Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's beyond you,move along.
Funny, I don't have trouble understanding most of the rightwing retards around here;
maybe you should strive to bring yourself up to that level of communication skill.
You are an idiot, no more, no less.
You are not now nor ever have been worth my time.....as to communication you should probably pay more attention to what you respond to.
Fine, stop being all talk and put me on ignore then.
Pay attention to what you respond to,you look very stupid right now.
Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.
It would help if you would name who you are talking about instead of using pronouns and implied subjects. Certainly the Librarian Party isn't duping me, I don't belong to the party and it's because they are more party than libertarian. I'm not an anarchist, I keep arguing with them here at USMB. Who exactly is pulling my strings exactly according to you?
The Republicans and Democrats are virtually the same. All you have to do is open your eyes.
There it is. You think that someone who pays attention as I do cannot see the obvious differences between the democrats and the republicans. You actually think you are so much more "in the know". It's arrogance of the highest order.
I did to say anyone is pulling your strings. I said you have been duped. The minute you think something is not your idea....you will reject it. As long as you think you are "thinking outside the beltway" you'll prance around telling everyone they are unaware of the truth.
I am willing to bet that if you and I took a quiz on the issues....we'd be pretty damned similar. But YOU will never admit it.
So you think you're not like Republicans, but you are like libertarians? That's classic. You're an authoritarian leftist, what would we agree on?
I'm fiscally conservative like Republicans. Except I mean it. And I'm socially liberal like Democrats. Except I mean it.
Fiscal
- End the minimum wage, abolish social security, medicaid and all other Federal welfare and wealth redistribution schemes, end foreign aid to all countries, eliminate all corporate taxes, require the IRS to show probable cause and get warrants to audit returns, require law enforcement to show probable cause and get warrants to pry into financial records looking for drug money
Social
- End government marriage entirely, legalize all drugs, legalize prostitution gambling and end gay sex sodomy laws.
Military
- Slash the budget by 1/3 to 1/2 andmake the military defensie only. Stop being policeman to the world. If someone does attack us, then destroy what they did to us many times over and stop tying our military's hands to do it with stupid State Department rules.
I'll let you answer your own question. What would we agree on. I'll limit it to the things you just mentioned.
Please.....what parts of what you just said do you think you and I agree on?
If you agree with a significant portion of it, why would you possibly support Obama?
Don't want to see where we agree, huh? Too bad.
It's beyond you,move along.
Funny, I don't have trouble understanding most of the rightwing retards around here;
maybe you should strive to bring yourself up to that level of communication skill.
You are an idiot, no more, no less.
You are not now nor ever have been worth my time.....as to communication you should probably pay more attention to what you respond to.
Fine, stop being all talk and put me on ignore then.
Pay attention to what you respond to,you look very stupid right now.
Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.
....and yet incomes are still down under Obama, LOLDon't rush, Macky, I know YOU are not an economist. And you sure as hell aren't any good at math.
Since median income was down the same amount under Bush, what's your point?
You can keep spinning it all you want, liar.
$55,589 baby.......has Obama hit $55,589?
That number during Bush's presidency occurred around the top of the real estate bubble.
Do you think maybe that the jobs lost in the real estate industry since then migh impact household income?
And while we're on the subject, do you think that the massive downsizing of government, and the attendant loss of government jobs, might affect household income?
Afterall, that's the conservative dream isn't it? Fewer and fewer government jobs?
You might want to comprehend it's an open forum, son. I'll speak AT you when I damn well please.
Oooooh! A badass tough guy! We don't have many of those here.
Everyone must seem like a " bad ass" to an effeminate little sissy boy like you kid.
6'2", 220lbs. You bigger?
5'10', Ranger Trained, Ex Champion Wrestler it won't matter.
Haven't we been through this before? You are under 5'9"..and you are now fat. You don't remember?
Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.Funny, I don't have trouble understanding most of the rightwing retards around here;
maybe you should strive to bring yourself up to that level of communication skill.
You are an idiot, no more, no less.
You are not now nor ever have been worth my time.....as to communication you should probably pay more attention to what you respond to.
Fine, stop being all talk and put me on ignore then.
Pay attention to what you respond to,you look very stupid right now.
Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.
(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?
6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........
Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.You are an idiot, no more, no less.
You are not now nor ever have been worth my time.....as to communication you should probably pay more attention to what you respond to.
Fine, stop being all talk and put me on ignore then.
Pay attention to what you respond to,you look very stupid right now.
Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.
(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?
6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........
Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.Fine, stop being all talk and put me on ignore then.
Pay attention to what you respond to,you look very stupid right now.
Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.
(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?
6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........
Try the UE 6 numbers kid.
The U-6 is not a measure of unemployment. It is Unemployed plus marginally attached to the labor force plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the marginally attached.Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.Fine, stop being all talk and put me on ignore then.
Pay attention to what you respond to,you look very stupid right now.
Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.
(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?
6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........
Try the UE 6 numbers kid.
The U-6 is not a measure of unemployment. It is Unemployed plus marginally attached to the labor force plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the marginally attached.Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.Pay attention to what you respond to,you look very stupid right now.
Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.
(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?
6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........
Try the UE 6 numbers kid.
To call a measure including people with jobs and people not trying to work as the "actual" unemployment rate defies reason.
Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.Pay attention to what you respond to,you look very stupid right now.
Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.
(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?
6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........
Try the UE 6 numbers kid.
U-6 is down along with U-3. That's what I keep pointing out to prove that Econ's thread premise is wrong.
The U-6 is not a measure of unemployment. It is Unemployed plus marginally attached to the labor force plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the marginally attached.Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.Pay attention to what you respond to,you look very stupid right now.
Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.
(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?
6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........
Try the UE 6 numbers kid.
To call a measure including people with jobs and people not trying to work as the "actual" unemployment rate defies reason.
The U-6 is not a measure of unemployment. It is Unemployed plus marginally attached to the labor force plus those working part time for economic reasons as a percent of the labor force plus the marginally attached.Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.
(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?
6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........
Try the UE 6 numbers kid.
To call a measure including people with jobs and people not trying to work as the "actual" unemployment rate defies reason.
Horse Hockey, only in "We must protect Obamaland".
How convenient, you don't want to include underemployment or those who have given up looking.
Oh, are we just making up numbers now? Is that how it works? Now, are you claiming the actual calculations were 12% and the BLS is just lying, or are you using a different definition of unemployed than has been used for the last 70 years? And I'd love to see how you came up with that number. Unless you pulled it out of where I think you pulled it out of.Why don't you tell us all why Obama is to blame for household income numbers.
(smile)
What did you respond to lil guy?
6 years,no progress except swelling welfare rolls and non participation in the workforce.
The ACTUAL UE number is closer to 12%.........
Try the UE 6 numbers kid.
U-6 is down along with U-3. That's what I keep pointing out to prove that Econ's thread premise is wrong.
WE ALL KNOW U-6 IS THE REEEEEEEEEEEEEAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE....JUST AS IT HAS BEEN IN PRIOR ADMINISTRATIONS. And as you know shit-for -brains......that rate is 12%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So saying 12% is down from 13% is stupid.
