stevenash

[Hidden Content]

Go ahead and prove that I am wrong, please.

[Hidden Content]

Terribly curious about the timing. If Mr. Kaepernick is so passionate and so concerned about this, why hasn't he done this much earlier in his NFL career? Additionally, that which he protests is statistically minute.

Part of the grand plan. The "originators" knew this was coming and the ultimate goal, single payer, is not that far away.

PamFam- What do you think of that little summary of unpatriotic?

What action was demanded? I think I understand you. You believe that Mr. Kaepernick has certain speaking rights but nobody who disagrees with him has the right to criticize him?

[Hidden Content]

Deplorable lives matter!!!!

Sorry, but his "predecessor " was determined 8 years before he ran for office. I assume you mean successor.

And why do you believe what you just stated doesn't apply to everyone else on this board?

Yes, she is as pure as the wind driven snow.

Do "deplorable lives matter"?

Never- He is part of the choir blaming Bush

And burger flipping, these days, apparently is worth $15 per hour.

From a report I read this morning: . Although average wage growth has recently started to rise, the pace is gradual and a closer inspection shows a two-tier market in which low-pay sectors (including food services and retail sub-sectors) are seeing the strongest wage gains, with slower trends elsewhere.

So, as long as its better than 2007, everything is good?

Bush has been blamed for every negative economic issue for the past seven years until todays figures were released. He suddenly got no more credit.

You are spot on BS Wildcats. I love to hear someone lamenting the fact that Mr. Obama could be criticized or discredited for his handling of the economy. Those same "lamenters" were all over Mr. Bush for the sub prime mortgage debacle and attendant economic decline, giving him full credit for it when he had very little to do with it.

And the President had little, if anything, to do with that. Congrats on comparing the bottom of a recession with the top of a very weak recovery.

When Mr. Obama assumed the Presidency, we were at the very bottom of a substantial recession. So the numbers couldnt have looked any worse than they did when he took office. The cyclicality of the economy is responsible for a goodly portion of the improvement since then. This is evident by the FACT that there has NEVER been a recession/economic slowdown from which we did not recover, regardless of who was in office. Therefore, to state that "I/we created x number of jobs is garbage. The majority of those jobs would have come about if Al Gore or John McCain or Michael Dukakis had been in office at that time. So its a bit disengenuous to claim that certain policies or approaches is/are what caused the jobs picture to improve. I will continue to believe that the free enterprise system is at its best and most productive when it has as little government intrusion as possible and that we should make a concentrated effort to allow a hard working individual to keep as much of what he earns as possible- this will ultimately be more beneficial to the overall economic health of the nation. Furthermore, I believe very strongly that you cannot legislate away poverty and there will always be some who have more than others. Isn't it odd that people from all over the world want to come here for a better life but we seem bound and determined to adopt policies that will make us more like the countries they have left to come to the United States. I still think we should seek equal opportunities rather than equal outcomes, orchestrated by an inefficient and unaccountable government. Finally, as I have said many times, Cuba, Venezuela, Greece, and Detroit are classic examples of why socialism or quasi socialism do not work.

I think it took place when the offended spouse made a concentrated effort to destroy the lives/reputations of every woman who came forward.

You havent seen it mentioned because it did not take place for the last seven years but finally showed up on this report. Those are good numbers and I contend it could/should have happened a lot sooner if less of this country's economic resources had been directed toward government efforts. A couple of quick thoughts- The poverty rate came down but it came down from an all time high that occurred during the current administration. Median income had a sizeable jump but was way overdue for that and it is still below the median income when Mr. Bush was in office. The other "spike the football after a touchdown" point was the lowering of people uninsured. We have yet to see what the ultimate cost of that will be but my guess is that if one does a cost/benefit analysis, it will seem overtly expensive and perhaps unsustainable. Nearly all of the economic problems we face could be resolved with more vigorous economic growth. But when the government becomes too large of a part of the economy, it isnt going to happen as evidenced by a GDP of less than 2% during a long recovery which is about half of what GDP has been for recession recoveries in modern times. Additionally, since Lyndon Johnson declared "war on poverty", look at the rate when he was in office versus where it is now. You will see very little difference despite the gazillions of dollars that have been poured into that effort. From my viewpoint, this article is a little bit like an article that says " LeBron James quadruples his scoring in game 6". Only problem is, he had 7 points in game 5.

[Hidden Content]

They are being taught early in their lives to disrespect something that most folks consider sacred. If you don't want to call it hateful, how about defiant? If you HONESTLY analyze the statistics regarding the very issue they are "protesting", it is a very insignificant number, one which is undeserving of such "protests" and notoriety.