Obama’s layoff bomb goes BOOM!

[Rshermr]

It hasn't "started back down". It's stayed at an incredibly high level of GDP.

That's what four years of $1T+ deficits do, bub.

Perhaps you should look at the chart in your link, eh bub?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And what would you suggest to resolve the current issue, unemployment. Or is that beyond you?

Simple, allow supply and demand to operate until employment is full.

Also, to make the jobs better jobs we would encourage capitalism and discourage liberal socialism since we know that socialism makes jobs pay less.

 

[Rshermr]

And what would you suggest to resolve the current issue, unemployment. Or is that beyond you?

Simple, allow supply and demand to operate until employment is full.

Also, to make the jobs better jobs we would encourage capitalism and discourage liberal socialism since we know that socialism makes jobs pay less.

I know it is beyond you, ed.

 

[hjmick]

I have read this entire thread and come to one conclusion...

One of you is a real fucking asshole...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And what would you suggest to resolve the current issue, unemployment. Or is that beyond you?

Simple, allow supply and demand to operate until employment is full.

Also, to make the jobs better jobs we would encourage capitalism and discourage liberal socialism since we know that socialism makes jobs pay less.

I know it is beyond you, ed.

Simple, allow supply and demand to operate until employment is full.

Also, to make the jobs better jobs we would encourage capitalism and discourage liberal socialism since we know that socialism makes people poorer and jobs pay less.

 

[pinqy]

Actually dear unemployment went from 7.8 to 7.9%. Thats a decrease in employment.


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

ed, me boy. You need to look up numerators and denominators. Then apply it. Poor ignorant delusional con.

Unemployment rose. Therefore, employment decreased, exactly as Ed said.:

Apparently neither you nor Ed passed 5th grade math.
The unemployment rate is Unemployed/(Employed + Unemployed)
In Sept, the rate was 12,088,000/(142,974,000 + 12,088,000) = 0.078
In Oct, the rate was 12,258,000/(143,384,000 + 12,258,000) = 0.079

BOTH Employment and Unemployment went up.

 

[Rshermr]

ed, me boy. You need to look up numerators and denominators. Then apply it. Poor ignorant delusional con.

Unemployment rose. Therefore, employment decreased, exactly as Ed said.:

Apparently neither you nor Ed passed 5th grade math.
The unemployment rate is Unemployed/(Employed + Unemployed)
In Sept, the rate was 12,088,000/(142,974,000 + 12,088,000) = 0.078
In Oct, the rate was 12,258,000/(143,384,000 + 12,258,000) = 0.079

BOTH Employment and Unemoloyment went up.

Thanks, Pinqy. I could not understand what daveman was talking about. Your answer is so simple, I missed that ANYONE could lack the brains to figure out what I said. Now I get it. I must never assume that these two could actually misunderstand even something so basic and simple.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Always are. Maybe you should read the news. But what is important is the overall employment rate. And I know that it hurts you that it is decreasing over time. Must be tough.

Decreasing from 7.8 to 7.9 - Bolshevik math is an amazing thing.. (BUT MORE WERE LOOKING FOR WORK - funny that didn't have an impact when less were looking as it dropped.)

Unemployment will be adjusted back above 8%, now that the election is over, and we ALL know it.

And if you think Malkin is not bat shit crazy, then there is probably no hope for inteligent comment in your posts.

Yes, but perhaps he is smart enough to correctly spell "intelligent," sparky.

There actually are, my poor ignorant con, non prejudiced sources. Then there is Malkin.

Well, not everyone can be Jon Stewart or Bill Maher..

LOL, leftist fucktards are just TOO precious.

 

[pinqy]

Decreasing from 7.8 to 7.9 - Bolshevik math is an amazing thing.

No one is saying 7.8 to 7.9 is a decrease. The trend since 2009 has been a decrease

(BUT MORE WERE LOOKING FOR WORK - funny that didn't have an impact when less were looking as it dropped.)

It most certainly did some of the monthly decreases were due to a drop in the labor force...so the rate dropped for the wrong reasons. This last year it's been dropping for the right reasons and in October it went up for the right reasons.

Unemployment will be adjusted back above 8%, now that the election is over, and we ALL know it.

in the January release, the seasonally adjusted data for 2009-2012 will bs adjusted...some months will go jp, some down

 

[Uncensored2008]

Windbag, you are wasting my time. I certainly never said that all cons are stupider than all libs. It is indeed an issue of averages. But, what all of the studies say is that cons are, on average, stupider than libs.
If you want a link to the study, just type in the term conservatives are stupid. It will provide you with a link to the study itself.

Like all leftists, you're a fraud. Notice how you link to a leftist website, "Live Science" rather than an actual study? Why is that? Well, because the "study" doesn't actually exist, at least not in the way that the mindless left portrays it. Live Science, like most leftist sites, has zero integrity, and instead of a "study" instead links back to an opinion piece in "psychological science" written by a Brock professor, who links to five (5) desperate studies to support his claims.

Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes

Yet the Huffington Post, and most of the far left have spewed this shit as if it were fact. All of the leftist sites lead right back the the "Live Science" fraud. Why is that? Well, the left lacks any semblance of intellectual curiosity, and as we have seen, is utterly devoid of ethics and integrity. Rather than a study demonstrating that conservatism is stupidity, a bit of research reveals just the usual demagoguery by the little Goebbels of the left.

 

[peach174]

Read how many are closing and laying off employees.
Daily Job Cuts - Layoff News , Job Layoffs 2012 / 2011 , Bankruptcy, Store closings, Business Economy News
This is because of the many over the top regulations and the New Health Care Act.
We all told you this would happen if President Obama got re elected.

 

[daveman]

ed, me boy. You need to look up numerators and denominators. Then apply it. Poor ignorant delusional con.

Unemployment rose. Therefore, employment decreased, exactly as Ed said.:

Apparently neither you nor Ed passed 5th grade math.
The unemployment rate is Unemployed/(Employed + Unemployed)
In Sept, the rate was 12,088,000/(142,974,000 + 12,088,000) = 0.078
In Oct, the rate was 12,258,000/(143,384,000 + 12,258,000) = 0.079

BOTH Employment and Unemployment went up.

Fair enough. I was pointing out Rshermr's inability to differentiate between two words.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No one is saying 7.8 to 7.9 is a decrease. The trend since 2009 has been a decrease

Actually, Rashermr was saying precisely that, as he has been programmed to say by ThinkProgress or other leftist hate sites.

It most certainly did some of the monthly decreases were due to a drop in the labor force...so the rate dropped for the wrong reasons. This last year it's been dropping for the right reasons and in October it went up for the right reasons.

I can point you to two dozen threads on this board where leftists denied that the rate went down due to less people in the counted work force.

in the January release, the seasonally adjusted data for 2009-2012 will bs adjusted...some months will go jp, some down

Again, it will be adjusted upward, because the rate was reported artificially low to aid in Obama's reelection.

 

[pinqy]

I can point you to two dozen threads on this board where leftists denied that the rate went down due to less people in the counted work force.

In cases where if really did go down? Because there have been cases of people falsely claiming the rate went down dud to s drop in the labor force when the labor force actually went up. I honestly don' recall anyone denying a decrease was due to a labor force drop when it reslly was.

in the January release, the seasonally adjusted data for 2009-2012 will bs adjusted...some months will go jp, some down

Again, it will be adjusted upward, because the rate was reported artificially low to aid in Obama's reelection.

Oh? I'd love to hear how you think that was done (what was the process, how did it escape oversight, etc?) and what your evidence is.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Uncesored2008 says the following:

Like all leftists, you're a fraud. Notice how you link to a leftist website, "Live Science" rather than an actual study? Why is that? Well, because the "study" doesn't actually exist, at least not in the way that the mindless left portrays it.

You are proving the hypotheses, uncensored. The study is actual, and if you care to look, you can find where to get a copy of it. It is mentioned with over 50 hits with a simple google search. And Live Science, in your opinion, is a leftist website, but in fact is a site dedicated to science and social science. Not liberal to most people, but since it is not a bat shit crazy con web site, probably is to you.

Live Science, like most leftist sites, has zero integrity, and instead of a "study" instead links back to an opinion piece in "psychological science" written by a Brock professor, who links to five (5) desperate studies to support his claims.

And the reason you provided no link to this is that it is totally untrue.

Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes

Yet the Huffington Post, and most of the far left have spewed this shit as if it were fact. All of the leftist sites lead right back the the "Live Science" fraud. Why is that? Well, the left lacks any semblance of intellectual curiosity, and as we have seen, is utterly devoid of ethics and integrity.

Again your opinion is wrong, me con tool. If you would look a little harder, you would find that LiveScience was the web site given exclusive rights to publication about the study. So, as usual, the con tool takes the normal methodology of fighting facts: Attack the source.

I would think by now you could find a study that proves the opposite. Isn't it interesting that there are none? Just books by right wing authors, and right wing opinion pieces.

Rather than a study demonstrating that conservatism is stupidity, a bit of research reveals just the usual demagoguery by the little Goebbels of the left.

But then the study does not demonstrate that conservatism is stupidity. If you were not so much a con tool, and actually read the information out there, then you would know that the study simply tried to determine relative intelligence. And on average, the cons lost. So, though this may not be a perfect analysis of what was said, it seemed to say that on average conservatism attracts less intelligent individuals.

 

[Rshermr]

Read how many are closing and laying off employees.
Daily Job Cuts - Layoff News , Job Layoffs 2012 / 2011 , Bankruptcy, Store closings, Business Economy News
This is because of the many over the top regulations and the New Health Care Act.
We all told you this would happen if President Obama got re elected.

Do you have any impartial web sites. As opposed to the bat shit crazy con site you just posted?????

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are proving the hypotheses, uncensored.

Of course, you repeating internet lies proves, well, something.

The study is actual,

No, it in fact is not. The LINK (dumbfuck) I gave you is the basis for the Live Science fabrication, which is the basis of ALL of the hate site stories. Notice how each and every on links back to the same story?

That's your first clue, sparky.

and if you care to look, you can find where to get a copy of it. It is mentioned with over 50 hits with a simple google search. And Live Science, in your opinion, is a leftist website, but in fact is a site dedicated to science and social science. Not liberal to most people, but since it is not a bat shit crazy con web site, probably is to you.

You're an idiot - not because you're a leftist, just because you lack intellect. I will say that the reason you're a leftist is most likely because you have an IQ in the lower range of double digits.

And the reason you provided no link to this is that it is totally untrue.

ROFL

I did post a link, fuckwad. That you're too stupid to navigate a simple link is expected.

Again your opinion is wrong, me con tool. If you would look a little harder, you would find that LiveScience was the web site given exclusive rights to publication about the study. So, as usual, the con tool takes the normal methodology of fighting facts: Attack the source.

There is no "study," and never was. There is only an opinion by a Brock professor.

I would think by now you could find a study that proves the opposite. Isn't it interesting that there are none? Just books by right wing authors, and right wing opinion pieces.

Tell me sparky, how do you leftist demagogues differ from those who's playbook you use? I know that Jews were called "rodents," and Goering pointed to "studies" confirming that they were. So the lack of "studies" showing that Nazis were rodents made the claims true?

But then the study does not demonstrate that conservatism is stupidity.

Of course not, there is no study.

All we have is a leftist professor attacking the right. Demagoguery is the mainstay of the hate-filled left.

If you were not so much a con tool, and actually read the information out there, then you would know that the study simply tried to determine relative intelligence.

ROFL

The Live Science hit piece tried to paint anyone not in line with leftist dogma as stupid.

And on average, the cons lost. So, though this may not be a perfect analysis of what was said, it seemed to say that on average conservatism attracts less intelligent individuals.

How about that, Goebbels found that Jews are rodents - what a shocking outcome.

 

[Rshermr]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr
Always are. Maybe you should read the news. But what is important is the overall employment rate. And I know that it hurts you that it is decreasing over time. Must be tough.

Decreasing from 7.8 to 7.9 - Bolshevik math is an amazing thing.

You showed the unemployment rate for one month. We obviously disagree about what "over time" means. But nice try, I guess.
(BUT MORE WERE LOOKING FOR WORK - funny that didn't have an impact when less were looking as it dropped.)
But it did. Do you know anything at all about Unemployment and associated rates??

Unemployment will be adjusted back above 8%, now that the election is over, and we ALL know it.

We will see. But perhaps you can have folks stop going to the official site, since you are one of the bat shit crazies that believe the unemployment numbers were fudged. Makes you a first class dipshit.

Quote: by Rshermr
And if you think Malkin is not bat shit crazy, then there is probably no hope for inteligent comment in your posts.

Yes, but perhaps he is smart enough to correctly spell "intelligent," sparky.

Well, we may need to watch your spelling more carefully. You are the first to ever link typo's to intelligence. And by the way, though sparky is a nice name, I suppose, used as you use it is childish. But, more importantly, you should know that Malkin is not a he.

LOL, leftist fucktards are just TOO precious.

Just a final shot at the left, as you see it. Imagine what it would be like if you had some command of the English language. By the way, in the spirit of connecting spelling with intelligence, perhaps you can show me where to find fucktards in my Webster's.

 

[Rshermr]

Which two words did you think I was having issues with?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You showed the unemployment rate for one month. We obviously disagree about what "over time" means. But nice try, I guess.

Seriously sparky, learn to use the quote function; it just isn't that hard.

But it did. Do you know anything at all about Unemployment and associated rates??

Of course it did, but leftist sycophants spent a lot of bandwidth denying the connection, until they thought it was in their favor.

We will see. But perhaps you can have folks stop going to the official site, since you are one of the bat shit crazies that believe the unemployment numbers were fudged. Makes you a first class dipshit.

Our government would NEVER lie to us...

Shall we bet that after the 1st of the year, the numbers are magically adjusted?

And if you think Malkin is not bat shit crazy, then there is probably no hope for inteligent comment in your posts.

If "hate" were "intellect," you'd be a smart guy...

Well, we may need to watch your spelling more carefully.

Particularly if I am attempting to slam you for stupidity.

(Hint, you were nailed for the irony, not the spelling.)

You are the first to ever link typo's to intelligence. And by the way, though sparky is a nice name, I suppose, used as you use it is childish. But, more importantly, you should know that Malkin is not a he.

Are you under the influence of narcotics?

Just a final shot at the left, as you see it. Imagine what it would be like if you had some command of the English language.

Yes, imagine... I spend sleepless nights concerned about expressing my thought...

By the way, in the spirit of connecting spelling with intelligence, perhaps you can show me where to find fucktards in my Webster's.

fucktard - Wiktionary