| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
btw, 7.2%? Bull. you need 200,000 to 250,000 new jobs a month to break even. That counts births deaths, retirement, young folk entering the workforce, but not the criminal trespassers. Every month for a couple of years, I hear "135,000 jobs created, unemployment drops to 7.8 ( whatever ) percent." It is bogus. the actual unemployment rate is going up every year. Look at the U6 numbers. How freaking stupid are some people, anyway? http://www.dol.gov/ 358,000 New unemployment claims. 148,000 New hires. How fraking stupid or dishonest is the media anyway? | ||
| Sifo |
btw, 7.2%? Bull. I just posted this on the joke thread. Seems to fit here too. COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America . ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 7.8%. COSTELLO: That many people are out of work? ABBOTT: No, that's 14.7% COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%. ABBOTT: 7.8% Unemployed. COSTELLO: Right 7.8% out of work. ABBOTT: No, that's 14.7%. COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 14.7% unemployed. ABBOTT: No, that's 7.8%. COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or 14.7%? ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work. COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed. ABBOTT: No, Congress said you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed. COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!! ABBOTT: No, you miss his point. COSTELLO: What point? ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair. COSTELLO: To whom? ABBOTT: The unemployed. COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work. ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed. COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment rolls that would count as less unemployment? ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely! COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work? ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how they get it to 7.8%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. Our govt. doesn't want you to read about 14.7% unemployment. COSTELLO: That would be tough on those running for re-election. ABBOTT: Absolutely! COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number? ABBOTT: Two ways is correct. COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job? ABBOTT: Correct. COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job? ABBOTT: Bingo. COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work. ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an Economist. COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said! ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like Congress | ||
| Garryb |
Gimme a break, it looks like the war in Iraq cost 2.2 trillion and was started with a preemptive strike for the most incompetent reasons possible and you want to make a big deal on those three?: http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2013/03/warcos ts And you think | ||
| Garryb |
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-job s-unemployment-report-20131021,0,328906.story http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/1022/Unempl oyment-rate-dips-to-7.2-percent-but-US-job-creatio n-weakens | ||
| Sifo |
Garry... You alright there? | ||
| Garryb |
Mmm... Maybe I was mistaken and you guys were right about everything all the time. Oh well, something to think about | ||
| Reepicheep |
Anyone who thinks the current economy is thriving isn't working in any industry I am familiar with. Everyone I know is doing twice as much with half the people and is working more hours than ever and under more stress than they ever dreamed of. And now we have to do "a little bit more" and pay for health care for those that didn't work as hard and didn't give up as much. I don't want to buy your health insurance because I don't want to tell you how to live your life and make you my slave. But if I don't tell you how to run your life, I will NEVER make enough to be able to pay for all your bad decisions. I don't waste my money on stuff for me and my family, and I hate that I am forced by law to let others waste it... and so much of medical expenses are just waste when bad decisions are involved. | ||
| Fb1 |
Anyone who thinks the current economy is thriving isn't working in any industry I am familiar with. Everyone I know is doing twice as much with half the people and is working more hours than ever and under more stress than they ever dreamed of. A local bartender and I talk politics when we can. He's a young pup, a fine, polite young man, and...an ardent 0bama supporter. I asked him, just prior to last November's fake election, if I had perhaps changed his mind about who he should support for President. "Nope, 0bama's still my horse," he said with a smile. I commented, again, on 0bama's dismal performance in regards to the economy, and asked him how he reconciled that. "He just needs more time." Well, amigo, he's had ANOTHER year, since I first published the following graphics on this thread, to work his divine magic on the economy. Maybe he just needs MORE time?    | ||
| Sifo |
I have to say that I welcome the kind of back and forth that I just had with Garryb, but find it kind of sad, that when asked direct questions, they are ignored. Requests for some sort of evidence of what he's talking about, go unanswered. And it eventually degraded to some incoherent post about the Iraq war. It's a shame that so many worked to stop the efforts of Hitler. He just needed more time too. | ||
| Aesquire |
Garryb, I'm not praising the actions of the Prev. Prez. except that he did free 50 million people from tyranny. Then that "nation building" "you broke it your bought it" "culturally sensitive" crap kicked in and we occupied Iraq like metrosexual blooming idiots thinking a nice flower shop is what Dodge City needs right after a range war. I could rant for days on that. But we are left with the crap Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan, Carter........ left us. Some of that legacy was a shining example of allies triumphant over the most evil conquerors in the history of the planet. Some was real stupid stuff. I pick on Carter for giving us an insane Iranian leadership. He was operating on a set of flawed assumptions about the realpolitik and the legacy of European Colonialism. ( we suck as a people and a nation at European style colonialism, btw. It's not our temperament, and I don't want it to be. We don't WANT to be The Empire. ) So here we are in the 21st century, and I want to hear your opinion on the foreign policy of the existing idiot in office, not some bitch about the guy who retired 5 years ago. George isn't going to convince Putin to not conquer Europe, or get the Iranians to give up their plans for Armageddon. It's no longer his job. He's outa here, and he's not going to get the Chinese to quit stealing intellectual property, or become enlightened neighbors, either. I don't think Obama is doing a very good job on any of the above foreign policy issues. What do YOU think?? | ||
| Garryb |
Hey, its a tough job and he can't micromanage everything. The question is what administration has done better. Here's what's bugging me. If I were a high level covert Al Qaeda operations team charged with creating dysfunction in the US, undermining the US president and destroying confidence in the US government and trying to help create a rebellion that destroys their economy and culture, how would I go about it? | ||
| Aesquire |
The question is what administration has done better Bull. If that's the question, I'd have asked that question. For example, Carter lost Iran to "extremism", Obama may have lost 3 countries and counting ( Libya, Egypt, Syria ) etc. Washington's isolationism was appropriate for his time, but Jefferson's proactive stance on Libya was right for his..... etc. But I'm not comparing.... I'm asking what YOU, with your background, think of current policy, and perhaps tell us what you think it is. Hey, its a tough job and he can't micromanage everything.   As to YOUR question, if you rephrase that to "undermine the US Presidency" I'd say ( with maximum snark ) Elect Obama. Slightly less nasty answer ( although the above answer sure seems true to me ) would be to get operatives into position to push political correctness, make speaking the truth about Islam hate speech, infiltrate the FBI, the military, and in general offer real bad advise on how to interact with millions of people based on the preconceptions imparted by radical Islamist evil MF'rs. At least that's what looks like is happening today with the Muslim Brotherhood in the US, the policies of this administration, and the policies it seems to have re: the middle east. Push us into a confrontation with Syria, Iran, Russia & China over Obama's "red line", sink a few oil tankers and double the price of oil, maybe even a repeat 1973 embargo on the US for "Islamic oil" from OPEC, with Putin laughing his butt off. In other words, I'd do what I perceive the President to be doing. I do appreciate that you can be shown facts and get them instead of having a tantrum as your world view is challenged. As soon as you realize that Obama is a sociopathic liar, no matter if for personal evil gain, or ideological conviction, or at least does a darn good imitation of one, you will be considerably more free. ( you won't be happy, but free of the lies ) I'm not telling you that Politician X of the R party is a divine good guy either, don't misunderstand. You want to do a 3 day rant on John McCain, or even Ted Cruz, go ahead, just don't lie. I'm pretty much of the opinion that it's a darn rare politician that isn't wrong in the head. It has been said, there are 2 kinds of people in the world. Those that want to run other people's lives, and those who don't. You KNOW that the most evil ones are those that do it "for your own good" and "for the Children"..... example. "Motorcycles cause too much death and injury, they strain the Health Care System, and we need to ban these assault vehicles from our streets, For The Children!" | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-polit ics/va-democrats-will-remove-racy-posters-used-to- drive-turnout-on-college-campuses/2013/10/22/84cb3 710-3b48-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_print.html Bearing in mind that I like and approve of sodomy, especially oral sex ( and yes, kiddies, no matter what Bill Clinton & his worshipers told you, Oral sex is sex ) I find Terry McAuliffe to be an evil lying sack of....... I mean I disagree with his ethics. He's a criminal. No seriously, what do they call a forger and thief? That's Terry. BTW While I haven't read Virginia's "Crime against Nature" laws, I probably think they are stupid, provincial, and none of the State's Damn business. I feel the same about Texas's dildo laws, and most "decency" laws across America. Keep Government out of the Bedroom. ( but public lewdness, can be a crime. Don't scare the Horses ) Remember the Fortune cookie "game" where you end each fortune with "In bed"?? Apply that to laws. Seriously. You think some new ( or old ) law will make life better if we only ban.... "there should be a law" is almost always WRONG. So when you hear of a new law, consider some jerk is going to apply it to YOU, "in bed". | ||
| Reepicheep |
Easy Garry, just undermine the rule of law everywhere you can. Start with the US constitution, which was built specifically to prevent the kind of system you want to impose. First you undermine the rule of law to do "good things", because that's the only way people will go there. Maybe do something like forced confiscation of wealth for redistribution "for the children". Keep doing that, and absolute constitutional truth has no meaning, and you have pretty much opened the door for whatever kind of tyranny you want to impose, including radical Muslim rule. | ||
| Fb1 |
I find Terry McAuliffe to be an evil lying sack of....... I mean I disagree with his ethics. He's a criminal. No seriously, what do they call a forger and thief? That's Terry. I posted about Terry on the 2A thread yesterday afternoon. He's now in bed, so to speak, with the New York Nanny, and Shrillary has now formally endorsed him, too (that's quite the one-two punch, politically speaking). Reep is correct: Undermine the rule of law everywhere you can. These folks are masters at it. Fundamental transformation, coming soon to a country near you... | ||
| Fb1 |
Wow, now I read that our impeached former president is lending his considerable talents to Terry, as well:
This is one of the comments on the thread:
Virginia must be a VERY important piece of the fundamental transformation puzzle... | ||
| Patches |
http://www.infowars.com/fox-host-all-hell-could-br eak-loose-on-november-1st/ | ||
| Sifo |
This isn't good news... Saudi Arabia severs diplomatic ties with US over response to conflict in Syria Not that we would blame pResident POS. Saudi Arabia does, but we shouldn't. | ||
| Aesquire |
Garryb about my question?.............. | ||
| Garryb |
I'm afraid I'm going to have to drop out again. I still hung up on the concept of trying to subvert this country vs trying to improve it. I think patriots pitch in to try a make the country better, with ideas and actions. I'm not sure how to deal those who are hung up on subverting it. It gets me too emotionally involved. | ||
| Aesquire |
I think O is not a patriot. He lied to you. I support & have taken an oath to defend the constitution Who's the subverter? | ||
| Garryb |
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subvert I see a lot of it | ||
| Macbuell |
If I were a high level covert Al Qaeda operations team charged with creating dysfunction in the US, undermining the US president and destroying confidence in the US government and trying to help create a rebellion that destroys their economy and culture, how would I go about it? Vote for Obama? | ||
| Garryb |
I think your statement about Obama is wrong. We just saw 8 years of a war on terror that cost 2.2 trillion and couldn't even catch Osama. There was virtually no focus on spending money here instead of in Iraq. I think Obama is trying to address the issues in this country that need addressing. I see a whole lot of money and energy being spent attempting to subvert his efforts. | ||
| Fb1 |
I still hung up on the concept of trying to subvert this country vs trying to improve it. Me, too. Our president took an oath to defend and preserve the Constitution. He lied (and continues to do so). Some would call that subversion. Patriots? Can only speak for myself: I support the Constitution 100%, and will defend it with my life, if need be. Back in the old days (like, when Reagan was President), we called this "patriotism." These days, the folks trying to subvert this nation have taken to calling patriotism "subversion" (or worse). Do you celebrate Independence Day? If so, why? | ||
| Garryb |
Maybe I had it wrong before, what if its Russian or Chinese covert agents? | ||
| Garryb |
I'm missing something, maybe we need to compare presidential lies to see how big an issue it really is? | ||
| Garryb |
I'm confused, FB1, How are you supporting this elected Government and this elected president? | ||
| Fb1 |
I'm confused, FB1 Finally, something we agree on.  | ||
| Garryb |
The Supreme court ruled that Obama care was constitutional yet I see big bucks and energy being spent trying to make sure it doesn't succeed. I also think if its constitutional then non-compliance must be unconstitutional? |
