Got a real serious question for white folk....honestly

[Oldstyle]

LOL. You're really butt hurt over this. Face it. Obama is a failure. Nor should have ever been anyone's Preseident.

Nah, idiot righties amuse me. Not butthurt at all. And if Obama's a failure, what does that say about Reagan? The unemployment rate is lower now than at this point in his presidency.

You might want to check your numbers on that, Faun...six years in Reagan had unemployment down around 5.3 percent which is slightly lower than the 5.4 rate we're at now. More important however is how Reagan arrived at that number. He didn't use six years of Quantitative Easing by the Fed to artificially stimulate jobs or spend trillions in stimulus money to achieve his numbers. Inflation is now a looming problem BECAUSE of the way that we've attacked unemployment and every time a Fed Chief hints at raising interest rates Wall Street starts to crater. What happens if we have another financial crisis? How do you lower interest rates when they are already almost at zero?

Ask me if I'm surprised to see you fuck that up as badly as you did...

April, 2015: 5.4%
April, 1987: 6.3%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

How the fuck did you think it was 5.3%?

I was adjusting to take into account the 1994 changes in how unemployment was figured. Before that time you were counted as unemployed if you were unemployed and looking for work. After 1994 you were dropped from the count once you had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks. If Reagan's numbers were counted in the same manner as Obama's were, he would have had a lower percentage of unemployment than Barry. That also fails to take into account the large number of part time jobs that have been created under this administration compared to the much smaller number of part time jobs under Reagan.

Let me guess...you didn't have a clue they changed how the numbers were arrived at...did you?

So you're making up your own numbers??

Holyfuckingshit!

Must be nice to not have to deal with reality.

Oh, and did you also account for the changes in age ranges that took effect in 1994 which increased the unemployment rate? Let's see the math you used to come up with the number you made up?

I'm simply pointing out that the way the numbers were compiled changed in 1994...something which you obviously didn't have a clue about or simply decided to ignore. You're citing Reagan's numbers and comparing them to Obama's numbers when the way that those numbers were arrived at are totally different.

I don't expect anything different, Faun...you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers ever since Barry took office. You're the ones who gave us "Jobs created or saved".

 

[protectionist]

Nah, idiot righties amuse me. Not butthurt at all. And if Obama's a failure, what does that say about Reagan? The unemployment rate is lower now than at this point in his presidency.

You might want to check your numbers on that, Faun...six years in Reagan had unemployment down around 5.3 percent which is slightly lower than the 5.4 rate we're at now. More important however is how Reagan arrived at that number. He didn't use six years of Quantitative Easing by the Fed to artificially stimulate jobs or spend trillions in stimulus money to achieve his numbers. Inflation is now a looming problem BECAUSE of the way that we've attacked unemployment and every time a Fed Chief hints at raising interest rates Wall Street starts to crater. What happens if we have another financial crisis? How do you lower interest rates when they are already almost at zero?

Ask me if I'm surprised to see you fuck that up as badly as you did...

April, 2015: 5.4%
April, 1987: 6.3%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

How the fuck did you think it was 5.3%?

I was adjusting to take into account the 1994 changes in how unemployment was figured. Before that time you were counted as unemployed if you were unemployed and looking for work. After 1994 you were dropped from the count once you had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks. If Reagan's numbers were counted in the same manner as Obama's were, he would have had a lower percentage of unemployment than Barry. That also fails to take into account the large number of part time jobs that have been created under this administration compared to the much smaller number of part time jobs under Reagan.

Let me guess...you didn't have a clue they changed how the numbers were arrived at...did you?

So you're making up your own numbers??

Holyfuckingshit!

Must be nice to not have to deal with reality.

Oh, and did you also account for the changes in age ranges that took effect in 1994 which increased the unemployment rate? Let's see the math you used to come up with the number you made up?

I'm simply pointing out that the way the numbers were compiled changed in 1994...something which you obviously didn't have a clue about or simply decided to ignore. You're citing Reagan's numbers and comparing them to Obama's numbers when the way that those numbers were arrived at are totally different.

I don't expect anything different, Faun...you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers ever since Barry took office. You're the ones who gave us "Jobs created or saved".

That would be "Jobs created" FOR IMMIGRANTS

 

[Oldstyle]

Progressives pat themselves on the back when they save the job of one of those asshole clerks who work down at the DMV and bring a whole new meaning to the word "surly".

Thank God that none of THEM lost their jobs! It just wouldn't be the same going down to the Registry of Motor Vehicles and not seeing their "smiling faces" (eye-roll) behind that counter!

 

[kwc57]

The reason that Barack Obama is being held to a higher standard than other Presidents before him is that one of the things he ran on was his ability to be the first "post racial" President...the one who was going to be able to move beyond partisan racial politics and bring the country together. On that note, Tiger...he's failed in rather epic fashion. Barry has a knack for saying things that inflame racial tension. It seems like he can't help himself.

As a black man living in america......Barry can not, must not remain silent on issues that have hit the news....sorry.

Has Obama spoken to the white gang shootings in Waco? If not, why not? White lives matter........

Has he ever spoken to gang violence in general? Stupid false equivalence.

You might have a point. He speaks to mob violence.......which includes a lot of gangs.

 

[protectionist]

Time and time again, its being said that Obama is responsible for the racist tension we have in this country, that he and he alone has somehow created the environment for all this racial discard. It is fact, since Obama took office, gun sales in this nation soured to unprecedented levels, mostly in white communities, waiting and hoping for a race war. I've always contended however, with who? Since 80% of black men in this country is sleeping with them, but that's another debate.....so here's my question:

Please remind us all, exactly when was race relations in the this country ever good? Yaw acting like prior to Obama, we was all holding hands and singing happy christian songs while embracing the american flag....so do remind those of us who blinked and missed those moments, when was race relations ever ever ever good in this country?????

They weren't as bad as the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore. And just before those riots, Obama was meeting with Al Sharpton in the White House. And then Sharpton was meeting with Stephanie Rawlings. Here's a real serious question for the OP. You think they'd mind giving us the uncut video/audio of those meetings ?

 

[Faun]

Nah, idiot righties amuse me. Not butthurt at all. And if Obama's a failure, what does that say about Reagan? The unemployment rate is lower now than at this point in his presidency.

You might want to check your numbers on that, Faun...six years in Reagan had unemployment down around 5.3 percent which is slightly lower than the 5.4 rate we're at now. More important however is how Reagan arrived at that number. He didn't use six years of Quantitative Easing by the Fed to artificially stimulate jobs or spend trillions in stimulus money to achieve his numbers. Inflation is now a looming problem BECAUSE of the way that we've attacked unemployment and every time a Fed Chief hints at raising interest rates Wall Street starts to crater. What happens if we have another financial crisis? How do you lower interest rates when they are already almost at zero?

Ask me if I'm surprised to see you fuck that up as badly as you did...

April, 2015: 5.4%
April, 1987: 6.3%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

How the fuck did you think it was 5.3%?

I was adjusting to take into account the 1994 changes in how unemployment was figured. Before that time you were counted as unemployed if you were unemployed and looking for work. After 1994 you were dropped from the count once you had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks. If Reagan's numbers were counted in the same manner as Obama's were, he would have had a lower percentage of unemployment than Barry. That also fails to take into account the large number of part time jobs that have been created under this administration compared to the much smaller number of part time jobs under Reagan.

Let me guess...you didn't have a clue they changed how the numbers were arrived at...did you?

So you're making up your own numbers??

Holyfuckingshit!

Must be nice to not have to deal with reality.

Oh, and did you also account for the changes in age ranges that took effect in 1994 which increased the unemployment rate? Let's see the math you used to come up with the number you made up?

I'm simply pointing out that the way the numbers were compiled changed in 1994...something which you obviously didn't have a clue about or simply decided to ignore. You're citing Reagan's numbers and comparing them to Obama's numbers when the way that those numbers were arrived at are totally different.

I don't expect anything different, Faun...you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers ever since Barry took office. You're the ones who gave us "Jobs created or saved".

So you just made the number up out of whole cloth. Typical lying rightie. Now prove the changes in 1994 lowered the rate given the U-3 rate changed the age range...

 

[Faun]

Your response reveals far more about you than I suspect you intended.

OMG I made a racist and homophobic remark. Go cry in the corner you baby. Mommy will come to pick you up soon.

Why would I cry because you're a bigot?

OMG I am a bigot. Better go report me to the teacher.

Why would I do that?

You tell me. You're the pussy that is flustered by mean words.

You're too stupid beyond what words can describe. Your bigotry doesn't have me flustered. You keep avoiding this -- why would it?

Next question you won't answer ... why is it so important to you for your bigotry to bother me? Are you that starved for attention?

 

[ClosedCaption]

You might want to check your numbers on that, Faun...six years in Reagan had unemployment down around 5.3 percent which is slightly lower than the 5.4 rate we're at now. More important however is how Reagan arrived at that number. He didn't use six years of Quantitative Easing by the Fed to artificially stimulate jobs or spend trillions in stimulus money to achieve his numbers. Inflation is now a looming problem BECAUSE of the way that we've attacked unemployment and every time a Fed Chief hints at raising interest rates Wall Street starts to crater. What happens if we have another financial crisis? How do you lower interest rates when they are already almost at zero?

Ask me if I'm surprised to see you fuck that up as badly as you did...

April, 2015: 5.4%
April, 1987: 6.3%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

How the fuck did you think it was 5.3%?

I was adjusting to take into account the 1994 changes in how unemployment was figured. Before that time you were counted as unemployed if you were unemployed and looking for work. After 1994 you were dropped from the count once you had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks. If Reagan's numbers were counted in the same manner as Obama's were, he would have had a lower percentage of unemployment than Barry. That also fails to take into account the large number of part time jobs that have been created under this administration compared to the much smaller number of part time jobs under Reagan.

Let me guess...you didn't have a clue they changed how the numbers were arrived at...did you?

So you're making up your own numbers??

Holyfuckingshit!

Must be nice to not have to deal with reality.

Oh, and did you also account for the changes in age ranges that took effect in 1994 which increased the unemployment rate? Let's see the math you used to come up with the number you made up?

I'm simply pointing out that the way the numbers were compiled changed in 1994...something which you obviously didn't have a clue about or simply decided to ignore. You're citing Reagan's numbers and comparing them to Obama's numbers when the way that those numbers were arrived at are totally different.

I don't expect anything different, Faun...you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers ever since Barry took office. You're the ones who gave us "Jobs created or saved".

So you just made the number up out of whole cloth. Typical lying rightie. Now prove the changes in 1994 lowered the rate given the U-3 rate changed the age range...

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

 

[Faun]

Ask me if I'm surprised to see you fuck that up as badly as you did...

April, 2015: 5.4%
April, 1987: 6.3%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

How the fuck did you think it was 5.3%?

I was adjusting to take into account the 1994 changes in how unemployment was figured. Before that time you were counted as unemployed if you were unemployed and looking for work. After 1994 you were dropped from the count once you had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks. If Reagan's numbers were counted in the same manner as Obama's were, he would have had a lower percentage of unemployment than Barry. That also fails to take into account the large number of part time jobs that have been created under this administration compared to the much smaller number of part time jobs under Reagan.

Let me guess...you didn't have a clue they changed how the numbers were arrived at...did you?

So you're making up your own numbers??

Holyfuckingshit!

Must be nice to not have to deal with reality.

Oh, and did you also account for the changes in age ranges that took effect in 1994 which increased the unemployment rate? Let's see the math you used to come up with the number you made up?

I'm simply pointing out that the way the numbers were compiled changed in 1994...something which you obviously didn't have a clue about or simply decided to ignore. You're citing Reagan's numbers and comparing them to Obama's numbers when the way that those numbers were arrived at are totally different.

I don't expect anything different, Faun...you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers ever since Barry took office. You're the ones who gave us "Jobs created or saved".

So you just made the number up out of whole cloth. Typical lying rightie. Now prove the changes in 1994 lowered the rate given the U-3 rate changed the age range...

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

 

[Steinlight]

OMG I made a racist and homophobic remark. Go cry in the corner you baby. Mommy will come to pick you up soon.

Why would I cry because you're a bigot?

OMG I am a bigot. Better go report me to the teacher.

Why would I do that?

You tell me. You're the pussy that is flustered by mean words.

You're too stupid beyond what words can describe. Your bigotry doesn't have me flustered. You keep avoiding this -- why would it?

Next question you won't answer ... why is it so important to you for your bigotry to bother me? Are you that starved for attention?

LOL look at this faggot with the unironic clown avatar. I bet you would start crying if someone said n*gger around you.

 

[Faun]

Why would I cry because you're a bigot?

OMG I am a bigot. Better go report me to the teacher.

Why would I do that?

You tell me. You're the pussy that is flustered by mean words.

You're too stupid beyond what words can describe. Your bigotry doesn't have me flustered. You keep avoiding this -- why would it?

Next question you won't answer ... why is it so important to you for your bigotry to bother me? Are you that starved for attention?

LOL look at this faggot with the unironic clown avatar. I bet you would start crying if someone said n*gger around you.

You're still begging for my attention??

 

[Oldstyle]

Ask me if I'm surprised to see you fuck that up as badly as you did...

April, 2015: 5.4%
April, 1987: 6.3%

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

How the fuck did you think it was 5.3%?

I was adjusting to take into account the 1994 changes in how unemployment was figured. Before that time you were counted as unemployed if you were unemployed and looking for work. After 1994 you were dropped from the count once you had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks. If Reagan's numbers were counted in the same manner as Obama's were, he would have had a lower percentage of unemployment than Barry. That also fails to take into account the large number of part time jobs that have been created under this administration compared to the much smaller number of part time jobs under Reagan.

Let me guess...you didn't have a clue they changed how the numbers were arrived at...did you?

So you're making up your own numbers??

Holyfuckingshit!

Must be nice to not have to deal with reality.

Oh, and did you also account for the changes in age ranges that took effect in 1994 which increased the unemployment rate? Let's see the math you used to come up with the number you made up?

I'm simply pointing out that the way the numbers were compiled changed in 1994...something which you obviously didn't have a clue about or simply decided to ignore. You're citing Reagan's numbers and comparing them to Obama's numbers when the way that those numbers were arrived at are totally different.

I don't expect anything different, Faun...you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers ever since Barry took office. You're the ones who gave us "Jobs created or saved".

So you just made the number up out of whole cloth. Typical lying rightie. Now prove the changes in 1994 lowered the rate given the U-3 rate changed the age range...

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

The day I "run" from the likes of you, Closed is the day pigs fly and Al Sharpton gets a real job!

 

[Oldstyle]

I was adjusting to take into account the 1994 changes in how unemployment was figured. Before that time you were counted as unemployed if you were unemployed and looking for work. After 1994 you were dropped from the count once you had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks. If Reagan's numbers were counted in the same manner as Obama's were, he would have had a lower percentage of unemployment than Barry. That also fails to take into account the large number of part time jobs that have been created under this administration compared to the much smaller number of part time jobs under Reagan.

Let me guess...you didn't have a clue they changed how the numbers were arrived at...did you?

So you're making up your own numbers??

Holyfuckingshit!

Must be nice to not have to deal with reality.

Oh, and did you also account for the changes in age ranges that took effect in 1994 which increased the unemployment rate? Let's see the math you used to come up with the number you made up?

I'm simply pointing out that the way the numbers were compiled changed in 1994...something which you obviously didn't have a clue about or simply decided to ignore. You're citing Reagan's numbers and comparing them to Obama's numbers when the way that those numbers were arrived at are totally different.

I don't expect anything different, Faun...you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers ever since Barry took office. You're the ones who gave us "Jobs created or saved".

So you just made the number up out of whole cloth. Typical lying rightie. Now prove the changes in 1994 lowered the rate given the U-3 rate changed the age range...

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

 

[Faun]

So you're making up your own numbers??

Holyfuckingshit!

Must be nice to not have to deal with reality.

Oh, and did you also account for the changes in age ranges that took effect in 1994 which increased the unemployment rate? Let's see the math you used to come up with the number you made up?

I'm simply pointing out that the way the numbers were compiled changed in 1994...something which you obviously didn't have a clue about or simply decided to ignore. You're citing Reagan's numbers and comparing them to Obama's numbers when the way that those numbers were arrived at are totally different.

I don't expect anything different, Faun...you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers ever since Barry took office. You're the ones who gave us "Jobs created or saved".

So you just made the number up out of whole cloth. Typical lying rightie. Now prove the changes in 1994 lowered the rate given the U-3 rate changed the age range...

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

 

[TemplarKormac]

so do remind those of us who blinked and missed those moments, when was race relations ever ever ever good in this country?

Let's put it in more quaint terms. Race relations weren't great before Obama, but got worse after he became president.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm simply pointing out that the way the numbers were compiled changed in 1994...something which you obviously didn't have a clue about or simply decided to ignore. You're citing Reagan's numbers and comparing them to Obama's numbers when the way that those numbers were arrived at are totally different.

I don't expect anything different, Faun...you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers ever since Barry took office. You're the ones who gave us "Jobs created or saved".

So you just made the number up out of whole cloth. Typical lying rightie. Now prove the changes in 1994 lowered the rate given the U-3 rate changed the age range...

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

 

[Faun]

So you just made the number up out of whole cloth. Typical lying rightie. Now prove the changes in 1994 lowered the rate given the U-3 rate changed the age range...

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So you're making up your own numbers??

Holyfuckingshit!

Must be nice to not have to deal with reality.

Oh, and did you also account for the changes in age ranges that took effect in 1994 which increased the unemployment rate? Let's see the math you used to come up with the number you made up?

I'm simply pointing out that the way the numbers were compiled changed in 1994...something which you obviously didn't have a clue about or simply decided to ignore. You're citing Reagan's numbers and comparing them to Obama's numbers when the way that those numbers were arrived at are totally different.

I don't expect anything different, Faun...you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers ever since Barry took office. You're the ones who gave us "Jobs created or saved".

So you just made the number up out of whole cloth. Typical lying rightie. Now prove the changes in 1994 lowered the rate given the U-3 rate changed the age range...

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

The day I "run" from the likes of you, Closed is the day pigs fly and Al Sharpton gets a real job!

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

The day I "run" from the likes of you, Closed is the day pigs fly and Al Sharpton gets a real job!

Breaking News a pig just took flight, and Sharpton has been at MSNBC derp

 

[Correll]

Step 1. Don't use the Race Card.

Step 2. Don't let his partisans use the Race Card in his defense.

That alone would have been a huge step forward.

You fuckers are failing at this question. I asked what he should have done. What could he have done. Who did he need to teach?

Spit it out.

I just told you my opinion on that.

Step 1. Don't use the Race Card.

Step 2. Don't let his partisans use the Race Card in his defense.

That alone would have been a huge step forward.

No...please tell me what he should have done that he did not do.

You and the race card. Such laziness.

Fine, as above, he should NOT have accused McCain of running a racist campaign.

When his partisans accuse those who criticize him as racist, he should point out that they criticized Clinton the same way and that he doesn't need special treatment.

I'm not asking you what he shouldn't have done...especially when your example is from before he became POTUS.

I criticize him all the time. I'm not racist.

What SHOULD HE DO?

Don't play dumb.

My answer is that he should NOT have actively racebaited, or let his partisans use the Race Card in his defense.

The contrast with other dem and black leaders would be so great as to be a huge advance for race relations in this country, IMO.

He would be a great example, and the level of public discourse would be greatly improved.

If he were to build on that and move on to something proactive, that would be gravy as far as I am concerned.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle is known for saying something is wrong until someone tells him to prove it. Then he runs or asks rhetorical questions like "You REALLY think that all polls are accurate?" Lol

That idiot actually has the audacity to claim, "you progressives have been playing fast and loose with the numbers," after making up a number out of thin air.

You can't make this shit up, I tells ya!

What would you call inventing a new economic statistic...Jobs created or saved...to hide how few jobs your 870 Billion dollar stimulus actually created? Playing fast and loose with the numbers works for me...

Unlike you, they made nothing up. A job created is a new job added. A job saved is an existing job which does not get cut where it would have been. Just because you struggle with words doesn't mean others do.

And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the U-3 rate prior to 1994 would have been lower using the changes the BLS applied given the change in the age range.

Whassamatter? Defending your hallucinations too difficult for ya?

How about you show me how you arrive at a credible number for how many jobs you "saved", Faun? The entire reason for using THAT statistic is that it was absolutely impossible to verify a number...which meant the Obama Administration could simply make one up that they thought sounded good. It's the very EPITOME of playing fast and loose with numbers!

Then you can take a crack at explaining how Barry got it SO wrong on his pledge that the average Middle Class family would save $2,500 a year in healthcare costs if the ACA was passed.

Look at oldstyle running away from me. I challenged him several times now to show he's not a retard by demonstrating that the U-3 unemployment rate is lower because of the changes established in 1994 when factoring in the changes to the age range, and he can't answer.

That you run away from me convinces me you would also run away from ClosedCaption, despite your vapid denials.

As far as your question, I don't know that anyone has produced numbers indicating how many jobs were saved without also factoring in jobs created. There were numbers estimated based on jobs saved and created which I'd be more than happy to share.

Explain why you'd even NEED to create a new statistic that purports to measure "jobs saved" other than the obvious reason...because you didn't create jobs and desperately want to hide that fact from the American people who's money you've just frittered away with the Obama Stimulus? Do you deny that the "jobs saved" totals are subjective AT BEST and a total fabrication at worst? When I say that you progressives played fast and loose with the numbers...the entire "jobs saved" statistic is the PERFECT example of what I'm talking about!

As for my running away from your question about how changes made to how we calculate unemployment made in 1994 were affected by the "age range"? I don't have the faintest idea how the "age range" affected those numbers...nor did I ever say that I DID know! My point all along is that the unemployment numbers you've quoted for Ronald Reagan and for Barack Obama were arrived at by using different methods of calculation.
dshort Advisor Perspectives