Good news for democrats.

[daveman]

And the beat goes on. Here, katz uses a source in the coal industry, Murray Energy, to provide the con point he wants. Never, ever use an impartial source, katz. That would be too rational.

So, the companies in the OP DIDN'T lay off any workers?

Your response will be amusing.

Actually, what is amusing is your question. Do you have a point, or just another really stupid statement?

Oh, of course I have a point: Your whining about the sources but ignoring the events described therein.

That doesn't mean the events didn't happen, despite your wishes.

If you fear opposing viewpoints, perhaps USMB isn't the place for you. Might I suggest one of the lefty echo chambers? They enforce rigorous groupthink, so you won't be exposed to dangerous scary conservative ideas.

 

[Rshermr]

So, the companies in the OP DIDN'T lay off any workers?

Your response will be amusing.

Actually, what is amusing is your question. Do you have a point, or just another really stupid statement?

Oh, of course I have a point: Your whining about the sources but ignoring the events described therein.

That doesn't mean the events didn't happen, despite your wishes.

If you fear opposing viewpoints, perhaps USMB isn't the place for you. Might I suggest one of the lefty echo chambers? They enforce rigorous groupthink, so you won't be exposed to dangerous scary conservative ideas.

Daveman, the con tool, made several points:

Oh, of course I have a point: Your whining about the sources but ignoring the events described therein.

Not whining, daveman, me boy. Just hate to waste my time having to vet dogma. It is almost always wrong. Particularly when you use the bat shit crazy web sites you use. It is a matter of integity. I know you have non. But look it up.

That doesn't mean the events didn't happen, despite your wishes.

Absolutely. But impartial sources give you info that usually did happen. Bat shit crazy con web sites give you information that is usually wrong. Again, I prefer a lot of truth. Because, daveman, if you have to check out everything they say, it takes a lot of time, and I see no reason to provide that time to check bad sources. Or said another way, I dislike lies.

If you fear opposing viewpoints, perhaps USMB isn't the place for you. Might I suggest one of the lefty echo chambers? They enforce rigorous groupthink, so you won't be exposed to dangerous scary conservative ideas.

Now there is an interesting statement. From my saying that I like impartial statements, you come to this. So, daveman, if I understand you, I should like drivel from the right wing crazy web sites you provide, and therefor be exposed to other thoughts.
But my poor intelligence challenged con, I do not need to be provided agenda, or partial information that I have to vet carefully, to be presented with opposing thoughts. You see, daveman, if what you are saying is correct, then you should be able to prove it useing IMPARTIAL sources. Is that a new concept to you???

 

[daveman]

Actually, what is amusing is your question. Do you have a point, or just another really stupid statement?

Oh, of course I have a point: Your whining about the sources but ignoring the events described therein.

That doesn't mean the events didn't happen, despite your wishes.

If you fear opposing viewpoints, perhaps USMB isn't the place for you. Might I suggest one of the lefty echo chambers? They enforce rigorous groupthink, so you won't be exposed to dangerous scary conservative ideas.

Daveman, the con tool, made several points:


Not whining, daveman, me boy. Just hate to waste my time having to vet dogma. It is almost always wrong. Particularly when you use the bat shit crazy web sites you use. It is a matter of integity. I know you have non. But look it up.

That doesn't mean the events didn't happen, despite your wishes.

Absolutely. But impartial sources give you info that usually did happen. Bat shit crazy con web sites give you information that is usually wrong. Again, I prefer a lot of truth. Because, daveman, if you have to check out everything they say, it takes a lot of time, and I see no reason to provide that time to check bad sources. Or said another way, I dislike lies.

If you fear opposing viewpoints, perhaps USMB isn't the place for you. Might I suggest one of the lefty echo chambers? They enforce rigorous groupthink, so you won't be exposed to dangerous scary conservative ideas.

Now there is an interesting statement. From my saying that I like impartial statements, you come to this. So, daveman, if I understand you, I should like drivel from the right wing crazy web sites you provide, and therefor be exposed to other thoughts.
But my poor intelligence challenged con, I do not need to be provided agenda, or partial information that I have to vet carefully, to be presented with opposing thoughts. You see, daveman, if what you are saying is correct, then you should be able to prove it useing IMPARTIAL sources. Is that a new concept to you???

Your verbal diarrhea and unmerited arrogance notwithstanding, you still have failed to address the fact of the layoffs.

Even if the sites you fear are totally spinning the story, the fact remains the layoffs occurred...unless you claim the sources simply made them up.

Are you claiming the sources made up the layoffs?

Why are you afraid to address them?

And what sites would you accept as credible and impartial?

 

[Rshermr]

Oh, of course I have a point: Your whining about the sources but ignoring the events described therein.

That doesn't mean the events didn't happen, despite your wishes.

If you fear opposing viewpoints, perhaps USMB isn't the place for you. Might I suggest one of the lefty echo chambers? They enforce rigorous groupthink, so you won't be exposed to dangerous scary conservative ideas.

Daveman, the con tool, made several points:


Not whining, daveman, me boy. Just hate to waste my time having to vet dogma. It is almost always wrong. Particularly when you use the bat shit crazy web sites you use. It is a matter of integity. I know you have non. But look it up.





Absolutely. But impartial sources give you info that usually did happen. Bat shit crazy con web sites give you information that is usually wrong. Again, I prefer a lot of truth. Because, daveman, if you have to check out everything they say, it takes a lot of time, and I see no reason to provide that time to check bad sources. Or said another way, I dislike lies.

If you fear opposing viewpoints, perhaps USMB isn't the place for you. Might I suggest one of the lefty echo chambers? They enforce rigorous groupthink, so you won't be exposed to dangerous scary conservative ideas.

Now there is an interesting statement. From my saying that I like impartial statements, you come to this. So, daveman, if I understand you, I should like drivel from the right wing crazy web sites you provide, and therefor be exposed to other thoughts.
But my poor intelligence challenged con, I do not need to be provided agenda, or partial information that I have to vet carefully, to be presented with opposing thoughts. You see, daveman, if what you are saying is correct, then you should be able to prove it useing IMPARTIAL sources. Is that a new concept to you???

Your verbal diarrhea and unmerited arrogance notwithstanding, you still have failed to address the fact of the layoffs.

Even if the sites you fear are totally spinning the story, the fact remains the layoffs occurred...unless you claim the sources simply made them up.

Are you claiming the sources made up the layoffs?

Why are you afraid to address them?

And what sites would you accept as credible and impartial?

Jesus, daveman. You are a simple minded toad.

Your verbal diarrhea and unmerited arrogance notwithstanding, you still have failed to address the fact of the layoffs.

No need to. You are quoting Murray Energy sources.

Even if the sites you fear are totally spinning the story, the fact remains the layoffs occurred...unless you claim the sources simply made them up.

You cons frequentl accuse people of fear. Stupid accusation. If you see something to fear here, you must be a very neurotic person.

Are you claiming the sources made up the layoffs?

No. I don't know and don't care if the source is correct about the layoffs. Because it is Murray Energy, the company that required it's employees to attend a Romney ralley on their dime. And pushed them hard to support romney. So, Murray is believed by rational people to be less than ethical. And it would certainly be of no surprise that they cut jobs. But if you are saying that Murray Energy cut jobs because Obama was reelected, then I would suggest that there is absolutely no reason to believe that claim. And, if that claim were true, it would have zero real impact on unemployment. they are way too small.

Why are you afraid to address them?

there you go again with that fear theme. Again, you may want to check out that whole issue of personal neurosis. You seem to be rather over interested in fear.

And what sites would you accept as credible and impartial?

Not my job to educate you, daveman. If you are really that ignorant, there is no hope. And of course, you have to have an open mind to be educated anyway. Leaves you out.

 

[daveman]

Daveman, the con tool, made several points:


Not whining, daveman, me boy. Just hate to waste my time having to vet dogma. It is almost always wrong. Particularly when you use the bat shit crazy web sites you use. It is a matter of integity. I know you have non. But look it up.





Absolutely. But impartial sources give you info that usually did happen. Bat shit crazy con web sites give you information that is usually wrong. Again, I prefer a lot of truth. Because, daveman, if you have to check out everything they say, it takes a lot of time, and I see no reason to provide that time to check bad sources. Or said another way, I dislike lies.



Now there is an interesting statement. From my saying that I like impartial statements, you come to this. So, daveman, if I understand you, I should like drivel from the right wing crazy web sites you provide, and therefor be exposed to other thoughts.
But my poor intelligence challenged con, I do not need to be provided agenda, or partial information that I have to vet carefully, to be presented with opposing thoughts. You see, daveman, if what you are saying is correct, then you should be able to prove it useing IMPARTIAL sources. Is that a new concept to you???

Your verbal diarrhea and unmerited arrogance notwithstanding, you still have failed to address the fact of the layoffs.

Even if the sites you fear are totally spinning the story, the fact remains the layoffs occurred...unless you claim the sources simply made them up.

Are you claiming the sources made up the layoffs?

Why are you afraid to address them?

And what sites would you accept as credible and impartial?

Jesus, daveman. You are a simple minded toad.

No need to. You are quoting Murray Energy sources.


You cons frequentl accuse people of fear. Stupid accusation. If you see something to fear here, you must be a very neurotic person.


No. I don't know and don't care if the source is correct about the layoffs. Because it is Murray Energy, the company that required it's employees to attend a Romney ralley on their dime. And pushed them hard to support romney. So, Murray is believed by rational people to be less than ethical. And it would certainly be of no surprise that they cut jobs. But if you are saying that Murray Energy cut jobs because Obama was reelected, then I would suggest that there is absolutely no reason to believe that claim. And, if that claim were true, it would have zero real impact on unemployment. they are way too small.

Why are you afraid to address them?

there you go again with that fear theme. Again, you may want to check out that whole issue of personal neurosis. You seem to be rather over interested in fear.

And what sites would you accept as credible and impartial?

Not my job to educate you, daveman. If you are really that ignorant, there is no hope. And of course, you have to have an open mind to be educated anyway. Leaves you out.

So, in summary, you petulantly dismiss the subject of the articles because you don't like the website they're hosted on.

Not at all surprising. Leftists operate solely on emotion.

Meanwhile, Obama is fucking up the economy even more...and you cheer him on.

Bootlicker.

 

[Rshermr]

So, in summary, you petulantly dismiss the subject of the articles because you don't like the website they're hosted on.

Yes. There you have it. And I dismiss articles in sites I believe to be impartial, if the author of that article is a right wing OR left wing nut case. I dismiss the subject unless you can provide an impartial site and author that provides evidence. You know, daveman ...Oh, never mind, you really don't understand, do you, daveman. What I was going to say is that the site is not necessarily the determining factor. Though some are. I would assume you would not be persuaded by a piece by moveon.org. And, daveman, here is the thing. I would never, under any circumstance, use such a source. Because it is unreliable, and it may say untrue things, trying to push an agenda. But you would use bat shit crazy con sites with no problem. No concern to you. Because they say what you want to hear. Which is why I say you lack integrity.

Not at all surprising. Leftists operate solely on emotion.

Your opinion, daveman. And you know how much I value your opinion.

Meanwhile, Obama is fucking up the economy even more...and you cheer him on.

No, not really. I cheer on ideas and programs I can validate as worthwhile to our economy. You know, the people of the country. Not just the very, very, very rich, who are the ones that control your thoughts. But of course you have no proof of Obama "fucking up the economy" as you so eloquently say. Again, only dogma. If you have proof, then I would debate it with you. If you are correct, then you are correct. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. But crap from bat shit crazy political sites is not proof.

Bootlicker.

No, not actually. Just like the truth. And the truth has factual information that validates it. And bat shit crazy web sites do not provide truth. They just provide dogma. Which makes you mad. And you like being mad, don't you daveman.

 

[daveman]

So, in summary, you petulantly dismiss the subject of the articles because you don't like the website they're hosted on.

Yes. There you have it. And I dismiss articles in sites I believe to be impartial, if the author of that article is a right wing OR left wing nut case. I dismiss the subject unless you can provide an impartial site and author that provides evidence. You kinow, daveman ...Oh, never mind, you really don't understand, do you, daveman. What I was going to say is that the site is not necessarily the determining factor. Though some are. I would assume you would not be persuaded by a piece by moveon.org. And, daveman, here is the thing. I would never, under any circumstance, use such a source. Because it is unreliable, and it may say untrue things, trying to push an agenda. But you would use bat shit crazy con sites with no problem. No concern to you. Because they say what you want to hear. Which is why I say you lack integrity.

Not at all surprising. Leftists operate solely on emotion.

Your opinion, daveman. And you know how much I value your opinion.

Meanwhile, Obama is fucking up the economy even more...and you cheer him on.

No, not really. I cheer on ideas and programs I can validate as worthwhile to our economy. You know, the people of the country. Not just the very, very, very rich, who are the ones that control your thoughts. But of course you have no proof of Obama "fucking up the economy" as you so eloquently say. Again, only dogma. If you have proof, then I would debate it with you. If you are correct, then you are correct. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. But crap from bat shit crazy political sites is not proof.

Bootlicker.

No, not actually. Just like the truth. And the truth has factual information that validates it. And bat shit crazy web sites do not provide truth. They just provide dogma. Which makes you mad. Which you like.

Where do you get your news? What sources are credible?

Your refusal to answer this question is telling. But you're too dumb to see it.

 

[Rshermr]

And daveman, the con tool, makes the following profound statements:

Where do you get your news? What sources are credible?

Your refusal to answer this question is telling. But you're too dumb to see it.

Really, daveman, telling, eh. What does it tell you? I relly have no problem telling anyone what I read. But then, I first want to see what you believe is so telling, in your tiny little mind, about not telling you. Because I believe, daveman, that you are lying again. There is nothing telling at all. Nothing mysterious. Nothing hidden. Just daveman being daveman. Which is a rather sad thing.

 

[daveman]

And daveman, the con tool, makes the following profound statements:

Where do you get your news? What sources are credible?

Your refusal to answer this question is telling. But you're too dumb to see it.

Really, daveman, telling, eh. What does it tell you? I relly have no problem telling anyone what I read. But then, I first want to see what you believe is so telling, in your tiny little mind, about not telling you. Because I believe, daveman, that you are lying again. There is nothing telling at all. Nothing mysterious. Nothing hidden. Just daveman being daveman. Which is a rather sad thing.

Did you know your opinions are worthless? True story!

Your refusal is telling because you more than likely rely on leftist sources.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: FIND OUT WHERE OBAMA SUPPORTERS GET THEIR NEWS

Here’s the running tally of the various places that Obama supporters get their news:

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: 4
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: 1
NBC’s Brian Williams: 1
Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart: 4
Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert: 1
HBO’s Bill Maher: 2
CNN: 1
Not Fox News: 3
Anyone but CNN: 1
Politifact: 2
Alan Cooper?: 1
Fox News’ Bret Baier: 1​

I figure you for a Maher fan.

 

[Rshermr]

And Daveman, the con tool posts another profound set of drivel.

Did you know your opinions are worthless? True story!

Your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

Your refusal is telling because you more than likely rely on leftist sources.

Again, your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion. And, by the way, you would be wrong if you really believe your statement. Because, you see, I like the truth and get it from rational sources.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: FIND OUT WHERE OBAMA SUPPORTERS GET THEIR NEWS

You really are stupid, aren't you, daveman. You posted a list of 10 sources with 22 hits. You could use some understanding of sampling theory and methodology. But then I suppose it was just meant to be funny. Daveman, me boy, it was childish, but not funny. If you are thinking about becoming a comedian, my advice would be to keep your day job.

 

[daveman]

And Daveman, the con tool posts another profound set of drivel.

Did you know your opinions are worthless? True story!

Your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.

Your refusal is telling because you more than likely rely on leftist sources.

Again, your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion. And, by the way, you would be wrong if you really believe your statement. Because, you see, I like the truth and get it from rational sources.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: FIND OUT WHERE OBAMA SUPPORTERS GET THEIR NEWS

You really are stupid, aren't you, daveman. You posted a list of 10 sources with 22 hits. You could use some understanding of sampling theory and methodology. But then I suppose it was just meant to be funny. Daveman, me boy, it was childish, but not funny. If you are thinking about becoming a comedian, my advice would be to keep your day job.

Yup. Maher. No doubt about it.

You get a tingle down your leg when he says dirty words, don't you?

 

[Rshermr]

So Daveman, lacking anything of value to say, blurts out:

Yup. Maher. No doubt about it.

You get a tingle down your leg when he says dirty words, don't you?

Jesus, daveman. Do you have some point. Do you consider anything of value. Do the synapses still work. Maher is a comedian, who I rarely see. But he is not a source for news. Though I suspect he may be a good deal better than your sources, based on the links you tend to leave.

And daveman, I am sure we are all getting a bit concerned for you if you believe that maher could cause a tingle down the leg of someone. Do you have a problem you would like to tell us about??

 

[The Rabbi]

Rshermr is a dunce of world-class dimensions. And probably a schizo as well.

Companies will lay off people because of higher costs of doing business and the lefties here will blame the companies rather than the gov't policies.

 

[daveman]

So Daveman, lacking anything of value to say, blurts out:

Yup. Maher. No doubt about it.

You get a tingle down your leg when he says dirty words, don't you?

Jesus, daveman. Do you have some point. Do you consider anything of value. Do the synapses still work. Maher is a comedian, who I rarely see. But he is not a source for news. Though I suspect he may be a good deal better than your sources, based on the links you tend to leave.

And daveman, I am sure we are all getting a bit concerned for you if you believe that maher could cause a tingle down the leg of someone. Do you have a problem you would like to tell us about??

Look, Skippy, if you're too big a coward to list your news sources, we have no recourse but to speculate.

 

[Rshermr]

Daveman, trying to avoid any subject of value to anyone, wants to pontificate about where I get news from. He blurts out:

Look, Skippy, if you're too big a coward to list your news sources, we have no recourse but to speculate.

He shows that he is delusional, believing that others will be interested and forced to speculate. Apparently thinks he knows others, the undefined "we" that he refers to, that also care. But, of course, Daveman does not really care. Just wants to try to set up a con talking point. Or, he is simply delusional.
CBS, NBC, ABC, and other channels. And new your times, LA Times, local newspapers, and CNN. Newspapers of other cities or towns I may pass through. USA Today, local news stations.

So, daveman, now you can waste more of everyone's time. Again .

 

[daveman]

Daveman, trying to avoid any subject of value to anyone, wants to pontificate about where I get news from. He blurts out:

Look, Skippy, if you're too big a coward to list your news sources, we have no recourse but to speculate.

He shows that he is delusional, believing that others will be interested and forced to speculate. Apparently thinks he knows others, the undefined "we" that he refers to, that also care. But, of course, Daveman does not really care. Just wants to try to set up a con talking point. Or, he is simply delusional.
CBS, NBC, ABC, and other channels. And new your times, LA Times, local newspapers, and CNN. Newspapers of other cities or towns I may pass through. USA Today, local news stations.

So, daveman, now you can waste more of everyone's time. Again .

Well, now we're getting somewhere!

You said you wanted links to reputable sources, I believe, about the coal mine layoffs.

Coal company to lay off 156 workers in Utah, Ill. - CBS News

Coal company to lay off 156 workers in Utah, Ill. - Business - Oil & energy | NBC News

ABC News is pretending it didn't happen: Search Results for coal mine layoffs murray - ABC News

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/b...a-critic-plans-layoffs-at-his-coal-mines.html

Coal executive explains layoffs with prayer lamenting Romney loss - latimes.com

Political blame game plays out after Ohio coal mine operation shuts down - CNN.com

USA Today is pretending it doesn't exist, either: USA TODAY


But it looks like most of your preferred sources are covering the Murray layoffs.

Your objections have been negated, so there's nothing to keep you from discussing the issue.

 

[Rshermr]

Daveman, trying to avoid any subject of value to anyone, wants to pontificate about where I get news from. He blurts out:

Look, Skippy, if you're too big a coward to list your news sources, we have no recourse but to speculate.

He shows that he is delusional, believing that others will be interested and forced to speculate. Apparently thinks he knows others, the undefined "we" that he refers to, that also care. But, of course, Daveman does not really care. Just wants to try to set up a con talking point. Or, he is simply delusional.
CBS, NBC, ABC, and other channels. And new your times, LA Times, local newspapers, and CNN. Newspapers of other cities or towns I may pass through. USA Today, local news stations.

So, daveman, now you can waste more of everyone's time. Again .

Well, now we're getting somewhere!

You said you wanted links to reputable sources, I believe, about the coal mine layoffs.

Coal company to lay off 156 workers in Utah, Ill. - CBS News

Coal company to lay off 156 workers in Utah, Ill. - Business - Oil & energy | NBC News

ABC News is pretending it didn't happen: Search Results for coal mine layoffs murray - ABC News

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/b...a-critic-plans-layoffs-at-his-coal-mines.html

Coal executive explains layoffs with prayer lamenting Romney loss - latimes.com

Political blame game plays out after Ohio coal mine operation shuts down - CNN.com

USA Today is pretending it doesn't exist, either: USA TODAY


But it looks like most of your preferred sources are covering the Murray layoffs.

Your objections have been negated, so there's nothing to keep you from discussing the issue.

Good for you, daveman. You used several rational sources. Most impartial. See, you can do it. However there were a couple or three that were blog posts, with posts of folks who had no background that we would know of. But, apparently you are saying that I did not believe that Murray was laying off. Lets look back a ways on this thread and see what you said and how I answered:


Daveman asked:

Are you claiming the sources made up the layoffs?

And I responded:

No. I don't know and don't care if the source is correct about the layoffs. Because it is Murray Energy, the company that required it's employees to attend a Romney rally on their dime. And pushed them hard to support romney. So, Murray is believed by rational people to be less than ethical. And it would certainly be of no surprise that they cut jobs. But if you are saying that Murray Energy cut jobs because Obama was reelected, then I would suggest that there is absolutely no reason to believe that claim. And, if that claim were true, it would have zero real impact on unemployment. they are way too small.

So, do you understand the definition of the word "no"? I said overall, as the last sentence makes clear, that Murray Energy is way to small to make any impact on the unemployment rate.

So, maybe we disagree. Do you believe that 156 jobs is going to make some difference?
Or, do you believe that Murray had to lay off these people because of the war on coal by this pres. As Murray stated in the article you linked to? So, any proof of a war on coal??? Because what I said is that I do not have any reason to know why Murray laid off their employees. And I still do not. And if you read your sources articles, neither to they.

 

[daveman]

Daveman, trying to avoid any subject of value to anyone, wants to pontificate about where I get news from. He blurts out:

He shows that he is delusional, believing that others will be interested and forced to speculate. Apparently thinks he knows others, the undefined "we" that he refers to, that also care. But, of course, Daveman does not really care. Just wants to try to set up a con talking point. Or, he is simply delusional.
CBS, NBC, ABC, and other channels. And new your times, LA Times, local newspapers, and CNN. Newspapers of other cities or towns I may pass through. USA Today, local news stations.

So, daveman, now you can waste more of everyone's time. Again .

Well, now we're getting somewhere!

You said you wanted links to reputable sources, I believe, about the coal mine layoffs.

Coal company to lay off 156 workers in Utah, Ill. - CBS News

Coal company to lay off 156 workers in Utah, Ill. - Business - Oil & energy | NBC News

ABC News is pretending it didn't happen: Search Results for coal mine layoffs murray - ABC News

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/b...a-critic-plans-layoffs-at-his-coal-mines.html

Coal executive explains layoffs with prayer lamenting Romney loss - latimes.com

Political blame game plays out after Ohio coal mine operation shuts down - CNN.com

USA Today is pretending it doesn't exist, either: USA TODAY


But it looks like most of your preferred sources are covering the Murray layoffs.

Your objections have been negated, so there's nothing to keep you from discussing the issue.

Good for you, daveman. You used several rational sources. Most impartial. See, you can do it. However there were a couple or three that were blog posts, with posts of folks who had no background that we would know of. But, apparently you are saying that I did not believe that Murray was laying off. Lets look back a ways on this thread and see what you said and how I answered:


Daveman asked:

Are you claiming the sources made up the layoffs?

And I responded:

No. I don't know and don't care if the source is correct about the layoffs. Because it is Murray Energy, the company that required it's employees to attend a Romney rally on their dime. And pushed them hard to support romney. So, Murray is believed by rational people to be less than ethical. And it would certainly be of no surprise that they cut jobs. But if you are saying that Murray Energy cut jobs because Obama was reelected, then I would suggest that there is absolutely no reason to believe that claim. And, if that claim were true, it would have zero real impact on unemployment. they are way too small.

So, do you understand the definition of the word "no"? I said overall, as the last sentence makes clear, that Murray Energy is way to small to make any impact on the unemployment rate.

So, maybe we disagree. Do you believe that 156 jobs is going to make some difference?
Or, do you believe that Murray had to lay off these people because of the war on coal by this pres. As Murray stated in the article you linked to? So, any proof of a war on coal??? Because what I said is that I do not have any reason to know why Murray laid off their employees. And I still do not. And if you read your sources articles, neither to they.

Yep, just as I thought.

You're nothing more than a partisan hack poorly masquerading as impartial.

Of course, that's exactly what I expected.

It's okay, kid -- just keep repeating your mantra:

"My Lord Obama can do no wrong. He is a Perfect Being."

 

[Rshermr]

well, now we're getting somewhere!

You said you wanted links to reputable sources, i believe, about the coal mine layoffs.

coal company to lay off 156 workers in utah, ill. - cbs news

coal company to lay off 156 workers in utah, ill. - business - oil & energy | nbc news

abc news is pretending it didn't happen: search results for coal mine layoffs murray - abc news

Obama Critic Plans Layoffs at His Coal Mines - NYTimes.com

coal executive explains layoffs with prayer lamenting romney loss - latimes.com

political blame game plays out after ohio coal mine operation shuts down - cnn.com

usa today is pretending it doesn't exist, either: usa today


but it looks like most of your preferred sources are covering the murray layoffs.

Your objections have been negated, so there's nothing to keep you from discussing the issue.

good for you, daveman. You used several rational sources. Most impartial. See, you can do it. However there were a couple or three that were blog posts, with posts of folks who had no background that we would know of. But, apparently you are saying that i did not believe that murray was laying off. Lets look back a ways on this thread and see what you said and how i answered:


Daveman asked:

And i responded:

no. I don't know and don't care if the source is correct about the layoffs. Because it is murray energy, the company that required it's employees to attend a romney rally on their dime. And pushed them hard to support romney. So, murray is believed by rational people to be less than ethical. And it would certainly be of no surprise that they cut jobs. But if you are saying that murray energy cut jobs because obama was reelected, then i would suggest that there is absolutely no reason to believe that claim. And, if that claim were true, it would have zero real impact on unemployment. They are way too small.

so, do you understand the definition of the word "no"? I said overall, as the last sentence makes clear, that murray energy is way to small to make any impact on the unemployment rate.

So, maybe we disagree. Do you believe that 156 jobs is going to make some difference?
Or, do you believe that murray had to lay off these people because of the war on coal by this pres. As murray stated in the article you linked to? So, any proof of a war on coal??? Because what i said is that i do not have any reason to know why murray laid off their employees. And i still do not. And if you read your sources articles, neither to they.

yep, just as i thought.

You're nothing more than a partisan hack poorly masquerading as impartial.

Of course, that's exactly what i expected.

It's okay, kid -- just keep repeating your mantra:

"my lord obama can do no wrong. He is a perfect being."

ok.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Rshermr is a dunce of world-class dimensions. And probably a schizo as well.

Companies will lay off people because of higher costs of doing business and the lefties here will blame the companies rather than the gov't policies.

yes, we have about the highest corporate tax in the world. To say that taxing something, i.e., raising its price, has no affect, is to deny the law of suppl and demand.

If high prices didn't matter Wal Mart could double or triple prices tomorrow!

Even the easiest things are over a liberals head.