Sarah Palin being considered for Secretary of Veterans Affairs

[Rustic]

Your "explanation" is a lie since they didn't count those people when Clinton was president or when Bush was president. Nothing changed in that regard during Obama's presidency.

The same policies rightwingnuts offer as the reason for the rise in the stock market since the election.

U.S. changes how it measures long-term unemployment - USATODAY.com

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Calculate It | The Huffington Post

Note the date on the articles - compare that date to the change in the unemployment rate on the charts you posted.

Quite a coincidence, huh?

don't confuse libtardians with facts, facts make their little heads implode.

The above from the guy who has said:

1. There was no recession in 2008

2. Trump won the popular vote.

IOW, you're talking to a mental patient.

1. a market correction brought on by bad mortgage policy is not a recession
2. the PV count is still pending, once the fraudulent votes are removed, Trump is likely to win, but it doesn't really matter, we don't elect president by PV.

Might be time to call the nurse for your daily meds and catheter change.

Just so everyone else sees what I've already seen -- I note, you still flat out refuse to offer what economic conditions you think are needed to occur to qualify as a recession.

And the reason you won't is because if you did, Bush's Great Recession would fit neatly into the definition.

 

[Faun]

Discuss what you want, but the fact remains -- 4.9% unemployment, 72 consecutive months of job growth, and a record high stock market is not the definition of a mess.

If you want to see what a mess looks like, look at the end of 2008 and early 2009 when unemployment was 7.8% and growing, over million people became unemployed in January, 2009, and the stock market lost half of its valuation.

Jobs are SO GOOD that America rushed to extend the Obama policies through Hillary.

Oh, wait....

Imagine if just once, you had a thought that didn't come from Alternet or one of the Soros hate sites? Ah, but that will never happen.

We're at full employment no matter how you try to spin it. Trump was elected because America didn't have enough trust and confidence in Hillary. As far as Obama, his job approval rating is as high as Reagan's was at this point in his presidency.

 

[Faun]

Trump needs to get a contract from Sarah, in order to keep her from quitting after she realizes that she will be given a basement office in the Pentagon, with no chance of getting richer.

You need to get material from somewhere other than ThinkProgress.

Boring and stupid is no way to win over the audience..

Here ... let Sarah speak for herself....

Oh how clever, meat puppet, you posted a ThinkProgress hate vid.

I know, you "think" that really proves a point. I mean your masters gave you a script after all.

It's adorable how offended you get when folks make fun of your leaders.

 

[Redfish]

Your "explanation" is a lie since they didn't count those people when Clinton was president or when Bush was president. Nothing changed in that regard during Obama's presidency.

The same policies rightwingnuts offer as the reason for the rise in the stock market since the election.

U.S. changes how it measures long-term unemployment - USATODAY.com

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Calculate It | The Huffington Post

Note the date on the articles - compare that date to the change in the unemployment rate on the charts you posted.

Quite a coincidence, huh?

don't confuse libtardians with facts, facts make their little heads implode.

The above from the guy who has said:

1. There was no recession in 2008

2. Trump won the popular vote.

IOW, you're talking to a mental patient.

1. a market correction brought on by bad mortgage policy is not a recession
2. the PV count is still pending, once the fraudulent votes are removed, Trump is likely to win, but it doesn't really matter, we don't elect president by PV.

Might be time to call the nurse for your daily meds and catheter change.

Just so everyone else sees what I've already seen -- I note, you still flat out refuse to offer what economic conditions you think are needed to occur to qualify as a recession.

And the reason you won't is because if you did, Bush's Great Recession would fit neatly into the definition.

check 1929, do some research. you might learn something. 2008 was NOT a recession. Calling it a recession is an excuse dreamed up by both parties to cover their incompetent economic policies.

"Bush's great recession" = your all time most idiotic post.

 

[Faun]

Rightards can't even get on the same page with each other because they don't know what they're talking about...

The housing bubble did not burst because of loans to minorities and no one ever said it was the reason.

The housing collapse started thanks to regulations the Dems forced down Congress's throat that allowed people (blacks) with poor credit to buy a home with no money down and no income to speak of.

So, you have nothing intelligent to post in refutation of my analysis?

Hey, not a problem. You lack so much as a hint of a clue. You are an uneducated dolt spewing part talking points. That does not lend itself to actual debate.

Just another Soros meat puppet spewing mindless hate.

I already pointed out the flaws. This post was just to show how you rightards spew different rightardisms.

 

[Redfish]

Discuss what you want, but the fact remains -- 4.9% unemployment, 72 consecutive months of job growth, and a record high stock market is not the definition of a mess.

If you want to see what a mess looks like, look at the end of 2008 and early 2009 when unemployment was 7.8% and growing, over million people became unemployed in January, 2009, and the stock market lost half of its valuation.

Jobs are SO GOOD that America rushed to extend the Obama policies through Hillary.

Oh, wait....

Imagine if just once, you had a thought that didn't come from Alternet or one of the Soros hate sites? Ah, but that will never happen.

We're at full employment no matter how you try to spin it. Trump was elected because America didn't have enough trust and confidence in Hillary. As far as Obama, his job approval rating is as high as Reagan's was at this point in his presidency.

Who was polled to determine his job approval? How many americans? where do they live? Give us the stats of the poll or STFU

 

[Faun]

Discuss what you want, but the fact remains -- 4.9% unemployment, 72 consecutive months of job growth, and a record high stock market is not the definition of a mess.

If you want to see what a mess looks like, look at the end of 2008 and early 2009 when unemployment was 7.8% and growing, over million people became unemployed in January, 2009, and the stock market lost half of its valuation.

Jobs are SO GOOD that America rushed to extend the Obama policies through Hillary.

Oh, wait....

Imagine if just once, you had a thought that didn't come from Alternet or one of the Soros hate sites? Ah, but that will never happen.

We're at full employment no matter how you try to spin it. Trump was elected because America didn't have enough trust and confidence in Hillary. As far as Obama, his job approval rating is as high as Reagan's was at this point in his presidency.

Who was polled to determine his job approval? How many americans? where do they live? Give us the stats of the poll or STFU

Here ya go, contact Gallup for those details...

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

 

[Rustic]

Rightards can't even get on the same page with each other because they don't know what they're talking about...

The housing bubble did not burst because of loans to minorities and no one ever said it was the reason.

The housing collapse started thanks to regulations the Dems forced down Congress's throat that allowed people (blacks) with poor credit to buy a home with no money down and no income to speak of.

So, you have nothing intelligent to post in refutation of my analysis?

Hey, not a problem. You lack so much as a hint of a clue. You are an uneducated dolt spewing part talking points. That does not lend itself to actual debate.

Just another Soros meat puppet spewing mindless hate.

I already pointed out the flaws. This post was just to show how you rightards spew different rightardisms.

The lame duck is on his way out, best to move on to bigger and better things… Don't you agree?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Unemployment:

Bush ..... 4.2% to 7.8% (+86%)
Obama .. 7.8% to 4.9% (-37%)

Dow:

Bush ..... 10.6K to 8.3K (-22%)
Obama .... 8.3K to 19.2K (+132%)

Lying Redfish calls that worse under Obama.

I already explained how they no longer count people who have given up looking for work in the unemployment numbers.


Liar = you

Your "explanation" is a lie since they didn't count those people when Clinton was president or when Bush was president. Nothing changed in that regard during Obama's presidency.

I am still waiting for you to tell us which specific obozo policies CAUSED the market rally.

The same policies rightwingnuts offer as the reason for the rise in the stock market since the election.

U.S. changes how it measures long-term unemployment - USATODAY.com

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Calculate It | The Huffington Post

Note the date on the articles - compare that date to the change in the unemployment rate on the charts you posted.

Quite a coincidence, huh?

Holyfuckingshit!

File this under 'C' for conservatives are fucking retards.

That's not a change to how the unemployment rate is calculated. That changed the definition of long term unemployment, which was folks out of work from 2 years, to include anyone out of work for 5 years. That had absolutely no affect on the unemployment rate.

And moron .... long term unemployment is not part of the methodology employed to calculate any of the BLS's measures of labor underutilization, U-1 through U-6.

Spoiler: Hell, did you even bother to read the link YOU posted?

"The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the unemployment rate is computed nor how long those eligible for unemployment benefits receive them."

Dang, I don't know exactly how to respond ....

1) I could tell you to stick it in your ass because of your moronic and childish personal attacks.

2) I could explain to you just how wrong you are --- that you can't compare pre-2010 unemployment rates with post 2010 because the computation methodology was changed in order to hide the people driven from the unemployment rolls.

I think I'll go for no. 1.

Since you can't see the difference between what you write and I write, I would be wasting my time. Rather than try to change your addled little mind, I guess the best thing I can do is just tell you to fuck off.

Consider it done.

Fawn is a Soros hate drone, a meat puppet. You cannot reason with him because he has no mind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

People who don't even rise to the level of 'amateur' are assuming places of power. We have only laughing or crying as choices of response.

True, but the amateur is out of office in about a month. Then the adults can take over.

 

[ChrisL]

I think she'd be great pick if for no other reason to drive the moonbats even crazier.

ROFL. True!

 

[Faun]

U.S. changes how it measures long-term unemployment - USATODAY.com

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Calculate It | The Huffington Post

Note the date on the articles - compare that date to the change in the unemployment rate on the charts you posted.

Quite a coincidence, huh?

don't confuse libtardians with facts, facts make their little heads implode.

The above from the guy who has said:

1. There was no recession in 2008

2. Trump won the popular vote.

IOW, you're talking to a mental patient.

1. a market correction brought on by bad mortgage policy is not a recession
2. the PV count is still pending, once the fraudulent votes are removed, Trump is likely to win, but it doesn't really matter, we don't elect president by PV.

Might be time to call the nurse for your daily meds and catheter change.

Just so everyone else sees what I've already seen -- I note, you still flat out refuse to offer what economic conditions you think are needed to occur to qualify as a recession.

And the reason you won't is because if you did, Bush's Great Recession would fit neatly into the definition.

check 1929, do some research. you might learn something. 2008 was NOT a recession. Calling it a recession is an excuse dreamed up by both parties to cover their incompetent economic policies.

"Bush's great recession" = your all time most idiotic post.

"1929" is not a definition of a recession.

Keep running, Redfish.

Like I said, the reason you don't post the definition of a recession is because if you did, Bush's Great Recession would fit neatly into the definition.

 

[Redfish]

Discuss what you want, but the fact remains -- 4.9% unemployment, 72 consecutive months of job growth, and a record high stock market is not the definition of a mess.

If you want to see what a mess looks like, look at the end of 2008 and early 2009 when unemployment was 7.8% and growing, over million people became unemployed in January, 2009, and the stock market lost half of its valuation.

Jobs are SO GOOD that America rushed to extend the Obama policies through Hillary.

Oh, wait....

Imagine if just once, you had a thought that didn't come from Alternet or one of the Soros hate sites? Ah, but that will never happen.

We're at full employment no matter how you try to spin it. Trump was elected because America didn't have enough trust and confidence in Hillary. As far as Obama, his job approval rating is as high as Reagan's was at this point in his presidency.

Who was polled to determine his job approval? How many americans? where do they live? Give us the stats of the poll or STFU

Here ya go, contact Gallup for those details...

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

1500 people out of 330,000,000. Gallop also predicted that HRC would win and that there was no path to 270 EC votes for Trump.

you are free to buy this shit if you want, but the election of novermber 2016 proved that the pollsters are both biased and incompetent.

 

[Faun]

Hey, go ahead, put Palin in a prominent position. Maybe that will jolt some Americans into recalling why they didn't elect McCain/Palin eight years ago.

McCain and Palin lost because obozo is half black and the media was ejaculatory over him.

You're always wrong. Stop posting and you'll stop being wrong.

No, he's not "always" wrong. Most times, he's lying. When he's not lying, he's wrong.

the truth scares the cold livin shit out of you doesn't it? Your personal attacks just reverify your ignorant parrot-like postings.

LOLOLOL

As if you ever post the truth.

 

[kaz]

U.S. changes how it measures long-term unemployment - USATODAY.com

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Calculate It | The Huffington Post

Note the date on the articles - compare that date to the change in the unemployment rate on the charts you posted.

Quite a coincidence, huh?

don't confuse libtardians with facts, facts make their little heads implode.

The above from the guy who has said:

1. There was no recession in 2008

2. Trump won the popular vote.

IOW, you're talking to a mental patient.

1. a market correction brought on by bad mortgage policy is not a recession
2. the PV count is still pending, once the fraudulent votes are removed, Trump is likely to win, but it doesn't really matter, we don't elect president by PV.

Might be time to call the nurse for your daily meds and catheter change.

Just so everyone else sees what I've already seen -- I note, you still flat out refuse to offer what economic conditions you think are needed to occur to qualify as a recession.

And the reason you won't is because if you did, Bush's Great Recession would fit neatly into the definition.

That was hilarious

 

[TooTall]

I'm a veteran ...

John Kerry, on the other hand, doesn't deserve the title of veteran. He is, and was, a self serving egotist focused only on enhancing his own career while willingly, and intentionally, sacrificing his men in order to forward his career goals.

He is an embarrassment to the veteran community.

I'm a retired US Navy sailor, with over 20 years of service, and I respectfully disagree with you.

ANYONE who has served a full term and was discharged with Under Honorable Conditions discharge or better, gets to have the title of veteran. They earned it, regardless of what I think of their politics.

There are people on this board who are also veterans and we disagree quite a bit, but we recognize each others service and honor that part of them, if not the rest.

You should do so as well, even if you don't like Kerry. He served the time, he's a vet.

I disagree ... it has nothing to do with politics.

It has to do with his performance AS a veteran. He has forfeited my respect. (The operative word is "honor")

You gotta admit if you're being honest, that there are people currently in the military and those who have served honorably and gotten out, who were pretty crappy human beings. I had a LT on my first ship who was a ring knocker who thought he knew everything (he didn't), as well as have worked with enlisted people who did their job, did it fairly well, but were miserable to be around.

Even though I didn't like those people and thought they were piss poor excuses for human beings, I still recognized their service as veterans if they had a General Under Honorable Conditions or better discharge.

The only ones I don't consider veterans are those whose DD214s say General Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (OTH), Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD, also known as Big Chicken Dinner), or Dishonorable, because the military said they didn't recognize their service as honorable.

Everyone else? If the military recognizes their service as Honorable, that's good enough for me, even if I don't like them.

Kerry did serve and managed to come home after a shortened tour due to three band aid injuries. He did get an Honhiorable discharge and then got lower than whale shit as a veteran by throwing his military ribbons over the White House wall to protest the Vietnam war. He then testified before Congress:

"They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

4/22/71 War ended on 8/15/73

He gave aid and comfort to the enemy while we were still engaged in armed conflict and is in a tie with Jane Fonda for being a traitor and a sorry human being, IMHO.

I recall an interview with Kerry's wife where she spoke of Kerry being awakened often from the pain from one of his wounds. Degrading his service just shows what a dick you are. Actually, Kerry's post war actions helped end the Vietnam war earlier & that save soldier's lives

Those atrocities did happen.

So fucking what! You don't give propaganda to the enemy while they are still killing thousands of American GI's for the next 2+years. Kerry is a bottom feeding low life scumbag and those would be his finer points.

 

[Redfish]

don't confuse libtardians with facts, facts make their little heads implode.

The above from the guy who has said:

1. There was no recession in 2008

2. Trump won the popular vote.

IOW, you're talking to a mental patient.

1. a market correction brought on by bad mortgage policy is not a recession
2. the PV count is still pending, once the fraudulent votes are removed, Trump is likely to win, but it doesn't really matter, we don't elect president by PV.

Might be time to call the nurse for your daily meds and catheter change.

Just so everyone else sees what I've already seen -- I note, you still flat out refuse to offer what economic conditions you think are needed to occur to qualify as a recession.

And the reason you won't is because if you did, Bush's Great Recession would fit neatly into the definition.

check 1929, do some research. you might learn something. 2008 was NOT a recession. Calling it a recession is an excuse dreamed up by both parties to cover their incompetent economic policies.

"Bush's great recession" = your all time most idiotic post.

"1929" is not a definition of a recession.

Keep running, Redfish.

Like I said, the reason you don't post the definition of a recession is because if you did, Bush's Great Recession would fit neatly into the definition.

OK, let me try again so you might understand. I do not agree with the definition created by the political parties to cover their incompetent economic policies.

Unlike you, I actually have a mind and am able to reason and think for myself.

 

[Faun]

Discuss what you want, but the fact remains -- 4.9% unemployment, 72 consecutive months of job growth, and a record high stock market is not the definition of a mess.

If you want to see what a mess looks like, look at the end of 2008 and early 2009 when unemployment was 7.8% and growing, over million people became unemployed in January, 2009, and the stock market lost half of its valuation.

Jobs are SO GOOD that America rushed to extend the Obama policies through Hillary.

Oh, wait....

Imagine if just once, you had a thought that didn't come from Alternet or one of the Soros hate sites? Ah, but that will never happen.

We're at full employment no matter how you try to spin it. Trump was elected because America didn't have enough trust and confidence in Hillary. As far as Obama, his job approval rating is as high as Reagan's was at this point in his presidency.

Who was polled to determine his job approval? How many americans? where do they live? Give us the stats of the poll or STFU

Here ya go, contact Gallup for those details...

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

1500 people out of 330,000,000. Gallop also predicted that HRC would win and that there was no path to 270 EC votes for Trump.

you are free to buy this shit if you want, but the election of novermber 2016 proved that the pollsters are both biased and incompetent.

LOLOL

You're lying again ... post Gallup's election poll numbers......

 

[Redfish]

Jobs are SO GOOD that America rushed to extend the Obama policies through Hillary.

Oh, wait....

Imagine if just once, you had a thought that didn't come from Alternet or one of the Soros hate sites? Ah, but that will never happen.

We're at full employment no matter how you try to spin it. Trump was elected because America didn't have enough trust and confidence in Hillary. As far as Obama, his job approval rating is as high as Reagan's was at this point in his presidency.

Who was polled to determine his job approval? How many americans? where do they live? Give us the stats of the poll or STFU

Here ya go, contact Gallup for those details...

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

1500 people out of 330,000,000. Gallop also predicted that HRC would win and that there was no path to 270 EC votes for Trump.

you are free to buy this shit if you want, but the election of novermber 2016 proved that the pollsters are both biased and incompetent.

LOLOL

You're lying again ... post Gallup's election poll numbers......

have you been under a rock for the last few months?

 

[Faun]

The above from the guy who has said:

1. There was no recession in 2008

2. Trump won the popular vote.

IOW, you're talking to a mental patient.

1. a market correction brought on by bad mortgage policy is not a recession
2. the PV count is still pending, once the fraudulent votes are removed, Trump is likely to win, but it doesn't really matter, we don't elect president by PV.

Might be time to call the nurse for your daily meds and catheter change.

Just so everyone else sees what I've already seen -- I note, you still flat out refuse to offer what economic conditions you think are needed to occur to qualify as a recession.

And the reason you won't is because if you did, Bush's Great Recession would fit neatly into the definition.

check 1929, do some research. you might learn something. 2008 was NOT a recession. Calling it a recession is an excuse dreamed up by both parties to cover their incompetent economic policies.

"Bush's great recession" = your all time most idiotic post.

"1929" is not a definition of a recession.

Keep running, Redfish.

Like I said, the reason you don't post the definition of a recession is because if you did, Bush's Great Recession would fit neatly into the definition.

OK, let me try again so you might understand. I do not agree with the definition created by the political parties to cover their incompetent economic policies.

Unlike you, I actually have a mind and am able to reason and think for myself.

So post your definition......

Like I said, the reason you don't post the definition of a recession is because if you did, Bush's Great Recession would fit neatly into the definition.