made several claims that I have disproven. You make claims you should back them up.

Read the whole article here (sorry, you have to cut and paste): blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/

Another of those pesky racists the left keeps hollering about abandons the President's party.

WARNING: This video is posted for Republicans as a message of Hope andfor Change as we head into the 2010 midterm elections.

hotair.com/archives/2010/08/13/video-im-willing-to-take-a-chance-on-something-different/