Obama’s layoff bomb goes BOOM!

[Rshermr]

So Uncensored says:

Our government would NEVER lie to us...

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

Funny how repubs and dems have used the numbers from the bureau of Labor Statistics over the years. And the repubs have had no trouble at all with them as long as the rate was high. Quoted them like they were the gospel. But when they dropped a bit below 8% close to election time, the BLS is suddenly in league with obama. Or the dems. Odd, eh, me boy.
So, there must be some proof here, don't you think? But it looks like you have none. The only place you see the accusation is from right wingers. Makes your intent look rather questionable, don't you think. Assuming you believe what you seem to be saying, where do you buy your tin foil hats??

So Uncensored says:

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

Was there some thought to this sentence? What connection did you have in mind?


I asked:
But, more importantly, you should know that Malkin is not a he.
Then, Uncensored says:

Are you under the influence of narcotics?

No. Are you questioning that Michelle is a she?? You know, Michelle Malkin.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No. Are you questioning that Michelle is a she?? You know, Michelle Malkin.

please cut the BS trivia pursuit and tell us if you are liberal or conservative and why.

Only an ass would think it meaningful to seek victory over whether someone is male or female.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Funny how repubs and dems have used the numbers from the bureau of Labor Statistics over the years. And the repubs have had no trouble at all with them as long as the rate was high. Quoted them like they were the gospel. But when they dropped a bit below 8% close to election time, the BLS is suddenly in league with obama. Or the dems. Odd, eh, me boy.

The BLS has had soft numbers for years. No one relies of them for a good year after release. There are always adjustments, and yes, the adjustments routinely favor democrats around election time.

So, there must be some proof here, don't you think? But it looks like you have none.

Proof about what, sparky? That the BLS adjust labor figures?

Let me google that for you

The only place you see the accusation is from right wingers. Makes your intent look rather questionable, don't you think. Assuming you believe what you seem to be saying, where do you buy your tin foil hats??

Seriously dude; you're abysmally ignorant.

Last word: BLS Decennial Census Adjustment | The Big Picture

Partisanship is not a substitute for knowledge and intelligence, regardless of what ThinkProgress tells you.

Was there some thought to this sentence? What connection did you have in mind?

Yawn..

No. Are you questioning that Michelle is a she?? You know, Michelle Malkin.

The "he" was Ed, dumbass. Reading comprehension is just another talent you sorely lack.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

Really, then why is it that the biggest supporters of getting rid of the minimum wage and unions are almost all GOP?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

why is it that the biggest supporters of getting rid of the minimum wage and unions are almost all GOP?

minimum wage and unions drive up wages artificially and make American consumers poorer with the higher prices that result.

Therefore all intelligent people suppot making both illegal.

 

[ABikerSailor]

why is it that the biggest supporters of getting rid of the minimum wage and unions are almost all GOP?

minimum wage and unions drive up wages artificially and make American consumers poorer with the higher prices that result.

Therefore all intelligent people suppot making both illegal.

I suppose you support socialism then, because this is what you'd said.................

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.

Getting rid of the minimum wage and unions is what makes people poorer (lower wages because of no minimum), and the jobs pay less.

 

[daveman]

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?????

I gave you articles on the Murray layoffs from the news sources you preferred.

You weaseled out.

You probably just ought to say "I don't want to read anything that contradicts my fragile worldview" every time instead of stamping your feet and screeching about sources.

It would be honest and accurate.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I suppose you support socialism then, because this is what you'd said.................

any evidence and I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or admit to being liberal.


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.

Getting rid of the minimum wage and unions is what makes people poorer (lower wages because of no minimum), and the jobs pay less.

too stupid but 100% liberal. Workers are consumers too!! Lower wages do not make them poorer if prices go down too as they must in a competitive capitalist society!!

 

[ABikerSailor]

I suppose you support socialism then, because this is what you'd said.................

any evidence and I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or admit to being liberal.


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.

Getting rid of the minimum wage and unions is what makes people poorer (lower wages because of no minimum), and the jobs pay less.

too stupid but 100% liberal. Workers are consumers too!! Lower wages do not make them poorer if prices go down too as they must in a competitive capitalist society!!

Lower wages DON'T make people poorer? Really? What kind of math are you using on that one Sparky? The same math that Rove used to make himself feel better?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Lower wages DON'T make people poorer? Really?

too stupid but perfectly liberal. IF union thugs get higher wages the rest of us get poorer paying the higher prices necessary to support the higher wages. Is that really over your head?? See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[ABikerSailor]

Lower wages DON'T make people poorer? Really?

too stupid but perfectly liberal. IF union thugs get higher wages the rest of us get poorer paying the higher prices necessary to support the higher wages. Is that really over your head?? See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

So................what guarantee do you have that the CEO's are going to lower prices just because the wages go down?

You don't. Greed seems to be the rule of the day now.

Try again

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So................what guarantee do you have that the CEO's are going to lower prices just because the wages go down?

You don't. Greed seems to be the rule of the day now.

Try again

too stupid but 1000% liberal. Prices are governed by competition; if not everything would cost $10 million. IF you don't have the lowest possible price your competitor will and you'll go bankrupt.

Thats the beauty of Republican capitalism, and now you know it too!!

 

[Rshermr]

So, Uncensored, another delusional con, believes the BLS is out to get him and his con friends. No proof, of course, just believes it.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr
Funny how repubs and dems have used the numbers from the bureau of Labor Statistics over the years. And the repubs have had no trouble at all with them as long as the rate was high. Quoted them like they were the gospel. But when they dropped a bit below 8% close to election time, the BLS is suddenly in league with obama. Or the dems. Odd, eh, me boy.

The BLS has had soft numbers for years. No one relies of them for a good year after release. There are always adjustments, and yes, the adjustments routinely favor democrats around election time.

Wow. You must have a doctorate in economics to make that profound statement. Of course the numbers are soft, dipshit. How would you expect to have the numbers exact? It takes a while to get the final numbers in. So, based on that you call the BLS partisan? You are truly a con. You believe what the con web sites feed you. And have nothing else to go on. Because you believe, me boy, simply what you want to believe. If you have something better, bring it on. But then you do not.
If you truly believe that you could keep numbers shaving in an organization like the BLS hidden, you are simply but stupid. If anything ever got out, there would be investigations and firings and actual evidence of it. You are simply and profoundly a neocon. You believe what you are told, because it makes you angry. And you love being angry.

Quote:
So, there must be some proof here, don't you think? But it looks like you have none.

Proof about what, sparky? That the BLS adjust labor figures?

Yes, the sort of thing that a person with integrity would provide if he had any basis for his accusations. Is this something new to you???

Quote:
The only place you see the accusation is from right wingers. Makes your intent look rather questionable, don't you think. Assuming you believe what you seem to be saying, where do you buy your tin foil hats??

Seriously dude; you're abysmally ignorant.

Your opinion, dipshit. And you know how much I respect your opinion. But, seriously dude; where is your proof? The proof would be, me poor ignorant con, that the BLS is adjusting its numbers to provide numbers more advantageous to someone. In you con mind, that would be to dems. And the below, should you have actually read it, has nothing to do with trying to change the accuracy of numbers. You are really trying, But just can not get to the point.

Last word: BLS Decennial Census Adjustment | The Big Picture

Last word on what, me con tool. That the BLS is prejudiced and shaves numbers? Sorry, nothing in that link to prove anything even similar.

Partisanship is not a substitute for knowledge and intelligence, regardless of what ThinkProgress tells you.

Have not been out to that site. What do you think. Is it a good one? Find any untruths??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you truly believe that you could keep numbers shaving in an organization like the BLS hidden, you are simply but stupid.

its a very very subjective process to say the least and so was probably biased in a very subtle way to give Barry the election, although I'm sure the conspirators retain plausible deniability.

 

[Rshermr]

Daveman, having an apparent short memory, blurts out:

I gave you articles on the Murray layoffs from the news sources you preferred.

You weaseled out.

You probably just ought to say "I don't want to read anything that contradicts my fragile worldview" every time instead of stamping your feet and screeching about sources.

It would be honest and accurate.

Apparently, you missed entirely what I said in return to your post. Though lets not lie, Daveman. While the sources are fine, but I gave you no sources that I prefered.
So, Daveman, Here is the part of the post you are referring to:
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.

Then, in reference to the 10 or so links you provided, I said the following:

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.

Jesus, Daveman. I even complimented you on actually using non partial sources. Good for you. If I had your address, I would send you a gold star.

So what is your issue now? Want someone to pat you on the head and tell you that you are a good boy?

 

[daveman]

Daveman, having an apparent short memory, blurts out:

I gave you articles on the Murray layoffs from the news sources you preferred.

You weaseled out.

You probably just ought to say "I don't want to read anything that contradicts my fragile worldview" every time instead of stamping your feet and screeching about sources.

It would be honest and accurate.

Apparently, you missed entirely what I said in return to your post. Though lets not lie, Daveman. While the sources are fine, but I gave you no sources that I prefered.
So, Daveman, Here is the part of the post you are referring to:
Daveman asked:
Quote:
Are you claiming the sources made up the layoffs?
And I responded:
Quote:
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.

Jesus, Daveman. I even complimented you on actually using non partial sources. Good for you. If I had your address, I would send you a gold star.

So what is your issue now? Want someone to pat you on the head and tell you that you are a good boy?

Lots of yap-yap, but still not addressing the issue.

Look, if you don't believe the owner of the coal company because he's not kissing Obama's ass, just say so.

But for Gaea's sake, stop boring me with your idiotic condescension. It's like being lectured to by a 7-year-old.

 

[Rshermr]

Daveman, having an apparent short memory, blurts out:

I gave you articles on the Murray layoffs from the news sources you preferred.

You weaseled out.

You probably just ought to say "I don't want to read anything that contradicts my fragile worldview" every time instead of stamping your feet and screeching about sources.

It would be honest and accurate.

Apparently, you missed entirely what I said in return to your post. Though lets not lie, Daveman. While the sources are fine, but I gave you no sources that I prefered.
So, Daveman, Here is the part of the post you are referring to:
Daveman asked:
Quote:
Are you claiming the sources made up the layoffs?
And I responded:
Quote:
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.

Jesus, Daveman. I even complimented you on actually using non partial sources. Good for you. If I had your address, I would send you a gold star.

So what is your issue now? Want someone to pat you on the head and tell you that you are a good boy?

Lots of yap-yap, but still not addressing the issue.

Look, if you don't believe the owner of the coal company because he's not kissing Obama's ass, just say so.

But for Gaea's sake, stop boring me with your idiotic condescension. It's like being lectured to by a 7-year-old.

Look, dipshit. I see no reason to talk at the length that you seem to want to about Murray. Once again, only 156 jobs. and I neither believe, nor disbelieve the owner.
Would you like to take another week or two discussing this issue.
If you had half a brain, and would read what I have already said, you would see that I already answered your question.
Get a clue, daveman. You are simply wasting peoples time. And sorry to be condescending to you. Just hard to not do so. Because, apparently, you are incompetent and stupid. And I really do not like people wasting my time.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you are incompetent and stupid.

how can a conservative/libertarian be incompetent and stupid? Please
give us a substantive issue about which conservatives are stupid or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so?

 

[daveman]

Daveman, having an apparent short memory, blurts out:

Apparently, you missed entirely what I said in return to your post. Though lets not lie, Daveman. While the sources are fine, but I gave you no sources that I prefered.
So, Daveman, Here is the part of the post you are referring to:
Daveman asked:
Quote:
Are you claiming the sources made up the layoffs?
And I responded:
Quote:
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.

Jesus, Daveman. I even complimented you on actually using non partial sources. Good for you. If I had your address, I would send you a gold star.

So what is your issue now? Want someone to pat you on the head and tell you that you are a good boy?

Lots of yap-yap, but still not addressing the issue.

Look, if you don't believe the owner of the coal company because he's not kissing Obama's ass, just say so.

But for Gaea's sake, stop boring me with your idiotic condescension. It's like being lectured to by a 7-year-old.

Look, dipshit. I see no reason to talk at the length that you seem to want to about Murray. Once again, only 156 jobs. and I neither believe, nor disbelieve the owner.
Would you like to take another week or two discussing this issue.
If you had half a brain, and would read what I have already said, you would see that I already answered your question.
Get a clue, daveman. You are simply wasting peoples time. And sorry to be condescending to you. Just hard to not do so. Because, apparently, you are incompetent and stupid. And I really do not like people wasting my time.

Isn't it amazing, then, that someone as incompetent and stupid as me is leading you around by your nose?

 

[Rshermr]

Lots of yap-yap, but still not addressing the issue.

Look, if you don't believe the owner of the coal company because he's not kissing Obama's ass, just say so.

But for Gaea's sake, stop boring me with your idiotic condescension. It's like being lectured to by a 7-year-old.

Look, dipshit. I see no reason to talk at the length that you seem to want to about Murray. Once again, only 156 jobs. and I neither believe, nor disbelieve the owner.
Would you like to take another week or two discussing this issue.
If you had half a brain, and would read what I have already said, you would see that I already answered your question.
Get a clue, daveman. You are simply wasting peoples time. And sorry to be condescending to you. Just hard to not do so. Because, apparently, you are incompetent and stupid. And I really do not like people wasting my time.

Isn't it amazing, then, that someone as incompetent and stupid as me is leading you around by your nose?

Actually that is another malady that you have. You are delusional.