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.
Romney is going to be talking about it from home then. A real conservative is not going to believe him for one second.
Come on Jake, I know you can see the humor in Neo's thread.
The humor is this: the far right either supports Romney or goes completely without power.
That's funny!
The humor is this: the far right either supports Romney or goes completely without power.
That's funny!
I don't think gaining control of the Senate is out of the question. With both houses of Congress, Obama can't hurt us. Then we get a shot at a real conservative. Much preferred to me than eight years of Republican light of fours then a Democrat liberal.
The humor is this: the far right either supports Romney or goes completely without power.
That's funny!
I don't think gaining control of the Senate is out of the question. With both houses of Congress, Obama can't hurt us. Then we get a shot at a real conservative. Much preferred to me than eight years of Republican light of fours then a Democrat liberal.
Democratic crossovers will continue to vote for inSanitorium.If Romney wins Michigan's primary, it will be because Democrats crossed party to vote. Most Republicans I know here see him as a liberal and will probably vote Santorum.
Democratic crossovers will continue to vote for inSanitorium.If Romney wins Michigan's primary, it will be because Democrats crossed party to vote. Most Republicans I know here see him as a liberal and will probably vote Santorum.
Got to love these open primaries
Keeping the repubs mixed up will help us
still we do need to get better numbers to
fully get people behind us
No doubt things will improve
Obama will win
The humor is this: the far right either supports Romney or goes completely without power.
That's funny!
I don't think gaining control of the Senate is out of the question. With both houses of Congress, Obama can't hurt us. Then we get a shot at a real conservative. Much preferred to me than eight years of Republican light of fours then a Democrat liberal.
We can get the Senate with some hard work and a bit of luck. That would be great. Obama will be willing to move toward the center on many issues, I would think. If the GOP does the Ryanista Shuffle, though, Obama will simply veto that dance. Should the economy improve steadily during those four years, then the 2016 would be a fight for the center by folks like Christie and Rubio and whomever the Dems trot out. The days of the extremists from both parties will be over.
partisanship got us the NDAA 2012. Partisanship got us the Patriot Act. You can keep those senators and Congressmen who supported those things. Fuck the GOP and the Democratic Party.
Democratic crossovers will continue to vote for inSanitorium.
Got to love these open primaries
Keeping the repubs mixed up will help us
still we do need to get better numbers to
fully get people behind us
No doubt things will improve
Obama will win
Your avatar is most fitting.
)
Got to love these open primaries
Keeping the repubs mixed up will help us
still we do need to get better numbers to
fully get people behind us
No doubt things will improve
Obama will win
Your avatar is most fitting.
Thanks
( I think
What I said is the truth
Sure the numbers need to improve, but they should
As long as we keep the Repubs fighting among themselves and divided and with our base tight
If the President can continue to show that the House is doing nothing to cooperate with Democrats to
help this economy
Obama will win
The humor is this: the far right either supports Romney or goes completely without power.
That's funny!
That's how they feel about you, bigreb. You have no political power outside the system.
The claim was unemployment, not underemployment.
I don't care for the Gallup measure because the questipn is only if they want a full time job, and they're not asked if they are actually available for full time or why they're only working part time. Part time because you can't find a full time job is very different from part time so you can look after the kids.
This is a joke right? Workers decided they don't need to be earning the income they once had because they no longer feel they want to have a full time job, or it's because they have decided they would much rather look after the kids? Are you being serious? Underemployment MEANS they are unable to find work at the income they once had and have to "settle" with earning less, perhaps even work two jobs to make up the loss of income under one (which would also make an increase in the job numbers deceptive and misleading). You are able to figure out what underemployment means with respect to a bad economy, aren't you?
There's no set definition for "underemployment." The definition Gallup uses for their measure isSo nothing to do with unable to find full time or having to settle. People working part time because they need to look after kids or elderly or share a car or juggle school will be classified as "underemployed" by Gallup's measure. I find it revealing that you just invented your own definition rather than try to find what was actually used for the measure you were discussing.Respondents who work either for an employer or for themselves, and do not work more than 30 hours per week at either job are categorized as employed part time. Additionally, when asked, these respondents indicated they do want to work more than 30 hours per week.
Gallup definitions
Actually, since I do this for a living, I know quite a good deal about it. The T cited "Unemployment" as near 20%. You attempted to back that up with Gallup's "UNDERemployment" rate, which is not the same thing. You also claimed that "underemployment" meant " they are unable to find work at the income they once had and have to "settle" with earning less, but as I demonstrated, that is certainly NOT the definition Gallup used, so you were claiming, falsely, that the number meant someting it didn't.This is a joke right? Workers decided they don't need to be earning the income they once had because they no longer feel they want to have a full time job, or it's because they have decided they would much rather look after the kids? Are you being serious? Underemployment MEANS they are unable to find work at the income they once had and have to "settle" with earning less, perhaps even work two jobs to make up the loss of income under one (which would also make an increase in the job numbers deceptive and misleading). You are able to figure out what underemployment means with respect to a bad economy, aren't you?
There's no set definition for "underemployment." The definition Gallup uses for their measure isSo nothing to do with unable to find full time or having to settle. People working part time because they need to look after kids or elderly or share a car or juggle school will be classified as "underemployed" by Gallup's measure. I find it revealing that you just invented your own definition rather than try to find what was actually used for the measure you were discussing.Respondents who work either for an employer or for themselves, and do not work more than 30 hours per week at either job are categorized as employed part time. Additionally, when asked, these respondents indicated they do want to work more than 30 hours per week.
Gallup definitions
Invented? You really don't know anything about this economy and the variables that show it's TRUE condition (which is far worse than just a simple 8.3% unemployment the media loves to project while hiding behind the true recession figures).
I don't....I go straight to the databases of BLS, Census, BEA, etc.You need to do a little more investigating on this recession and educate yourself a bit instead of settling for the "sweet coating" figures from the liberal media, like MSNBC.
That is a definition of Underemployment, but it is NOT the one used for the number you were citing. Nobody really publishes any data on "highly skilled but working in low paying jobs" because precise definitions and collection of such data (especially seperating economic from non-economic reasons) are practically impossible.Labor that falls under the underemployment classification includes those workers that are highly skilled but working in low paying jobs, workers that are highly skilled but work in low skill jobs and part-time workers that would prefer to be full-time. This is different from unemployment in that the individual is working but isn't working at their full capability.
