The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[Liminal]

Ah, shirley that explains why you're posting here in this political forum.

Though I suppose posting your own politally motivated rhetorical nonsense beats answering questions you can't answer.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

People like that some times make me embarrassed to admit I'm a Democrat.

Blue dog huh

You bear all the worst attributes of the classic country club liberal.

Says the 'moderate', lol

You're about as smart as the average FOX News viewer.

 

[Dad2three]

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

People like that some times make me embarrassed to admit I'm a Democrat.

Blue dog huh

You bear all the worst attributes of the classic country club liberal.

Says the 'moderate', lol

You're about as smart as the average FOX News viewer.

Say's the klown attempting to claim ;moderate' status, lol

 

[Dad2three]

I was NOT lying . There were 2 people on my side, and dozens in the other forums. And it was a new thread, and you acted like there should have been many posters agreeing with me. The OP was only hoiurs old, you dolt. I'm not nuts, but you sure seem to be (as well as a LIAR too)

There was no one on your side in that thread. You lied. No one supported your idiocy in that thread at the time you said that.

I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, but going so far as to deny the very existence of any problem in this country with homelessness and poverty. Talk about country club liberals. You have no credibility as a Democrat or even as a human being.

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, what would you right wingers have Bubba?

 

[Liminal]

People like that some times make me embarrassed to admit I'm a Democrat.

Blue dog huh

You bear all the worst attributes of the classic country club liberal.

Says the 'moderate', lol

You're about as smart as the average FOX News viewer.

Say's the klown attempting to claim ;moderate' status, lol

Superficial idiots like yourself need labels like that to categorize people, much like you hear on FOX News every day.

 

[Liminal]

There was no one on your side in that thread. You lied. No one supported your idiocy in that thread at the time you said that.

I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, but going so far as to deny the very existence of any problem in this country with homelessness and poverty. Talk about country club liberals. You have no credibility as a Democrat or even as a human being.

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, what would you right wingers have Bubba?

I wonder if you could possibly be more stupid than you are now. It's difficult to imagine anyone being that dense, but I've been wrong about things like that before.

 

[Dad2three]

Blue dog huh

You bear all the worst attributes of the classic country club liberal.

Says the 'moderate', lol

You're about as smart as the average FOX News viewer.

Say's the klown attempting to claim ;moderate' status, lol

Superficial idiots like yourself need labels like that to categorize people, much like you hear on FOX News every day.

And you righties need to pretend to be moderate to push your false narrative. Surprise

 

[Dad2three]

I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, but going so far as to deny the very existence of any problem in this country with homelessness and poverty. Talk about country club liberals. You have no credibility as a Democrat or even as a human being.

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, what would you right wingers have Bubba?

I wonder if you could possibly be more stupid than you are now. It's difficult to imagine anyone being that dense, but I've been wrong about things like that before.

Oh Bubba, I'm positive you've been wrong, A LOT!

 

[Liminal]

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, but going so far as to deny the very existence of any problem in this country with homelessness and poverty. Talk about country club liberals. You have no credibility as a Democrat or even as a human being.

If it weren't for false premises, distortions or lies, what would you right wingers have Bubba?

I wonder if you could possibly be more stupid than you are now. It's difficult to imagine anyone being that dense, but I've been wrong about things like that before.

Oh Bubba, I'm positive you've been wrong, A LOT!

I think I know what's going on here now. You and the other dummy are actually Tea Party Republicans posing as liberals so you can make Democrats look just as stupid as possible. Clever subterfuge but it's not working.

 

[pinqy]

I was NOT lying . There were 2 people on my side, and dozens in the other forums. And it was a new thread, and you acted like there should have been many posters agreeing with me. The OP was only hoiurs old, you dolt. I'm not nuts, but you sure seem to be (as well as a LIAR too)

There was no one on your side in that thread. You lied. No one supported your idiocy in that thread at the time you said that.

I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

 

[Liminal]

There was no one on your side in that thread. You lied. No one supported your idiocy in that thread at the time you said that.

I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what? Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

 

[pinqy]

I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you would understand basic math or statistics.
BLS estimates, that for the week of 7-13 December, 2014, there were 8,331,000 people in America who did not work, but who had looked for work between November 16 and December 13. Sample error was estimated at a Standard Error of 157,006. At a 90% confidence interval, that's a margin of error of 1.645 Standard Errors, so the margin of error at 90% confidence is 8,331,000 +/- 258,274 or +/- 3.1% In other words, if you redid the survey over and over resampling and resampling, 90% of the time the result would be somewhere between 8.1 million and 8.6 million Unemployed.

Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Again, The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimated that in 2013 there were approximately 610,000 Homeless. Those who are couch-surfing or otherwise temporarily stating with friends or family will be included in the survey. Many of the homeless, sadly, are children under 15 who would be excluded from the survey anyway. Some of the homeless do work, and so would be counted as employed. Of those that remain,I would doubt that a large percent looked for work, though undoubtedly some did.

The point is that though of course it would be nice to include everyone in the survey, that's not possible as a practical matter, and the number of people excluded from the survey due to homelessness is very unlikely to affect the total numbers.
If half of the homeless fit the definition of Unemployed, that would raise the rate from 5.6% to 5.6%, which is not statistically significant (since the rate is +/-.2 percentage points anyway).

This of course no judgement or attempt to ignore or marginalize the Homeless.

 

[Liminal]

People like that some times make me embarrassed to admit I'm a Democrat.

Blue dog huh

You bear all the worst attributes of the classic country club liberal.

Says the 'moderate', lol

You're about as smart as the average FOX News viewer.

Say's the klown attempting to claim ;moderate' status, lol

Since you're so mindlessly fixed on political orientation rather than actually addressing issues I'll oblige you by satisfying your child like curiosity.
I am indeed a moderate, radically moderate. I'll define the radical moderate position for you.

A radical moderate seeks to understand the arguments and issues of the extreme positions, and then has a close look at the middle ground, because that's invariably where the truth always resides; somewhere in between opposing extremes. A radical moderate will vote for whomever he pleases irrespective of party, and he'll take his own sweet ass time coming to a decision about that too, and go fuck yourself if you don't like it.

That's the radical moderate position in a nutshell.

 

[Liminal]

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you would understand basic math or statistics.
BLS estimates, that for the week of 7-13 December, 2014, there were 8,331,000 people in America who did not work, but who had looked for work between November 16 and December 13. Sample error was estimated at a Standard Error of 157,006. At a 90% confidence interval, that's a margin of error of 1.645 Standard Errors, so the margin of error at 90% confidence is 8,331,000 +/- 258,274 or +/- 3.1% In other words, if you redid the survey over and over resampling and resampling, 90% of the time the result would be somewhere between 8.1 million and 8.6 million Unemployed.

Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Again, The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimated that in 2013 there were approximately 610,000 Homeless. Those who are couch-surfing or otherwise temporarily stating with friends or family will be included in the survey. Many of the homeless, sadly, are children under 15 who would be excluded from the survey anyway. Some of the homeless do work, and so would be counted as employed. Of those that remain,I would doubt that a large percent looked for work, though undoubtedly some did.

The point is that though of course it would be nice to include everyone in the survey, that's not possible as a practical matter, and the number of people excluded from the survey due to homelessness is very unlikely to affect the total numbers.
If half of the homeless fit the definition of Unemployed, that would raise the rate from 5.6% to 5.6%, which is not statistically significant (since the rate is +/-.2 percentage points anyway).

This of course no judgement or attempt to ignore or marginalize the Homeless.

Meanwhile, no one has any way of knowing how many people you've just reduced to a margin of error.

 

[Dad2three]

Blue dog huh

You bear all the worst attributes of the classic country club liberal.

Says the 'moderate', lol

You're about as smart as the average FOX News viewer.

Say's the klown attempting to claim ;moderate' status, lol

Since you're so mindlessly fixed on political orientation rather than actually addressing issues I'll oblige you by satisfying your child like curiosity.
I am indeed a moderate, radically moderate. I'll define the radical moderate position for you.

A radical moderate seeks to understand the arguments and issues of the extreme positions, and then has a close look at the middle ground, because that's invariably where the truth always resides; somewhere in between opposing extremes. A radical moderate will vote for whomever he pleases irrespective of party, and he'll take his own sweet ass time coming to a decision about that too, and go fuck yourself if you don't like it.

That's the radical moderate position in a nutshell.

Sure, THAT'S you Bubba, lol

 

[Dad2three]

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you would understand basic math or statistics.
BLS estimates, that for the week of 7-13 December, 2014, there were 8,331,000 people in America who did not work, but who had looked for work between November 16 and December 13. Sample error was estimated at a Standard Error of 157,006. At a 90% confidence interval, that's a margin of error of 1.645 Standard Errors, so the margin of error at 90% confidence is 8,331,000 +/- 258,274 or +/- 3.1% In other words, if you redid the survey over and over resampling and resampling, 90% of the time the result would be somewhere between 8.1 million and 8.6 million Unemployed.

Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Again, The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimated that in 2013 there were approximately 610,000 Homeless. Those who are couch-surfing or otherwise temporarily stating with friends or family will be included in the survey. Many of the homeless, sadly, are children under 15 who would be excluded from the survey anyway. Some of the homeless do work, and so would be counted as employed. Of those that remain,I would doubt that a large percent looked for work, though undoubtedly some did.

The point is that though of course it would be nice to include everyone in the survey, that's not possible as a practical matter, and the number of people excluded from the survey due to homelessness is very unlikely to affect the total numbers.
If half of the homeless fit the definition of Unemployed, that would raise the rate from 5.6% to 5.6%, which is not statistically significant (since the rate is +/-.2 percentage points anyway).

This of course no judgement or attempt to ignore or marginalize the Homeless.

Meanwhile, no one has any way of knowing how many people you've just reduced to a margin of error.

Since YOU can't prove it either way, I'll go with the known unknown as Rummy said about Dubya's war of choice

 

[Dad2three]

I need not waste my time talking to an idiot.

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what? Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Stop projecting dummy, it makes even the non 'moderate' right wingers look honest in comparison, lol

 

[pinqy]

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what?

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you would understand basic math or statistics.
BLS estimates, that for the week of 7-13 December, 2014, there were 8,331,000 people in America who did not work, but who had looked for work between November 16 and December 13. Sample error was estimated at a Standard Error of 157,006. At a 90% confidence interval, that's a margin of error of 1.645 Standard Errors, so the margin of error at 90% confidence is 8,331,000 +/- 258,274 or +/- 3.1% In other words, if you redid the survey over and over resampling and resampling, 90% of the time the result would be somewhere between 8.1 million and 8.6 million Unemployed.

Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Again, The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimated that in 2013 there were approximately 610,000 Homeless. Those who are couch-surfing or otherwise temporarily stating with friends or family will be included in the survey. Many of the homeless, sadly, are children under 15 who would be excluded from the survey anyway. Some of the homeless do work, and so would be counted as employed. Of those that remain,I would doubt that a large percent looked for work, though undoubtedly some did.

The point is that though of course it would be nice to include everyone in the survey, that's not possible as a practical matter, and the number of people excluded from the survey due to homelessness is very unlikely to affect the total numbers.
If half of the homeless fit the definition of Unemployed, that would raise the rate from 5.6% to 5.6%, which is not statistically significant (since the rate is +/-.2 percentage points anyway).

This of course no judgement or attempt to ignore or marginalize the Homeless.

Meanwhile, no one has any way of knowing how many people you've just reduced to a margin of error.

That makes no sense at all. What do you think margin of error means?

 

[Liminal]

She's not an idiot, she's purposefully deceptive and unconvincingly evasive. On the other hand she's not all that bright either, she's so deeply immersed in her own denial that you could almost believe she believes it too.

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what? Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Stop projecting dummy, it makes even the non 'moderate' right wingers look honest in comparison, lol

You and your Tea Party Confederates should stop pretending to be Democrats.

 

[Dad2three]

You're funny. You say that I'm denying something, but it seems you can't verbalize what it is you think I'm denying.

You're just a fucking liar, you spent the whole thread not only denying the fact that the government obviously has no way of collecting accurate data, .

You seem to confuse anything less than 100% accuracy with being completely inaccurate. I'm not sure why you think not being able to survey the 0.6 million homeless, out of a total population of over 320 million fatally flaws the data.
And of course a survey isn't 100 percent accurate, but a 3% margin of error for Unemployment level and a 0.2 percentage point error for the UE rate is not bad and it's silly to say that's not accurate.

Three percent of what? Three percent of the people who are never included in surveys? Three percent of homeless, indigent, and migrant people. Maybe you don't quite realize how ridiculous you sound right now.

Stop projecting dummy, it makes even the non 'moderate' right wingers look honest in comparison, lol

You and your Tea Party Confederates should stop pretending to be Democrats.

Stop projecting dummy

 

[Dad2three]