DONE - GOING TO JAIL! -- Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release'

[billyerock1991]

If it was true, it would be, but its not. There are more unemployed today than in 2007, more on welfare, more on food stamps, and more underemployed. Plus he has doubled the national debt and made Putin look like a statesman. Bin Laden was found using intel developed during the Bush admin, all obozo did was give the ok to hit him. The auto bailout didn't save anything-------------except the UAW and its donations to the DNC.

What?? There are more people unemployed today (with a larger population) than there were when a real estate bubble was propping up the economy??

You don't say?

Regardless, there are fewer people unemployed today, despite the larger population, than there were when Obama became president.

that is simply not true, they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work. its a game and they have you fooled.

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

looks like you caught fish lying again to justify his means ... now here comes the double talk from fish and a lot of childish remarks

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't sit here all day Billy, but I think you hammered the point home.

LOL

yeah I did ... you're a liar and I hammered that one nicely !!!

You live in an alternative reality. We now know some of the emails were marked classified and the distinction isn't made that it's a requirement to not receive and/or pass them along on an unsecure system. Plus the director of the FBI says he doesn't give a flip about politics.

We also know her supporters don't care but chest pounding won't make it go away. Her shrill voice sounds like music to you but we don't all dance to the same tune.

I know you live in the make it up reality world is where you live ... you say we know some of her emails were classified ... you haven't any proof saying they were, just you know this... must be very satisfy to know that you can read minds predict what a person did or didn't do HUH ... yet you can't say that for shure ... its just and opinion of yours... kind of like sarah palin shrill ... I hope you get to hear that shrilll for the next 8 years .. oh lucky you... but you stay in your make it up world, you'll be happy there...
P. S.
you still have shown us one stick of evidence here that she had classified emails ... just your rants ... were still waiting for the evidence

It's been discussed, I'm not going to tutor you unless you pay me.

I would pick a illiterate tutor like you to teach any thing ...in other words we get it you're haven't a leg ti stand on ... just a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations ... Iv'e been following this thread from the get go... not one of you right wing nut jobs have been able to post one bit of factual proof or evidence just bunch of bull shit with a lot of might be or mat or a dozen could be's when confronted with the question you dodge it like you did here... we get it you're a liar

Jesus, talk about illiterate. What grade did you make it to? We know she broke the law because it's been quoted many times already. she wasn't allowed to do what she did. Period. Obviously she got classified information as SoS and she had it all on her personal homebrew setup, duh. Then deleting it, or so she thought.

At least 22 emails will never be seen in any form since they were so sensitive.

 

[billyerock1991]

What?? There are more people unemployed today (with a larger population) than there were when a real estate bubble was propping up the economy??

You don't say?

Regardless, there are fewer people unemployed today, despite the larger population, than there were when Obama became president.

that is simply not true, they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work. its a game and they have you fooled.

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

you failed your research project, try again or accept an F as your final grade.

see double talk ...if you're so sure fish about what you
are talking about how about giving a source

 

[Faun]

Disaster?

Stopped a depression, added 9 million jobs, saved the auto industry, killed bin laden .......not too shabby for a community organizer

If it was true, it would be, but its not. There are more unemployed today than in 2007, more on welfare, more on food stamps, and more underemployed. Plus he has doubled the national debt and made Putin look like a statesman. Bin Laden was found using intel developed during the Bush admin, all obozo did was give the ok to hit him. The auto bailout didn't save anything-------------except the UAW and its donations to the DNC.

What?? There are more people unemployed today (with a larger population) than there were when a real estate bubble was propping up the economy??

You don't say?

Regardless, there are fewer people unemployed today, despite the larger population, than there were when Obama became president.

that is simply not true, they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work. its a game and they have you fooled.

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

It's your idiotic claim. I don't have to prove you wrong when you can't prove yourself right.

 

[pinqy]

What?? There are more people unemployed today (with a larger population) than there were when a real estate bubble was propping up the economy??

You don't say?

Regardless, there are fewer people unemployed today, despite the larger population, than there were when Obama became president.

that is simply not true, they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work. its a game and they have you fooled.

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

you failed your research project, try again or accept an F as your final grade.

Oh, how are you claiming I failed? I've shown my work.

 

[Redfish]

that is simply not true, they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work. its a game and they have you fooled.

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

you failed your research project, try again or accept an F as your final grade.

see double talk ...if you're so sure fish about what you
are talking about how about giving a source

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/?page=all

 

[Redfish]

that is simply not true, they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work. its a game and they have you fooled.

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

you failed your research project, try again or accept an F as your final grade.

Oh, how are you claiming I failed? I've shown my work.

because your research was flawed and biased.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/?page=all

 

[billyerock1991]

yeah I did ... you're a liar and I hammered that one nicely !!!

You live in an alternative reality. We now know some of the emails were marked classified and the distinction isn't made that it's a requirement to not receive and/or pass them along on an unsecure system. Plus the director of the FBI says he doesn't give a flip about politics.

We also know her supporters don't care but chest pounding won't make it go away. Her shrill voice sounds like music to you but we don't all dance to the same tune.

I know you live in the make it up reality world is where you live ... you say we know some of her emails were classified ... you haven't any proof saying they were, just you know this... must be very satisfy to know that you can read minds predict what a person did or didn't do HUH ... yet you can't say that for shure ... its just and opinion of yours... kind of like sarah palin shrill ... I hope you get to hear that shrilll for the next 8 years .. oh lucky you... but you stay in your make it up world, you'll be happy there...
P. S.
you still have shown us one stick of evidence here that she had classified emails ... just your rants ... were still waiting for the evidence

It's been discussed, I'm not going to tutor you unless you pay me.

I would pick a illiterate tutor like you to teach any thing ...in other words we get it you're haven't a leg ti stand on ... just a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations ... Iv'e been following this thread from the get go... not one of you right wing nut jobs have been able to post one bit of factual proof or evidence just bunch of bull shit with a lot of might be or mat or a dozen could be's when confronted with the question you dodge it like you did here... we get it you're a liar

Jesus, talk about illiterate. What grade did you make it to? We know she broke the law because it's been quoted many times already. she wasn't allowed to do what she did. Period. Obviously she got classified information as SoS and she had it all on her personal homebrew setup, duh. Then deleting it, or so she thought.

At least 22 emails will never be seen in any form since they were so sensitive.

whats been quoted in the news by all media says this hillary clinton may have so22 emails that are considered to be classified ... then nut jobs like you turn that around salon hillary had 22 emails that arte classified ... then you claim they got here ... the fact that you're the illiterate one who just can'y seem to comprehend what you read is your fault ... I guess you were to busy being lead around by your nose by your handlers

in the second paragraph:
The State Department said it is investigating whether the content of the unreleased emails was classified at the time it was sent or received

then they said:
But because she used a private server, it wasn’t protected by government technology personnel. Clinton’s campaign has said her private server had robust security protections, but neither she nor the campaign has gone into much detail about those practices.

I could go on and on but nut jobs like you won't accept what they say

 

[Redfish]

What?? There are more people unemployed today (with a larger population) than there were when a real estate bubble was propping up the economy??

You don't say?

Regardless, there are fewer people unemployed today, despite the larger population, than there were when Obama became president.

that is simply not true, they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work. its a game and they have you fooled.

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

looks like you caught fish lying again to justify his means ... now here comes the double talk from fish and a lot of childish remarks

Uh, nope.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/?page=all

 

[pinqy]

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

you failed your research project, try again or accept an F as your final grade.

see double talk ...if you're so sure fish about what you
are talking about how about giving a source

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/?page=all

Nothing in there says that the definiition was changed to exclude people not looking for work. They have NEVER been included. You fail.

 

[billyerock1991]

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

you failed your research project, try again or accept an F as your final grade.

Oh, how are you claiming I failed? I've shown my work.

because your research was flawed and biased.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/?page=all

why don't you got to the government sites and read the damn law ... not some right wing puff page opinion page ...thats whats wrong with your post ... you read some right wing puff page opinion site and say see I'm right ... to us it says see you're and idiot

 

[billyerock1991]

that is simply not true, they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work. its a game and they have you fooled.

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

looks like you caught fish lying again to justify his means ... now here comes the double talk from fish and a lot of childish remarks

Uh, nope.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/?page=all

your site is and opinion pages not a factual source of information ... when are you going to learn the difference4

 

[Faun]

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

you failed your research project, try again or accept an F as your final grade.

Oh, how are you claiming I failed? I've shown my work.

because your research was flawed and biased.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/?page=all

Holyfuckingshit!

That article doesn't actually defend your idiocy and you're clearly too ignorant to realize that.



Schmuck... you said, "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work."

Nothing's been changed. They still count folks the same way under Obama as they did before he was president. Making the 5% unumployment rate relative and relevant to what he inherited from Bush as well as the 10% unemployment rate resulting from Bush's Great Recession.

 

[Iceweasel]

You live in an alternative reality. We now know some of the emails were marked classified and the distinction isn't made that it's a requirement to not receive and/or pass them along on an unsecure system. Plus the director of the FBI says he doesn't give a flip about politics.

We also know her supporters don't care but chest pounding won't make it go away. Her shrill voice sounds like music to you but we don't all dance to the same tune.

I know you live in the make it up reality world is where you live ... you say we know some of her emails were classified ... you haven't any proof saying they were, just you know this... must be very satisfy to know that you can read minds predict what a person did or didn't do HUH ... yet you can't say that for shure ... its just and opinion of yours... kind of like sarah palin shrill ... I hope you get to hear that shrilll for the next 8 years .. oh lucky you... but you stay in your make it up world, you'll be happy there...
P. S.
you still have shown us one stick of evidence here that she had classified emails ... just your rants ... were still waiting for the evidence

It's been discussed, I'm not going to tutor you unless you pay me.

I would pick a illiterate tutor like you to teach any thing ...in other words we get it you're haven't a leg ti stand on ... just a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations ... Iv'e been following this thread from the get go... not one of you right wing nut jobs have been able to post one bit of factual proof or evidence just bunch of bull shit with a lot of might be or mat or a dozen could be's when confronted with the question you dodge it like you did here... we get it you're a liar

Jesus, talk about illiterate. What grade did you make it to? We know she broke the law because it's been quoted many times already. she wasn't allowed to do what she did. Period. Obviously she got classified information as SoS and she had it all on her personal homebrew setup, duh. Then deleting it, or so she thought.

At least 22 emails will never be seen in any form since they were so sensitive.

whats been quoted in the news by all media says this hillary clinton may have so22 emails that are considered to be classified ... then nut jobs like you turn that around salon hillary had 22 emails that arte classified ... then you claim they got here ... the fact that you're the illiterate one who just can'y seem to comprehend what you read is your fault ... I guess you were to busy being lead around by your nose by your handlers

in the second paragraph:
The State Department said it is investigating whether the content of the unreleased emails was classified at the time it was sent or received

then they said:
But because she used a private server, it wasn’t protected by government technology personnel. Clinton’s campaign has said her private server had robust security protections, but neither she nor the campaign has gone into much detail about those practices.

I could go on and on but nut jobs like you won't accept what they say

You could go on with your ignorance, but it changes nothing. I know I have posted several times about the classified emails. The bottom line is you think it's all a vast right wing conspiracy and I think your head is up Hillary's ass.

 

[Redfish]

They did not, ya deranged rightard.

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

looks like you caught fish lying again to justify his means ... now here comes the double talk from fish and a lot of childish remarks

Uh, nope.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/?page=all

your site is and opinion pages not a factual source of information ... when are you going to learn the difference4

Ok, here's one from USA today, hardly a conservative rag.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-28-1Ajobless28_ST_N.htm

 

[Redfish]

and one from huffpuff post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

 

[billyerock1991]

Why aren't the people who sent her classified information under investigation?

Don't Republicans care about them?

they are, idiot. Do you live under a rock where there is no TV, radio, or newspapers?

When is the next congressional investigation?

I am sure Gowdy is rounding them up as we speak

don't need another congressional investigation, the FBI is doing it. They only question is whether the AG will bring indictments when the FBI releases its findings. You can poo poo this as much as you like, but these are very serious findings. Patreaus was convicted of much less.

No he wasn't bozo. Acquaint yourself with the words knowingly and willingly, as it pertains to the law.

You're defense is that Hillary was too stupid to realize things like our exact locations in hot zones were classified? And she never received or sent anything classified when all the email was on her system? And that deleting everything and claiming they were just personal wasn't a coverup?

Worst genuflecting I've ever seen. You guys really can put your heads up your asses.

the " State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email

The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office. Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law, but they argue she violated the spirit of it.

 

[Redfish]

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

you failed your research project, try again or accept an F as your final grade.

Oh, how are you claiming I failed? I've shown my work.

because your research was flawed and biased.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/?page=all

Holyfuckingshit!

That article doesn't actually defend your idiocy and you're clearly too ignorant to realize that.



Schmuck... you said, "they changed the way they count the unemployed to exclude those who are no longer looking for work."

Nothing's been changed. They still count folks the same way under Obama as they did before he was president. Making the 5% unumployment rate relative and relevant to what he inherited from Bush as well as the 10% unemployment rate resulting from Bush's Great Recession.

enjoy your life in fantasy land. dance away, idiot.

 

[billyerock1991]

and one from huffpuff post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/unemployment-rate-wrong_n_3619152.html

all opinion pieces

 

[Faun]

you are wrong, look it up.

The last change in defintion was in 1994. before then, the definition of unemployed was:
Unemployed persons comprise all persons who did not work during the survey week, who made specific efforts to find a job within the past 4 weeks, and who were available for work during the survey week (except for temporary illness). Also included as unemployed are those who did not work at all, were available for work, and (a) were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off; or (b) were waiting to report to a new wage or salary job within 30 days.
Employment and Earnings July 1982

In 1994 it changed to
Unemployed persons. All persons who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment some time during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons who were waiting to be recalled to a job from which they had been laid off need not have been looking for work to be classified as unemployed.

So....no change eliminating people not looking for work. Apparently YOU did not look it up.

looks like you caught fish lying again to justify his means ... now here comes the double talk from fish and a lot of childish remarks

Uh, nope.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/10/donald-lambro-obama-hides-jobs-failure-by-not-coun/?page=all

your site is and opinion pages not a factual source of information ... when are you going to learn the difference4

Ok, here's one from USA today, hardly a conservative rag.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-28-1Ajobless28_ST_N.htm

Holyfuckingshit!

That has nothing to do with how the unemployment rate is calculated.



When will you start posting articles corroborating your idiocy rather than further exposing what an abject imbecile you are?