Unemployment rates were made worse by Bush, not Obama!

[JQPublic1]

I said that Obama "kept" Republicans in his administration. What I meant by "keeping" is that the appointment of Republicans like like Chuck Hegel and Eric Shinseki proves his dedication to bipartisanship. After Shinseki resigned he was replaced by another Republican. Counting Gates
3+ 1 plus one equals 4.

Now, I said nothing about economics or which department heads were given to Republicans. That's your insertion. Thats your problem...you lie in plain plain view where everyone can see it. You are a worthless scum bag.

Dodge.
You claimed Obama's failure in his prediction on the unemployment rate was because he retained Republicans.
Of course he did not retain Republicans. The only one was Gates. Hegel was appointed later. Shinseki, who was probably not a Republican to begin with, was appointed later. Neither one had anything to do with economics.
So your point is refuted by your own words.
Your attempt to deflect is turned back.
Your refutation and humiliation is complete.
Now go hang yourself.

I made no such claims, fool. That's just your wild imagination running amok again. Your reading comprehension is as bad as ever. But I don't want you to go hang yourself. You are a living offering to the gods of ultimate ignorance and a shill for the demons of stupidity.
I explained what I meant and I explained what I said; I don't need you to try to interpret either. You can barely comprehend a simple graph, let alone a complex exchange about what someone said in
Post you didn't write. Idiot!

If I remember correctly Obama kept a number of Republicans in his administration. His naivete showed when he allowed the GOP to take advantage of his desire for bipartisanship. While he may have intended to keep his enemies close so he could keep his eye on them, it is clear now that their designs were to undermine his presidency from the start.

Post 470.
That was exactly what you claimed. Obama retained Republicans in his administration and they undermined him by giving him bad info.
Sucks being you.

Again, your interpretation of what I said is wrong. Obama to this very day has kept Republicans in his administration. Do you understand, dummy? BTW, how is that short reading coming along?

blahblahblah.
You're dismissed.

You don't have the power to dismiss me punk.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If I am a liar you haven't proven it.

I wasn't attempting to prove that you're a liar. My goal was to help YOU PROVE IT.

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" ... In SPADES!

Well, if a maniac thinks I'm a liar so be it. I really don't care.

Your several concessions, are duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Faun]

No lies ed only you can be dumb enough to try and pull a lie off

Of course you lied. It's right there for everyone to read. You falsely claimed there were more people in the workforce then than there are now. And as the numbers prove, that is patently false.

Bull shit puck ass bitch I unlike you don't lie go fucking die.

What a nut case you are, gramps. Careful you don't pop an aneurysm!

Your nuttiness aside, yes, you did lie. You said there were more people in the workforce when Bush had 5.8% unemployment than now. That's a bald-faced lie.

Then: 154,469,000
Now: 155,862,000

I don't care how senile you are, 156 million is still more than 154 million.

Not a lot and count in margin of error and its no improvement whatsoever.

Can you walk me through the math you used to calculate the margin of error?

It seems his answer to that is no, he can't.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Dodge.
You claimed Obama's failure in his prediction on the unemployment rate was because he retained Republicans.
Of course he did not retain Republicans. The only one was Gates. Hegel was appointed later. Shinseki, who was probably not a Republican to begin with, was appointed later. Neither one had anything to do with economics.
So your point is refuted by your own words.
Your attempt to deflect is turned back.
Your refutation and humiliation is complete.
Now go hang yourself.

I made no such claims, fool. That's just your wild imagination running amok again. Your reading comprehension is as bad as ever. But I don't want you to go hang yourself. You are a living offering to the gods of ultimate ignorance and a shill for the demons of stupidity.
I explained what I meant and I explained what I said; I don't need you to try to interpret either. You can barely comprehend a simple graph, let alone a complex exchange about what someone said in
Post you didn't write. Idiot!

If I remember correctly Obama kept a number of Republicans in his administration. His naivete showed when he allowed the GOP to take advantage of his desire for bipartisanship. While he may have intended to keep his enemies close so he could keep his eye on them, it is clear now that their designs were to undermine his presidency from the start.

Post 470.
That was exactly what you claimed. Obama retained Republicans in his administration and they undermined him by giving him bad info.
Sucks being you.

Again, your interpretation of what I said is wrong. Obama to this very day has kept Republicans in his administration. Do you understand, dummy? BTW, how is that short reading coming along?

blahblahblah.
You're dismissed.

You don't have the power to dismiss me punk.

Actually, he does... Count you're blessings that you perverse attempts to deceive here have not provided that the member concluded your dismissal to be necessary.

As Americans, we possess both the power and the moral authority to dispatch all threats to our freedom.

So far, you're seen as just a common fool, advancing the sort of fraudulent drivel common to such.

Were I in your unenviable position... I would try to muster al the discipline at my disposal to shut the ^8ck up and sit down. But being a fool... you will no doubt be unable to do so.

Frankly I can hardly wait for your next "CHART" or "GRAPH" through which you shove your fallacious twaddle.

It promises to be MOST entertaining.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Of course you lied. It's right there for everyone to read. You falsely claimed there were more people in the workforce then than there are now. And as the numbers prove, that is patently false.

Bull shit puck ass bitch I unlike you don't lie go fucking die.

What a nut case you are, gramps. Careful you don't pop an aneurysm!

Your nuttiness aside, yes, you did lie. You said there were more people in the workforce when Bush had 5.8% unemployment than now. That's a bald-faced lie.

Then: 154,469,000
Now: 155,862,000

I don't care how senile you are, 156 million is still more than 154 million.

Not a lot and count in margin of error and its no improvement whatsoever.

Can you walk me through the math you used to calculate the margin of error?

It seems his answer to that is no, he can't.

OH! A troll assistant. How positively "Cool". (That she'd show her colors... it makes dispatching them, SO much easier.)

 

[Faun]

The Unemployment rate in the US remains well over 15%.

Well?? Can you show how you arrive at "over 15%" unemployment or not?

 

[kaz]

Starting in Jan. 20, 2001, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s administration, the rate was 2.4 percent, but by the time he left in January 2009 it had reached 7 percent. The rate now is 5.9% and is on track to get even lower.

Yes, people gave up and quit looking. Or they took pay cuts or work part time. I see why you're proud of that.

 

[Faun]

Bull shit puck ass bitch I unlike you don't lie go fucking die.

What a nut case you are, gramps. Careful you don't pop an aneurysm!

Your nuttiness aside, yes, you did lie. You said there were more people in the workforce when Bush had 5.8% unemployment than now. That's a bald-faced lie.

Then: 154,469,000
Now: 155,862,000

I don't care how senile you are, 156 million is still more than 154 million.

Not a lot and count in margin of error and its no improvement whatsoever.

Can you walk me through the math you used to calculate the margin of error?

It seems his answer to that is no, he can't.

OH! A troll assistant. How positively "Cool". (That she'd show her colors... it makes dispatching them, SO much easier.)

The only way to actually "dispatch" someone is to prove them wrong with verifiable evidence. Just saying so because you delude yourself into believing you're right when you're incapable of proving it only makes you look like a fool. Denying you have anything to prove after that only serves to reveal how big of a fool you are.

 

[pinqy]

I don't know why you think that's defending the White House. And I note that that you can't show anything wrong with my post. It's pretty clear.

Thanks for pointing to your error

What error?
It's really puzzling that you don't seem to understand the difference between number of people and percent.

You puzzle easily you seem to get stumped at 1+1 =5 when no one accepts your answer

Well of course I get stumped when you claim 1+ 1 = 5
But let's try some basics.
How many people were in the Labor Force in July 2008 and how many people were in the Labor Force in September 2014.
No charts, tables, or links…just state how many millions.

No what you have been saying is like saying 1+1=5 and then you expect others to believe it.

You'll have to show a specific example, with the math. I came up with the same unemployment rates and labor force participation rates as you did. So where are you claiming I was wrong?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thanks for pointing to your error

What error?
It's really puzzling that you don't seem to understand the difference between number of people and percent.

You puzzle easily you seem to get stumped at 1+1 =5 when no one accepts your answer

Well of course I get stumped when you claim 1+ 1 = 5
But let's try some basics.
How many people were in the Labor Force in July 2008 and how many people were in the Labor Force in September 2014.
No charts, tables, or links…just state how many millions.

No what you have been saying is like saying 1+1=5 and then you expect others to believe it.

You'll have to show a specific example, with the math. I came up with the same unemployment rates and labor force participation rates as you did. So where are you claiming I was wrong?

Again your math of 1+1=5 is incorrect stop trying to say the sky is green when in fact it is blue
Fact is the sun is up not the moon.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

If you want to pin the unemployment numbers on a President, if that is your gig - then Clinton would be more responsible than Bush or Obama.

 

[Faun]

What error?
It's really puzzling that you don't seem to understand the difference between number of people and percent.

You puzzle easily you seem to get stumped at 1+1 =5 when no one accepts your answer

Well of course I get stumped when you claim 1+ 1 = 5
But let's try some basics.
How many people were in the Labor Force in July 2008 and how many people were in the Labor Force in September 2014.
No charts, tables, or links…just state how many millions.

No what you have been saying is like saying 1+1=5 and then you expect others to believe it.

You'll have to show a specific example, with the math. I came up with the same unemployment rates and labor force participation rates as you did. So where are you claiming I was wrong?

Again your math of 1+1=5 is incorrect stop trying to say the sky is green when in fact it is blue
Fact is the sun is up not the moon.

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If you want to pin the unemployment numbers on a President, if that is your gig - then Clinton would be more responsible than Bush or Obama.

All socialists are responsible. They not only TAKE subsidies which reduce initiative, they promote that OTHERS take subsidies, spreading the counter productive, anti-American illusion, all of which lead directly to low-participation and unemployment.

That's all such subsidies CAN DO! There is NO potential upside to such.

 

[Faun]

If you want to pin the unemployment numbers on a President, if that is your gig - then Clinton would be more responsible than Bush or Obama.

All socialists are responsible. They not only TAKE subsidies which reduce initiative, they promote that OTHERS take subsidies, spreading the counter productive, anti-American illusion, all of which lead directly to low-participation and unemployment.

That's all such subsidies CAN DO! There is NO potential upside to such.

I guess this means you won't be showing the forum how you reached 15% unemployment? That's too bad, I was really looking forward to it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You puzzle easily you seem to get stumped at 1+1 =5 when no one accepts your answer

Well of course I get stumped when you claim 1+ 1 = 5
But let's try some basics.
How many people were in the Labor Force in July 2008 and how many people were in the Labor Force in September 2014.
No charts, tables, or links…just state how many millions.

No what you have been saying is like saying 1+1=5 and then you expect others to believe it.

You'll have to show a specific example, with the math. I came up with the same unemployment rates and labor force participation rates as you did. So where are you claiming I was wrong?

Again your math of 1+1=5 is incorrect stop trying to say the sky is green when in fact it is blue
Fact is the sun is up not the moon.

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

 

[Faun]

Well of course I get stumped when you claim 1+ 1 = 5
But let's try some basics.
How many people were in the Labor Force in July 2008 and how many people were in the Labor Force in September 2014.
No charts, tables, or links…just state how many millions.

No what you have been saying is like saying 1+1=5 and then you expect others to believe it.

You'll have to show a specific example, with the math. I came up with the same unemployment rates and labor force participation rates as you did. So where are you claiming I was wrong?

Again your math of 1+1=5 is incorrect stop trying to say the sky is green when in fact it is blue
Fact is the sun is up not the moon.

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

Holyfuckingshit!

I asked you for the number of people who are not in the labor force, and you give me the participation rate. You don't fucking know the difference between the two, do you, dumbass? This is why you sound so fucking retarded spouting the nonsense you're spewing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No what you have been saying is like saying 1+1=5 and then you expect others to believe it.

You'll have to show a specific example, with the math. I came up with the same unemployment rates and labor force participation rates as you did. So where are you claiming I was wrong?

Again your math of 1+1=5 is incorrect stop trying to say the sky is green when in fact it is blue
Fact is the sun is up not the moon.

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

Holyfuckingshit!

I asked you for the number of people who are not in the labor force, and you give me the participation rate. You don't fucking know the difference between the two, do you, dumbass? This is why you sound so fucking retarded spouting the nonsense you're spewing.

You are an ignorant bastard. More people in the working population but lower participation now than when we had in July 2008
If that doesn't answer you god damn question your are to fucking to stupid to understand anything.

 

[edthecynic]

Well of course I get stumped when you claim 1+ 1 = 5
But let's try some basics.
How many people were in the Labor Force in July 2008 and how many people were in the Labor Force in September 2014.
No charts, tables, or links…just state how many millions.

No what you have been saying is like saying 1+1=5 and then you expect others to believe it.

You'll have to show a specific example, with the math. I came up with the same unemployment rates and labor force participation rates as you did. So where are you claiming I was wrong?

Again your math of 1+1=5 is incorrect stop trying to say the sky is green when in fact it is blue
Fact is the sun is up not the moon.

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

We knew you couldn't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No what you have been saying is like saying 1+1=5 and then you expect others to believe it.

You'll have to show a specific example, with the math. I came up with the same unemployment rates and labor force participation rates as you did. So where are you claiming I was wrong?

Again your math of 1+1=5 is incorrect stop trying to say the sky is green when in fact it is blue
Fact is the sun is up not the moon.

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

We knew you couldn't.

Most know that you are a dumb ass now you have shown the rest

 

[pinqy]

Well of course I get stumped when you claim 1+ 1 = 5
But let's try some basics.
How many people were in the Labor Force in July 2008 and how many people were in the Labor Force in September 2014.
No charts, tables, or links…just state how many millions.

No what you have been saying is like saying 1+1=5 and then you expect others to believe it.

You'll have to show a specific example, with the math. I came up with the same unemployment rates and labor force participation rates as you did. So where are you claiming I was wrong?

Again your math of 1+1=5 is incorrect stop trying to say the sky is green when in fact it is blue
Fact is the sun is up not the moon.

Then why don't you post the number of people not in the labor force in July, 2008?

66% of the population was working with fewer people in the population
Now we have more people in the population with only 62.7% working

Correct. That's exactly what I've been saying.
Well, except that the Labor Force is the number of people working PLUS the number of people looking for work.

But again: You are right, population has gone up: from 233,864,000 in July 2008 to 248,446,000 in September 2014.
At the same time, the Labor Force has also gone up from 154,469,000 to 155,862,000 but while 154,469,000 is 66.1% of 233,864,000, 155,862,000 is only 62.3% of 248,446,000

How is that strange math to you? The number of people in the Labor Force is bigger, but as a percent of the population, it's smaller. That's 4th grade math.