Q. --------------------------
--------------------------
pegminer - I guess you haven't heard the latest news. Sounds like he is being welcomed back to me.
--------------------------
Baccheus - My understanding is that Pacific Institute is saying they conducted an independent investigation, but are not releasing the results or even who conducted the investigation.
--------------------------
--------------------------
pegminer - I guess you haven't heard the latest news. Sounds like he is being welcomed back to me.
--------------------------
Baccheus - My understanding is that Pacific Institute is saying they conducted an independent investigation, but are not releasing the results or even who conducted the investigation.
--------------------------
A. Grifter: A lot of intelligent people like Maxx. It appears the reason you don't like him is because he can out argue you warmies. Of course in your case that ain't very hard. Truth to a warmie is like shining a light a cockroach. They scurry to the darkest place they can find.
Jeff M: Who chaired that committee? Al Gore? Or was Paul Ehrlich? Or maybe Mann.We told you from the beginning that there would be a whitewash. You see us denier's predictions come true. The warmies don't. Take that as lesson number 1 in the road to recovery. The fact is he apologized. What did he apologize for if he didn't do anything wrong?
Juicy: East Anglia data was paid for by the taxpayers. It, by law, was public domain. There were many official requests and East Anglia stalled the release of the information which in and of itself is against the law. Now we all know why they did it. They were cooking the books which is a filthy vile act since so many laws are enacted from their reports, opinions and data. But you warmies always figure 'the ends justify the means' which is an old Karl Marx philosophy. You defend liars and snuggle up to corrupt data and yet you expect us to trust you.
Baccheus: Ha! Ha! You gotta be kidding! Chicago? You really thing there is anything legitimate in Chicago? Ha! Ha! I personally repaired slot machines in the Chief of Police's home. Ha! Ha! You ought to go to Hollywood, they need comedy writers.
Ian: Yes that sick SOP is the way of life of these warmies. Funny how they embrace known liars.
Juicy: Why should we put out a 'Freedom of Information' when we paid for the data? They were under contract to freely provide the information. Their reports based on this fraudulent information was the kick start for a lot of environmental legislation. Our legislatures enacted laws based on outright lies. And that doesn't upset you? It shows just what low morals the warmies have.
What lie have I ever told on this site? You statement is just another warmie fabrication.
Jeff M: Who chaired that committee? Al Gore? Or was Paul Ehrlich? Or maybe Mann.We told you from the beginning that there would be a whitewash. You see us denier's predictions come true. The warmies don't. Take that as lesson number 1 in the road to recovery. The fact is he apologized. What did he apologize for if he didn't do anything wrong?
Juicy: East Anglia data was paid for by the taxpayers. It, by law, was public domain. There were many official requests and East Anglia stalled the release of the information which in and of itself is against the law. Now we all know why they did it. They were cooking the books which is a filthy vile act since so many laws are enacted from their reports, opinions and data. But you warmies always figure 'the ends justify the means' which is an old Karl Marx philosophy. You defend liars and snuggle up to corrupt data and yet you expect us to trust you.
Baccheus: Ha! Ha! You gotta be kidding! Chicago? You really thing there is anything legitimate in Chicago? Ha! Ha! I personally repaired slot machines in the Chief of Police's home. Ha! Ha! You ought to go to Hollywood, they need comedy writers.
Ian: Yes that sick SOP is the way of life of these warmies. Funny how they embrace known liars.
Juicy: Why should we put out a 'Freedom of Information' when we paid for the data? They were under contract to freely provide the information. Their reports based on this fraudulent information was the kick start for a lot of environmental legislation. Our legislatures enacted laws based on outright lies. And that doesn't upset you? It shows just what low morals the warmies have.
What lie have I ever told on this site? You statement is just another warmie fabrication.
Computer & Information Systems or Computer Science degree?
Q. Hello, I'm currently studying in a 2-year college and I thought I'd major in Computer science and when I transfer, I'd have the option of basically picking any of the sub-categories of Computer Science. But, I was really for no-reason looking around the college website and I noticed another Computer major called Computer & Information Systems that can also transfer.
Now, the question is,
I want to study things that have to do with Security like for example work in a company that makes software to protect home users from being hacked, build firewalls, that kind of things. Also for my surprise, I found that CIS requires me to learn way more programming languages but much less mathematics unlike CS which is totally the opposite at least in my college. So, If I want to work in keeping computer secure or basically become what's called "Ethical hacker" which degree of those 2 should I pick? I'm currently in Computer Science, is the CIS basically what I should major in according to what I want to be after I graduate? Or am I already studying the right major for me?
Thanks,
To Christin K,
Another thing if I may, I do understand that I need to learn how to program but the thing is, in the CIS degree course catalogs, the CIS degree actually has more programming courses than CS while CS basically has like a whole lot of maths. So, with my limited knowledge but, I can see that CS is basically more maths than computer courses while CIS is basically computer courses without that much maths.
To get the CS degree, these are basically the Computer courses:
1) Intro to Computer Science using JAVA.
2) Object Oriented Programming using JAVA.
3) Data structures in JAVA.
4) Computer Architecture 1 and 2.
5) Computer Architecture and Assembly Lang 1 and 2.
**With like 8 Maths courses.**
To get the CIS degree, those are the computer courses:
1) Intro to Computer Science using JAVA.
2) Microcomputers Sys & Arch.
3) Object Oriented programming using JAVA.
4) Visual BASIC programming.
5) Data structures in JAVA.
6) Networking Technologies.
7) UNIX and Shell programming
Now, the question is,
I want to study things that have to do with Security like for example work in a company that makes software to protect home users from being hacked, build firewalls, that kind of things. Also for my surprise, I found that CIS requires me to learn way more programming languages but much less mathematics unlike CS which is totally the opposite at least in my college. So, If I want to work in keeping computer secure or basically become what's called "Ethical hacker" which degree of those 2 should I pick? I'm currently in Computer Science, is the CIS basically what I should major in according to what I want to be after I graduate? Or am I already studying the right major for me?
Thanks,
To Christin K,
Another thing if I may, I do understand that I need to learn how to program but the thing is, in the CIS degree course catalogs, the CIS degree actually has more programming courses than CS while CS basically has like a whole lot of maths. So, with my limited knowledge but, I can see that CS is basically more maths than computer courses while CIS is basically computer courses without that much maths.
To get the CS degree, these are basically the Computer courses:
1) Intro to Computer Science using JAVA.
2) Object Oriented Programming using JAVA.
3) Data structures in JAVA.
4) Computer Architecture 1 and 2.
5) Computer Architecture and Assembly Lang 1 and 2.
**With like 8 Maths courses.**
To get the CIS degree, those are the computer courses:
1) Intro to Computer Science using JAVA.
2) Microcomputers Sys & Arch.
3) Object Oriented programming using JAVA.
4) Visual BASIC programming.
5) Data structures in JAVA.
6) Networking Technologies.
7) UNIX and Shell programming
A. A few thoughts here. I have a 4 year Computer Information Systems (CIS) degree and work in the Computer Security job sector. Ethical hacking is a small part under a much larger category of Computing Security jobs. For every person doing Ethical Hacking there are 100 people working in Computing Security. Hollywood movies and TV have made a big deal out of Ethical Hacking or Computer Forensics but it is really a small part of Computing Security work. By definition, anything that impacts Computing Confidentiality, Integrity or Availability is Computing Security so it is a very big part of all that goes on in IT.
Generally speaking, Computer Science (CS) will have more Math and Programming classes than a CIS degree. If you have discovered that to be the opposite in your current 2 year college that is indeed possible. You see both 2 and 4 year colleges have a lot of latitude in what they call majors and what classes are required in those majors. In my CIS program I had about 4 programming classes and no math beyond basic algebra.
I think that you will be able to work in the Computing Security job sector no matter what your degree - CS or CIS. The CS is the more desireable and difficult degree but the Programming and Math emphasis often buries students. It is very important for you to have a 3.0-3.5GPA minimum when you graduate. Many companies look at the GPA on newbie employee applications.
So if you like the Programming and Math I think CS is great but if you see yourself struggling then get out before you wreck your GPA and get into CIS. The question comes up if Programming is required for IT work and the answer is no. Yes it is helpful but not essential. In my counterparts who work in Computing Security I am one of the few people who does any Programming.
Here is a very common list of CIS graduate jobs that are non-Programming. Computer Technician, Service Center Coordinator, Help Desk Staff, Storage Administrator, Network Administrator, Systems Administrator, Systems Engineer, Enterprise Administrator, Active Directory Administrator, Exchange and Messaging Administrator, Backup Administrator, Disaster Recovery Specialist, Database Administrator, Computing Security Specialist, Corporate IT Acquisition Specialist and Data Center Administrator, just to name a few.
In a small business the list above might be one or two people doing all these jobs. In a large Enterprise environment this could be hundreds of people.
Most employers will accept IT technical degrees equally. As another answerer said and CS and CIS graduate would get pretty equal acceptance. The only exception to this is degrees from Technical Schools like ITT Tech, Devry, University of Phoenix and other similar schools. These often do not have universal acceptance by employers. A simple search under the school name like "ITT Tech Lawsuits" or "Devry scam" will reveal if the school you are looking at has students suing them or government agencies investigating them for fraud.
Best wishes!
Generally speaking, Computer Science (CS) will have more Math and Programming classes than a CIS degree. If you have discovered that to be the opposite in your current 2 year college that is indeed possible. You see both 2 and 4 year colleges have a lot of latitude in what they call majors and what classes are required in those majors. In my CIS program I had about 4 programming classes and no math beyond basic algebra.
I think that you will be able to work in the Computing Security job sector no matter what your degree - CS or CIS. The CS is the more desireable and difficult degree but the Programming and Math emphasis often buries students. It is very important for you to have a 3.0-3.5GPA minimum when you graduate. Many companies look at the GPA on newbie employee applications.
So if you like the Programming and Math I think CS is great but if you see yourself struggling then get out before you wreck your GPA and get into CIS. The question comes up if Programming is required for IT work and the answer is no. Yes it is helpful but not essential. In my counterparts who work in Computing Security I am one of the few people who does any Programming.
Here is a very common list of CIS graduate jobs that are non-Programming. Computer Technician, Service Center Coordinator, Help Desk Staff, Storage Administrator, Network Administrator, Systems Administrator, Systems Engineer, Enterprise Administrator, Active Directory Administrator, Exchange and Messaging Administrator, Backup Administrator, Disaster Recovery Specialist, Database Administrator, Computing Security Specialist, Corporate IT Acquisition Specialist and Data Center Administrator, just to name a few.
In a small business the list above might be one or two people doing all these jobs. In a large Enterprise environment this could be hundreds of people.
Most employers will accept IT technical degrees equally. As another answerer said and CS and CIS graduate would get pretty equal acceptance. The only exception to this is degrees from Technical Schools like ITT Tech, Devry, University of Phoenix and other similar schools. These often do not have universal acceptance by employers. A simple search under the school name like "ITT Tech Lawsuits" or "Devry scam" will reveal if the school you are looking at has students suing them or government agencies investigating them for fraud.
Best wishes!
Does IQ hint at political affiliation? Are you game to take a brief test where a pattern may be evident?
Q. 1. Which of the following figures differs most from the others?
a. 5.21
b. 5.27
c. 9.33
2. Which of the following appears more distinct and unrelated to the others?
a. 9.175
b. 9.162
c. 16.33
3. Which is the least related and lowest numerical value overall?
a. 63.3
b. 62.8
c. 58.7
4. Can you spot a figure nearly double the other two?
a. 15.5
b. 17.7
c. 32.4
5. Select the most dissimilar positive integer from the other two.
a. 1795
b. 1883
c. 3417
If you answered C. for each of the above, youâre approved to sit in front of a computer without supervision and may do so without restrictions on sharp objects nearby. Not exactly a hard test, was it?
Now the political implications. In every question, the values represent employment data from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports. As some may have recognized, each figure next to (a.) lists employment data for William Jefferson Clinton. Each (b.) answer provides employment data under George W. Bush. And lastly, (c.) answers show data for Barack Hussein Obamaâs 37 months in office, thus far.
In explanation of what the figures represent, question 1 lists U3 unemployment data recorded for 96 months of Clintonâs and Bushâs two terms as President, and 37 months of Obama's remarkable 80% increase in workforce futility over his predecessors. While itâs accurate to note that Obamaâs 9.33% U3 average is the highest on record since U3 was introduced in 1994, itâs occasionally measured against Presidents before Clinton whose unemployment figures would be more comparable to current U5 counts. For anyone interested in complete U3 figures, theyâre available from the BLS on Series Reports LNS14000000 and LNU04000000.
Question 2 offered the alternative U6 REAL Unemployment value first figured in 1994, which sought to keep a separate record while partially obscuring certain unemployed worker categories intentionally excluded from media released U3 data beginning in Clintonâs second year. Without considering statistics which offer more real, inclusive counts, itâs simply not possible to make credible comparisons of the current media released figures to Presidents preceding Clinton. Note here that Obamaâs 16.33% figure again shot up 79% above U6 figures turned in by his predecessors. And with this REAL unemployment calculation, Bushâs 9.162% was lower over eight years than Clintonâs. U6 data was. Monthly figures are available on Series Report LNU03327709.
Question 3 might represent the most important statistic for anyone trying to understand the overall employment picture, because current workforce numbers are compared with rolling census data. It presents a participation rate with whoâs employed calculated as the âEmployment Population Ratioâ on BLS SR LNU02300000. This critical ratio shows an historic drop under Obama, whose workforce figures shrank further in January to 57.8%. The 58.7% figure in the question was his average, which seems to have disappeared in the rearview mirror after coming in below that for 13 of the past 15 months. Bushâs final 2008 data showed a 62.2% annual rate, and the 3-4% drop Obama has overseen is simply unprecedented since the participation rate became a BLS statistic post WWII.
Question 4 offers a weekly average figure for the lengths of time BLS counted individuals have remained unemployed. Once again, Obamaâs average of 32.4 weeks is far higher than any prior President since this dataâs been kept, and thatâs kind compared to Januaryâs figure. Over six of the past seven months, the average has remained above 40 weeks in duration, with the latest figure at 40.1. This dataâs available on SR LNS13008275.
Question 5 lists data media typically ignores, while not being exactly a challenge to answer. It offers a combined figure for Not In Labor Force workers from two distinct BLS counts. The larger of the two categories represents individuals who âSearched for workâ, âWant a jobâ, and are Available to work nowâ, from SR LNU05026642. The second group is categorized as an NiLF subset under âDiscouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available)â but theyâre counted for a limited time on SR LNU05026645. The posted figures represent thousands, so Obama is averaging almost three-and-a-half million Americanâs dropped from deceptive media released U3 counts, and significant portions of that group have been rolled off of U6, as well. Each and every month, nearly a quarter of a million disenfranchised, discouraged workers are removed from even these marginally attached BLS counts.
So, during 37 months in Office, this President has managed just seven months where growth has exceeded individuals purged from the counts. Heâs managed positive growth numbers for fewer than half of his months in Office, and during eight modest months of growth, the numbers failed to reach the 160,000-175,000 new jobs economists recognize must be added to accommodate new workers entering the workforce.
If one considers the 3.3 million legal immigrants whoâve been issued H1B visas with an employersâ promise of work to gain such a visa, the 3 million jobs added since the depths of Oâs job losses in mid-2010 are far from encouraging. More than 13 million young adults have completed college degrees and various credentials over the past 3 years expecting employment opportunities and an independent adult life, but thereâs nowhere near enough job growth evident to include them. The inescapable reality is that Americans arenât finding work in any appreciable numbers. Our workforce is still nearly two million workers down since the day Obama took Office and more than three million since the day he was elected.
Perhaps the final political IQ question should be; âAre you willing to ignore historic failure and futility with a miserable economy to reelect Obama for a second term?â
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA&feature=player_embedded
a. 5.21
b. 5.27
c. 9.33
2. Which of the following appears more distinct and unrelated to the others?
a. 9.175
b. 9.162
c. 16.33
3. Which is the least related and lowest numerical value overall?
a. 63.3
b. 62.8
c. 58.7
4. Can you spot a figure nearly double the other two?
a. 15.5
b. 17.7
c. 32.4
5. Select the most dissimilar positive integer from the other two.
a. 1795
b. 1883
c. 3417
If you answered C. for each of the above, youâre approved to sit in front of a computer without supervision and may do so without restrictions on sharp objects nearby. Not exactly a hard test, was it?
Now the political implications. In every question, the values represent employment data from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports. As some may have recognized, each figure next to (a.) lists employment data for William Jefferson Clinton. Each (b.) answer provides employment data under George W. Bush. And lastly, (c.) answers show data for Barack Hussein Obamaâs 37 months in office, thus far.
In explanation of what the figures represent, question 1 lists U3 unemployment data recorded for 96 months of Clintonâs and Bushâs two terms as President, and 37 months of Obama's remarkable 80% increase in workforce futility over his predecessors. While itâs accurate to note that Obamaâs 9.33% U3 average is the highest on record since U3 was introduced in 1994, itâs occasionally measured against Presidents before Clinton whose unemployment figures would be more comparable to current U5 counts. For anyone interested in complete U3 figures, theyâre available from the BLS on Series Reports LNS14000000 and LNU04000000.
Question 2 offered the alternative U6 REAL Unemployment value first figured in 1994, which sought to keep a separate record while partially obscuring certain unemployed worker categories intentionally excluded from media released U3 data beginning in Clintonâs second year. Without considering statistics which offer more real, inclusive counts, itâs simply not possible to make credible comparisons of the current media released figures to Presidents preceding Clinton. Note here that Obamaâs 16.33% figure again shot up 79% above U6 figures turned in by his predecessors. And with this REAL unemployment calculation, Bushâs 9.162% was lower over eight years than Clintonâs. U6 data was. Monthly figures are available on Series Report LNU03327709.
Question 3 might represent the most important statistic for anyone trying to understand the overall employment picture, because current workforce numbers are compared with rolling census data. It presents a participation rate with whoâs employed calculated as the âEmployment Population Ratioâ on BLS SR LNU02300000. This critical ratio shows an historic drop under Obama, whose workforce figures shrank further in January to 57.8%. The 58.7% figure in the question was his average, which seems to have disappeared in the rearview mirror after coming in below that for 13 of the past 15 months. Bushâs final 2008 data showed a 62.2% annual rate, and the 3-4% drop Obama has overseen is simply unprecedented since the participation rate became a BLS statistic post WWII.
Question 4 offers a weekly average figure for the lengths of time BLS counted individuals have remained unemployed. Once again, Obamaâs average of 32.4 weeks is far higher than any prior President since this dataâs been kept, and thatâs kind compared to Januaryâs figure. Over six of the past seven months, the average has remained above 40 weeks in duration, with the latest figure at 40.1. This dataâs available on SR LNS13008275.
Question 5 lists data media typically ignores, while not being exactly a challenge to answer. It offers a combined figure for Not In Labor Force workers from two distinct BLS counts. The larger of the two categories represents individuals who âSearched for workâ, âWant a jobâ, and are Available to work nowâ, from SR LNU05026642. The second group is categorized as an NiLF subset under âDiscouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available)â but theyâre counted for a limited time on SR LNU05026645. The posted figures represent thousands, so Obama is averaging almost three-and-a-half million Americanâs dropped from deceptive media released U3 counts, and significant portions of that group have been rolled off of U6, as well. Each and every month, nearly a quarter of a million disenfranchised, discouraged workers are removed from even these marginally attached BLS counts.
So, during 37 months in Office, this President has managed just seven months where growth has exceeded individuals purged from the counts. Heâs managed positive growth numbers for fewer than half of his months in Office, and during eight modest months of growth, the numbers failed to reach the 160,000-175,000 new jobs economists recognize must be added to accommodate new workers entering the workforce.
If one considers the 3.3 million legal immigrants whoâve been issued H1B visas with an employersâ promise of work to gain such a visa, the 3 million jobs added since the depths of Oâs job losses in mid-2010 are far from encouraging. More than 13 million young adults have completed college degrees and various credentials over the past 3 years expecting employment opportunities and an independent adult life, but thereâs nowhere near enough job growth evident to include them. The inescapable reality is that Americans arenât finding work in any appreciable numbers. Our workforce is still nearly two million workers down since the day Obama took Office and more than three million since the day he was elected.
Perhaps the final political IQ question should be; âAre you willing to ignore historic failure and futility with a miserable economy to reelect Obama for a second term?â
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulu3SCAmeBA&feature=player_embedded
A. Those are stunning numbers and impressive support for the cost inflicted on this country by liberal leadership. Obama's performance has been responsible for unprecedented job losses and an economy reminiscent of the depression 80 years ago. Yes, occasional isolated statistics might imply there's been a turn, but the overall picture and tens of millions of lives impacted suggest a very different story. Many of us believe the media won't accomplish what it's desperately trying to do with publicizing rare numbers that might suggest measured improvement for a small swath of displaced American workers.
While the suggestion from MTR that a different distribution of work hours could return more Americans to work has merit, the issue you touched on with the H1B visas is far more telling and compelling for how our citizens could be restored and reemployed in the millions. It's obvious that issuing more H1B visas in number than jobs added back into the economy since mid 2010, and mandates that have included amnesty measures by executive order for millions of illegal Mexican Nationals indicates that our limited recovery is all about the insourcing this President has said he's determined to be known for. Jobs for legal immigrants and jobs for millions of new illegal aliens that have come since 2009, from ICE and CBP internal records, gives Obama unchallenged supremacy as the anti-American insourcing leader of an economy deeply resistant to hiring its own citizens.
Just as outsourcing was a term coined for American jobs turned over to foreigners on their own foreign soil, insourcing has been used for jobs given to foreigners on American soil. Workers have been insourced in dramatic numbers to displace citizens here from a wide array of jobs. My first recollection of insourcing appearing in public use came from the movie "Swing Vote", but the meaning has been widely accepted and used in public forums, including print and broadcast media, and Hollywood productions for years now. Anyone who believes insourcing is what we need for this economy is delusional and shows not only disdain but what could just as easily be regarded as hatred for Americans in search of gainful employment. Doesn't that describe the man in the Oval Office perfectly, at this point?
When anyone looks at the big picture overall, this President's failures become unavoidably evident. Since there haven't been more than four consecutive months with positive job growth under Obama in any BLS cumulative statistics, and only four of his now 13 quarters have shown growth, two of which came nowhere near the numbers necessary to accommodate new workers trying to enter the workforce, it would be hard to mistake why numbers must be manipulated to limit public outrage. The youtube video you linked was funny at the end for its clarity over how government released data strategically censors measures which could provide a more accurate portrayal of the economic futility we're facing.
This President has been a disgrace on many levels. The harm he's caused and economic collapse is far deeper and more pervasive than what appeared in the final six months of Bush's Presidency when accelerating debt from from Pelosi's Democratic budgets, a smoldering housing crisis, and media attacks took their inevitable toll. Recovery from these depths will take far longer than the year Obama claimed would be sufficient to turn the economy during his barrage of empty promises in 2008. And, by his own admission, he said on national TV that he would be undeserving of a second term in office if the problems persisted and remained evident for three years after he took Office.
The American public deserves better and deserves a leader who will support true, lifelong American citizens. We're in no mood for the continuation of foreign workers being the primary or, in this case, potentially sole beneficiaries of meager numbers of jobs added back into the economy. At least most of the country is willing to acknowledge Obamaâs desire to be remembered as the "insourcing President' as being fully and capably accomplished. He's made the impact he told Americans he intended from the day he first set out on the campaign trail. It's simply tough for many of us to feel thereâs reason for surprise, at this point, and only Obamabots, paid shills, and the massive foreign voting bloc he's depending on think his performance is acceptable leadership while the country and millions of lives remain in disarray.
While the suggestion from MTR that a different distribution of work hours could return more Americans to work has merit, the issue you touched on with the H1B visas is far more telling and compelling for how our citizens could be restored and reemployed in the millions. It's obvious that issuing more H1B visas in number than jobs added back into the economy since mid 2010, and mandates that have included amnesty measures by executive order for millions of illegal Mexican Nationals indicates that our limited recovery is all about the insourcing this President has said he's determined to be known for. Jobs for legal immigrants and jobs for millions of new illegal aliens that have come since 2009, from ICE and CBP internal records, gives Obama unchallenged supremacy as the anti-American insourcing leader of an economy deeply resistant to hiring its own citizens.
Just as outsourcing was a term coined for American jobs turned over to foreigners on their own foreign soil, insourcing has been used for jobs given to foreigners on American soil. Workers have been insourced in dramatic numbers to displace citizens here from a wide array of jobs. My first recollection of insourcing appearing in public use came from the movie "Swing Vote", but the meaning has been widely accepted and used in public forums, including print and broadcast media, and Hollywood productions for years now. Anyone who believes insourcing is what we need for this economy is delusional and shows not only disdain but what could just as easily be regarded as hatred for Americans in search of gainful employment. Doesn't that describe the man in the Oval Office perfectly, at this point?
When anyone looks at the big picture overall, this President's failures become unavoidably evident. Since there haven't been more than four consecutive months with positive job growth under Obama in any BLS cumulative statistics, and only four of his now 13 quarters have shown growth, two of which came nowhere near the numbers necessary to accommodate new workers trying to enter the workforce, it would be hard to mistake why numbers must be manipulated to limit public outrage. The youtube video you linked was funny at the end for its clarity over how government released data strategically censors measures which could provide a more accurate portrayal of the economic futility we're facing.
This President has been a disgrace on many levels. The harm he's caused and economic collapse is far deeper and more pervasive than what appeared in the final six months of Bush's Presidency when accelerating debt from from Pelosi's Democratic budgets, a smoldering housing crisis, and media attacks took their inevitable toll. Recovery from these depths will take far longer than the year Obama claimed would be sufficient to turn the economy during his barrage of empty promises in 2008. And, by his own admission, he said on national TV that he would be undeserving of a second term in office if the problems persisted and remained evident for three years after he took Office.
The American public deserves better and deserves a leader who will support true, lifelong American citizens. We're in no mood for the continuation of foreign workers being the primary or, in this case, potentially sole beneficiaries of meager numbers of jobs added back into the economy. At least most of the country is willing to acknowledge Obamaâs desire to be remembered as the "insourcing President' as being fully and capably accomplished. He's made the impact he told Americans he intended from the day he first set out on the campaign trail. It's simply tough for many of us to feel thereâs reason for surprise, at this point, and only Obamabots, paid shills, and the massive foreign voting bloc he's depending on think his performance is acceptable leadership while the country and millions of lives remain in disarray.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
