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.
I made the point with proof in the form of an expert and impartial source. You said it was wrong, but offered no proof. Of any kind. YOU LOOSE. I say again, YOU LOOSE by the basic rules of debate.What's amusing is that the same guy who's excuse for writing like an eighth grader is that his "secretary" normally proofs his correspondence...is now telling someone else that he doubts they went to college? You can't help but laugh...
I have kicked his ass so thouroughly and exposed him as a fraud........the ass kicking I put on him is gonna sting for awhile....LOL!
Rshermr is the biggest fraud on this board. He's always calling for discussions about economic issues here but if you notice...anytime there IS a serious discussion about economics, Rshermr is totally lost. He claims to have not only graduated with a degree in Economics but to have taught the subject at the college level...but didn't have the faintest idea what I was talking about when I asked him which school of economics he was basing one of his claims on! This board's answer to George Costanza thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar college!
He told me that the "Jobs Saved" number put out by the Obama Administration was a verifiable statistic but when I asked him to provide the economic formula that was used to arrive at that number he seemed to have slowly realized that the number was a total fabrication...something the Obama folks simply made up to hide how few jobs they created with the Stimulus! Then he tried to bluff his way out of the corner he'd painted himself into by providing "A-B=Jobs Saved" as the formula. When he got laughed at for THAT farce...he came up with "conditions" that had to be met before he'd reveal the real formula...about as pathetic an attempt to hide his ignorance as I've ever seen!
But that's who Rshermr...IS! He's the classic internet blowhard that claims all kinds of degrees, jobs and wealth yet displays none of the intelligence required to get degrees, jobs and wealth...which is why I started calling him George Costanza in the first place! Be forewarned...if you call him on his fantasies...he rapidly becomes abusive.
I have already exposed him as a "knows nothing" internet blowhard. He avoids addressing any of the valid points I have made that are easily verifiable if one had any intellectual curiosity. It eats him up inside that we both know more than he does. That is why he writes these long, fact free posts. What he lacks in quality, he tries to compensate with quantity.
Wow, two sources that between them have a combined IQ of maybe 70. Please, you are the only person giving yourself any credit at all. The posts are not that long, but I suppose they are for a congenital idiot. But you, me boy, never try to argue my points. Cause you know you can not. Because, me boy, you are STUPID. Which, along with being a congenital idiot, is a tough row to hoe.
But for complete sport, name a "valid point" you say you have made. I must have missed it, dipshit. And we will see what you have. But one rule. Your opinion does not count for proof of any kind, as mine does not. Impartial sources are the only valid proof. Which will be a challenge for you, because I am still waiting to see a valid source from you, ever.
No conspiracy theorists, or right wing nut cases, or unheard of nut cases.
I am still WAITING on you to make a point that doesn't reek of partisan bullshit. You cannot refute a single point that I have made and it's all easily verifiable...ya stupid fuck.
That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.
There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.
Problem is you heard wrong. Perhaps you could provide a link to an impartial source that backs you up. But of course you can not. Because you are simply posting con talking points. Which, me boy, are lies.
What's amusing is that the same guy who's excuse for writing like an eighth grader is that his "secretary" normally proofs his correspondence...is now telling someone else that he doubts they went to college? You can't help but laugh...
I have kicked his ass so thouroughly and exposed him as a fraud........the ass kicking I put on him is gonna sting for awhile....LOL!
Rshermr is the biggest fraud on this board. He's always calling for discussions about economic issues here but if you notice...anytime there IS a serious discussion about economics, Rshermr is totally lost. He claims to have not only graduated with a degree in Economics but to have taught the subject at the college level...but didn't have the faintest idea what I was talking about when I asked him which school of economics he was basing one of his claims on! This board's answer to George Costanza thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar college!
He told me that the "Jobs Saved" number put out by the Obama Administration was a verifiable statistic but when I asked him to provide the economic formula that was used to arrive at that number he seemed to have slowly realized that the number was a total fabrication...something the Obama folks simply made up to hide how few jobs they created with the Stimulus! Then he tried to bluff his way out of the corner he'd painted himself into by providing "A-B=Jobs Saved" as the formula. When he got laughed at for THAT farce...he came up with "conditions" that had to be met before he'd reveal the real formula...about as pathetic an attempt to hide his ignorance as I've ever seen!
But that's who Rshermr...IS! He's the classic internet blowhard that claims all kinds of degrees, jobs and wealth yet displays none of the intelligence required to get degrees, jobs and wealth...which is why I started calling him George Costanza in the first place! Be forewarned...if you call him on his fantasies...he rapidly becomes abusive.
I have already exposed him as a "knows nothing" internet blowhard. He avoids addressing any of the valid points I have made that are easily verifiable if one had any intellectual curiosity. It eats him up inside that we both know more than he does. That is why he writes these long, fact free posts. What he lacks in quality, he tries to compensate with quantity.
Wow, two sources that between them have a combined IQ of maybe 70. Please, you are the only person giving yourself any credit at all. The posts are not that long, but I suppose they are for a congenital idiot. But you, me boy, never try to argue my points. Cause you know you can not. Because, me boy, you are STUPID. Which, along with being a congenital idiot, is a tough row to hoe.
But for complete sport, name a "valid point" you say you have made. I must have missed it, dipshit. And we will see what you have. But one rule. Your opinion does not count for proof of any kind, as mine does not. Impartial sources are the only valid proof. Which will be a challenge for you, because I am still waiting to see a valid source from you, ever.
No conspiracy theorists, or right wing nut cases, or unheard of nut cases.
I am still WAITING on you to make a point that doesn't reek of partisan bullshit. You cannot refute a single point that I have made and it's all easily verifiable...ya stupid fuck.
That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.
There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.
Problem is you heard wrong. Perhaps you could provide a link to an impartial source that backs you up. But of course you can not. Because you are simply posting con talking points. Which, me boy, are lies.
I don't know how to provide links. But I can give you the names of a few websites to look up. The first is, "Clinton's FY 1997 Budget: The Era of big government lives on." The second is, "The untold story of how Clinton's budget destroyed the American economy." The third is, "The myth of the Clinton Surplus." You can decide for yourself how "impartial" they are.
I made the point with proof in the form of an expert and impartial source. You said it was wrong, but offered no proof. Of any kind. YOU LOOSE. I say again, YOU LOOSE by the basic rules of debate.I have kicked his ass so thouroughly and exposed him as a fraud........the ass kicking I put on him is gonna sting for awhile....LOL!
Rshermr is the biggest fraud on this board. He's always calling for discussions about economic issues here but if you notice...anytime there IS a serious discussion about economics, Rshermr is totally lost. He claims to have not only graduated with a degree in Economics but to have taught the subject at the college level...but didn't have the faintest idea what I was talking about when I asked him which school of economics he was basing one of his claims on! This board's answer to George Costanza thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar college!
He told me that the "Jobs Saved" number put out by the Obama Administration was a verifiable statistic but when I asked him to provide the economic formula that was used to arrive at that number he seemed to have slowly realized that the number was a total fabrication...something the Obama folks simply made up to hide how few jobs they created with the Stimulus! Then he tried to bluff his way out of the corner he'd painted himself into by providing "A-B=Jobs Saved" as the formula. When he got laughed at for THAT farce...he came up with "conditions" that had to be met before he'd reveal the real formula...about as pathetic an attempt to hide his ignorance as I've ever seen!
But that's who Rshermr...IS! He's the classic internet blowhard that claims all kinds of degrees, jobs and wealth yet displays none of the intelligence required to get degrees, jobs and wealth...which is why I started calling him George Costanza in the first place! Be forewarned...if you call him on his fantasies...he rapidly becomes abusive.
I have already exposed him as a "knows nothing" internet blowhard. He avoids addressing any of the valid points I have made that are easily verifiable if one had any intellectual curiosity. It eats him up inside that we both know more than he does. That is why he writes these long, fact free posts. What he lacks in quality, he tries to compensate with quantity.
Wow, two sources that between them have a combined IQ of maybe 70. Please, you are the only person giving yourself any credit at all. The posts are not that long, but I suppose they are for a congenital idiot. But you, me boy, never try to argue my points. Cause you know you can not. Because, me boy, you are STUPID. Which, along with being a congenital idiot, is a tough row to hoe.
But for complete sport, name a "valid point" you say you have made. I must have missed it, dipshit. And we will see what you have. But one rule. Your opinion does not count for proof of any kind, as mine does not. Impartial sources are the only valid proof. Which will be a challenge for you, because I am still waiting to see a valid source from you, ever.
No conspiracy theorists, or right wing nut cases, or unheard of nut cases.
I am still WAITING on you to make a point that doesn't reek of partisan bullshit. You cannot refute a single point that I have made and it's all easily verifiable...ya stupid fuck.
On a side note, what was your highest level of education?
I made the point with proof in the form of an expert and impartial source. You said it was wrong, but offered no proof. Of any kind. YOU LOOSE. I say again, YOU LOOSE by the basic rules of debate.Rshermr is the biggest fraud on this board. He's always calling for discussions about economic issues here but if you notice...anytime there IS a serious discussion about economics, Rshermr is totally lost. He claims to have not only graduated with a degree in Economics but to have taught the subject at the college level...but didn't have the faintest idea what I was talking about when I asked him which school of economics he was basing one of his claims on! This board's answer to George Costanza thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar college!
He told me that the "Jobs Saved" number put out by the Obama Administration was a verifiable statistic but when I asked him to provide the economic formula that was used to arrive at that number he seemed to have slowly realized that the number was a total fabrication...something the Obama folks simply made up to hide how few jobs they created with the Stimulus! Then he tried to bluff his way out of the corner he'd painted himself into by providing "A-B=Jobs Saved" as the formula. When he got laughed at for THAT farce...he came up with "conditions" that had to be met before he'd reveal the real formula...about as pathetic an attempt to hide his ignorance as I've ever seen!
But that's who Rshermr...IS! He's the classic internet blowhard that claims all kinds of degrees, jobs and wealth yet displays none of the intelligence required to get degrees, jobs and wealth...which is why I started calling him George Costanza in the first place! Be forewarned...if you call him on his fantasies...he rapidly becomes abusive.
I have already exposed him as a "knows nothing" internet blowhard. He avoids addressing any of the valid points I have made that are easily verifiable if one had any intellectual curiosity. It eats him up inside that we both know more than he does. That is why he writes these long, fact free posts. What he lacks in quality, he tries to compensate with quantity.
Wow, two sources that between them have a combined IQ of maybe 70. Please, you are the only person giving yourself any credit at all. The posts are not that long, but I suppose they are for a congenital idiot. But you, me boy, never try to argue my points. Cause you know you can not. Because, me boy, you are STUPID. Which, along with being a congenital idiot, is a tough row to hoe.
But for complete sport, name a "valid point" you say you have made. I must have missed it, dipshit. And we will see what you have. But one rule. Your opinion does not count for proof of any kind, as mine does not. Impartial sources are the only valid proof. Which will be a challenge for you, because I am still waiting to see a valid source from you, ever.
No conspiracy theorists, or right wing nut cases, or unheard of nut cases.
I am still WAITING on you to make a point that doesn't reek of partisan bullshit. You cannot refute a single point that I have made and it's all easily verifiable...ya stupid fuck.
On a side note, what was your highest level of education?
I made the point with proof in the form of an expert and impartial source. You said it was wrong, but offered no proof. Of any kind. YOU LOOSE. I say again, YOU LOOSE by the basic rules of debate.I have already exposed him as a "knows nothing" internet blowhard. He avoids addressing any of the valid points I have made that are easily verifiable if one had any intellectual curiosity. It eats him up inside that we both know more than he does. That is why he writes these long, fact free posts. What he lacks in quality, he tries to compensate with quantity.
Wow, two sources that between them have a combined IQ of maybe 70. Please, you are the only person giving yourself any credit at all. The posts are not that long, but I suppose they are for a congenital idiot. But you, me boy, never try to argue my points. Cause you know you can not. Because, me boy, you are STUPID. Which, along with being a congenital idiot, is a tough row to hoe.
But for complete sport, name a "valid point" you say you have made. I must have missed it, dipshit. And we will see what you have. But one rule. Your opinion does not count for proof of any kind, as mine does not. Impartial sources are the only valid proof. Which will be a challenge for you, because I am still waiting to see a valid source from you, ever.
No conspiracy theorists, or right wing nut cases, or unheard of nut cases.
I am still WAITING on you to make a point that doesn't reek of partisan bullshit. You cannot refute a single point that I have made and it's all easily verifiable...ya stupid fuck.
On a side note, what was your highest level of education?
My education is high enough to know the difference between "lose" and "loose"....which means my level of education is higher than yours. Clinton was just a puppet of the Rockefellers and international bankers that backed him and they were the same oligarchs thjat backed Bush in 1988...btw, it was agreed upon in advance that Bush would cede the presidency to Clinton because GH Bush was the one really running things during Reagan's presidency. Reagan was just a figurehead and this was decided in 1984. The system is totally rigged and idiots like you totally buy into this left versus right paradigm because you lack ANY critical thinking skills. The fact that you are claiming that Clinton left office with not only a zero balance but a SURPLUS shows just how fucking ignorant you are.
But, me boy, part of it was to see if you had any idea of how a debate works and what makes it valid. You could have learned that much in high school, but you did not.
Sorry, it was either believe you, who has been known to base things on stupid sources often, or to believe Factcheck.org, who has been an unimpeachable source for YEARS. So you loose, me boy. Regardless of how much you protest. Your opinion is noted, but baseless and useless.
But in addition, you have proven yourself incapable of analyzing any subject, or of making valid points. Though they typically do not throw students out of debate in high school, I am completely certain they would have tossed you out. Cause you are a nut case.
By the way, since you had a problem with my typo of lose versus loose, perhaps you can tell me what "thiat" means. Since, after all, we should apparently check your spelling from here forward. Dipshit.
Oh? What's the formula shadowstats uses for their unemployment rate?"shadowstats is a legit website"shadowstats.com
Faun SEZ?????? "If my hgubermint tells me that unemployment is under 5 percent then you can believe that I believe it because my beloved "gubermint" would never lie to me because I am too important do you hear me?????" (snicker)
BTW, Faun, shadowstats is a legit website and has no political affiliation.....
Their numbers are bullshit. Hardly a legit site. He bases his numbers from the U-6 rate and then adds in more folks he thinks want a job. Magically, he comes up with a rate 2½ times higher than the U-6. Keep in mind, if you factor in every soul in the U.S. aged 16 and over who is not working, they represent 37%. That includes folks who retire, stay at home moms/dads, independently wealthy who don't want to work, folks collecting government checks who don't want to work, high school students who don't want to work, people actually working in the shadow economy, etc...
But I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who thinks senior citizens are not counted in unemployment statistics; so there's no chance you will understand any of this. Which leads me to point out that I'm not posting this for you -- you're beyond help. I'm posting this for the benefit of others so they too can see just how flippin' insane you are.
Typical of Progressives. Facts and the truth cause them to break out in cold sweats, get light headed and fall over like a log. Shadowstats is a legitimate website and we understand that you know that as well. If you did not, you wouldn't have to make such a fool of yourself with all you ridicule.
45 posts since I first asked Markle, "What's the formula shadowstats uses for their [23%] unemployment rate," and he still can't say.
You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.Oh? What's the formula shadowstats uses for their unemployment rate?"shadowstats is a legit website"Faun SEZ?????? "If my hgubermint tells me that unemployment is under 5 percent then you can believe that I believe it because my beloved "gubermint" would never lie to me because I am too important do you hear me?????" (snicker)
BTW, Faun, shadowstats is a legit website and has no political affiliation.....
Their numbers are bullshit. Hardly a legit site. He bases his numbers from the U-6 rate and then adds in more folks he thinks want a job. Magically, he comes up with a rate 2½ times higher than the U-6. Keep in mind, if you factor in every soul in the U.S. aged 16 and over who is not working, they represent 37%. That includes folks who retire, stay at home moms/dads, independently wealthy who don't want to work, folks collecting government checks who don't want to work, high school students who don't want to work, people actually working in the shadow economy, etc...
But I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who thinks senior citizens are not counted in unemployment statistics; so there's no chance you will understand any of this. Which leads me to point out that I'm not posting this for you -- you're beyond help. I'm posting this for the benefit of others so they too can see just how flippin' insane you are.
Typical of Progressives. Facts and the truth cause them to break out in cold sweats, get light headed and fall over like a log. Shadowstats is a legitimate website and we understand that you know that as well. If you did not, you wouldn't have to make such a fool of yourself with all you ridicule.
45 posts since I first asked Markle, "What's the formula shadowstats uses for their [23%] unemployment rate," and he still can't say.
As you know, I never posted anything from Shadowstats. But I'll bet that if you go to the website, they will educate you which is not my job.
You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.Oh? What's the formula shadowstats uses for their unemployment rate?"shadowstats is a legit website"
Their numbers are bullshit. Hardly a legit site. He bases his numbers from the U-6 rate and then adds in more folks he thinks want a job. Magically, he comes up with a rate 2½ times higher than the U-6. Keep in mind, if you factor in every soul in the U.S. aged 16 and over who is not working, they represent 37%. That includes folks who retire, stay at home moms/dads, independently wealthy who don't want to work, folks collecting government checks who don't want to work, high school students who don't want to work, people actually working in the shadow economy, etc...
But I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who thinks senior citizens are not counted in unemployment statistics; so there's no chance you will understand any of this. Which leads me to point out that I'm not posting this for you -- you're beyond help. I'm posting this for the benefit of others so they too can see just how flippin' insane you are.
Typical of Progressives. Facts and the truth cause them to break out in cold sweats, get light headed and fall over like a log. Shadowstats is a legitimate website and we understand that you know that as well. If you did not, you wouldn't have to make such a fool of yourself with all you ridicule.
45 posts since I first asked Markle, "What's the formula shadowstats uses for their [23%] unemployment rate," and he still can't say.
As you know, I never posted anything from Shadowstats. But I'll bet that if you go to the website, they will educate you which is not my job.
At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.Oh? What's the formula shadowstats uses for their unemployment rate?Typical of Progressives. Facts and the truth cause them to break out in cold sweats, get light headed and fall over like a log. Shadowstats is a legitimate website and we understand that you know that as well. If you did not, you wouldn't have to make such a fool of yourself with all you ridicule.
45 posts since I first asked Markle, "What's the formula shadowstats uses for their [23%] unemployment rate," and he still can't say.
As you know, I never posted anything from Shadowstats. But I'll bet that if you go to the website, they will educate you which is not my job.
But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.
I never used loose. What i did was type lose. And the apple spell check on my mac turned it into Loose. Happens often, when I use the mac book. But i do indeed understand the difference.I made the point with proof in the form of an expert and impartial source. You said it was wrong, but offered no proof. Of any kind. YOU LOOSE. I say again, YOU LOOSE by the basic rules of debate.Wow, two sources that between them have a combined IQ of maybe 70. Please, you are the only person giving yourself any credit at all. The posts are not that long, but I suppose they are for a congenital idiot. But you, me boy, never try to argue my points. Cause you know you can not. Because, me boy, you are STUPID. Which, along with being a congenital idiot, is a tough row to hoe.
But for complete sport, name a "valid point" you say you have made. I must have missed it, dipshit. And we will see what you have. But one rule. Your opinion does not count for proof of any kind, as mine does not. Impartial sources are the only valid proof. Which will be a challenge for you, because I am still waiting to see a valid source from you, ever.
No conspiracy theorists, or right wing nut cases, or unheard of nut cases.
I am still WAITING on you to make a point that doesn't reek of partisan bullshit. You cannot refute a single point that I have made and it's all easily verifiable...ya stupid fuck.
On a side note, what was your highest level of education?
My education is high enough to know the difference between "lose" and "loose"....which means my level of education is higher than yours. Clinton was just a puppet of the Rockefellers and international bankers that backed him and they were the same oligarchs thjat backed Bush in 1988...btw, it was agreed upon in advance that Bush would cede the presidency to Clinton because GH Bush was the one really running things during Reagan's presidency. Reagan was just a figurehead and this was decided in 1984. The system is totally rigged and idiots like you totally buy into this left versus right paradigm because you lack ANY critical thinking skills. The fact that you are claiming that Clinton left office with not only a zero balance but a SURPLUS shows just how fucking ignorant you are.
But, me boy, part of it was to see if you had any idea of how a debate works and what makes it valid. You could have learned that much in high school, but you did not.
Sorry, it was either believe you, who has been known to base things on stupid sources often, or to believe Factcheck.org, who has been an unimpeachable source for YEARS. So you loose, me boy. Regardless of how much you protest. Your opinion is noted, but baseless and useless.
But in addition, you have proven yourself incapable of analyzing any subject, or of making valid points. Though they typically do not throw students out of debate in high school, I am completely certain they would have tossed you out. Cause you are a nut case.
By the way, since you had a problem with my typo of lose versus loose, perhaps you can tell me what "thiat" means. Since, after all, we should apparently check your spelling from here forward. Dipshit.
You used "loose" over lose multiple times....I made a typo...you believe that "loose" = lose thus you LOSE yet again. I want you on record as saying that USA.INC was totally out of debt and was left a surplus by Bill "drop trou"....can ya do it? Because I can prove that Bill "drop trou" added an additional 1.23 TRILLION dollars to the national debt because it is UNAVOIDABLE when you have a central bank that attaches usury to every dollar created....how and the fuck do you not get that basic principle?????
[/QUOTE]At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.Oh? What's the formula shadowstats uses for their unemployment rate?
45 posts since I first asked Markle, "What's the formula shadowstats uses for their [23%] unemployment rate," and he still can't say.
As you know, I never posted anything from Shadowstats. But I'll bet that if you go to the website, they will educate you which is not my job.
But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.
I never used loose. What i did was type lose. And the apple spell check on my mac turned it into Loose. Happens often, when I use the mac book. But i do indeed understand the difference.I made the point with proof in the form of an expert and impartial source. You said it was wrong, but offered no proof. Of any kind. YOU LOOSE. I say again, YOU LOOSE by the basic rules of debate.I am still WAITING on you to make a point that doesn't reek of partisan bullshit. You cannot refute a single point that I have made and it's all easily verifiable...ya stupid fuck.
On a side note, what was your highest level of education?
My education is high enough to know the difference between "lose" and "loose"....which means my level of education is higher than yours. Clinton was just a puppet of the Rockefellers and international bankers that backed him and they were the same oligarchs thjat backed Bush in 1988...btw, it was agreed upon in advance that Bush would cede the presidency to Clinton because GH Bush was the one really running things during Reagan's presidency. Reagan was just a figurehead and this was decided in 1984. The system is totally rigged and idiots like you totally buy into this left versus right paradigm because you lack ANY critical thinking skills. The fact that you are claiming that Clinton left office with not only a zero balance but a SURPLUS shows just how fucking ignorant you are.
But, me boy, part of it was to see if you had any idea of how a debate works and what makes it valid. You could have learned that much in high school, but you did not.
Sorry, it was either believe you, who has been known to base things on stupid sources often, or to believe Factcheck.org, who has been an unimpeachable source for YEARS. So you loose, me boy. Regardless of how much you protest. Your opinion is noted, but baseless and useless.
But in addition, you have proven yourself incapable of analyzing any subject, or of making valid points. Though they typically do not throw students out of debate in high school, I am completely certain they would have tossed you out. Cause you are a nut case.
By the way, since you had a problem with my typo of lose versus loose, perhaps you can tell me what "thiat" means. Since, after all, we should apparently check your spelling from here forward. Dipshit.
You used "loose" over lose multiple times....I made a typo...you believe that "loose" = lose thus you LOSE yet again. I want you on record as saying that USA.INC was totally out of debt and was left a surplus by Bill "drop trou"....can ya do it? Because I can prove that Bill "drop trou" added an additional 1.23 TRILLION dollars to the national debt because it is UNAVOIDABLE when you have a central bank that attaches usury to every dollar created....how and the fuck do you not get that basic principle?????
1. It makes no difference how much new debt was created, as long as enough revenue came in. Dipshit.
2. You have not provided proof of anything. Just your "word" which has NO VALUE.
3. USA INC is not the federal government, no matter how badly you want it to be. You are talking about an entity that has nothing directly to do with the USA.
Let me inform you that your basic principle is nonsense. Bullshit. It was a surplus. As the source explained. Sorry, me boy. You lost. sorry you are a sore looser.
Some times it is difficult to accept that you have been wrong for years. But you have.
You need to look up the meaning of a surplus. It entails government assets and liabilities.
And if you could prove that the national debt was increased in net by 1.23 trillion dollars over the years that Factcheck shows a surplus, they will be very interested in finding out about it. Because it will mean that their economists and researchers made a really, really big mistake. And when they, as opposed to you, make a mistake, they quickly and thoroughly admit it. Admit. Look it up. But your word will mean as much to them as it does to me. You will have the same problem. Finding an expert and impartial source. Good luck with that. You have failed completely so far.
NoneI never used loose. What i did was type lose. And the apple spell check on my mac turned it into Loose. Happens often, when I use the mac book. But i do indeed understand the difference.I made the point with proof in the form of an expert and impartial source. You said it was wrong, but offered no proof. Of any kind. YOU LOOSE. I say again, YOU LOOSE by the basic rules of debate.I am still WAITING on you to make a point that doesn't reek of partisan bullshit. You cannot refute a single point that I have made and it's all easily verifiable...ya stupid fuck.
On a side note, what was your highest level of education?
My education is high enough to know the difference between "lose" and "loose"....which means my level of education is higher than yours. Clinton was just a puppet of the Rockefellers and international bankers that backed him and they were the same oligarchs thjat backed Bush in 1988...btw, it was agreed upon in advance that Bush would cede the presidency to Clinton because GH Bush was the one really running things during Reagan's presidency. Reagan was just a figurehead and this was decided in 1984. The system is totally rigged and idiots like you totally buy into this left versus right paradigm because you lack ANY critical thinking skills. The fact that you are claiming that Clinton left office with not only a zero balance but a SURPLUS shows just how fucking ignorant you are.
But, me boy, part of it was to see if you had any idea of how a debate works and what makes it valid. You could have learned that much in high school, but you did not.
Sorry, it was either believe you, who has been known to base things on stupid sources often, or to believe Factcheck.org, who has been an unimpeachable source for YEARS. So you loose, me boy. Regardless of how much you protest. Your opinion is noted, but baseless and useless.
But in addition, you have proven yourself incapable of analyzing any subject, or of making valid points. Though they typically do not throw students out of debate in high school, I am completely certain they would have tossed you out. Cause you are a nut case.
By the way, since you had a problem with my typo of lose versus loose, perhaps you can tell me what "thiat" means. Since, after all, we should apparently check your spelling from here forward. Dipshit.
You used "loose" over lose multiple times....I made a typo...you believe that "loose" = lose thus you LOSE yet again. I want you on record as saying that USA.INC was totally out of debt and was left a surplus by Bill "drop trou"....can ya do it? Because I can prove that Bill "drop trou" added an additional 1.23 TRILLION dollars to the national debt because it is UNAVOIDABLE when you have a central bank that attaches usury to every dollar created....how and the fuck do you not get that basic principle?????
1. It makes no difference how much new debt was created, as long as enough revenue came in. Dipshit.
2. You have not provided proof of anything. Just your "word" which has NO VALUE.
3. USA INC is not the federal government, no matter how badly you want it to be. You are talking about an entity that has nothing directly to do with the USA.
Let me inform you that your basic principle is nonsense. Bullshit. It was a surplus. As the source explained. Sorry, me boy. You lost. sorry you are a sore looser.
Some times it is difficult to accept that you have been wrong for years. But you have.
You need to look up the meaning of a surplus. It entails government assets and liabilities.
And if you could prove that the national debt was increased in net by 1.23 trillion dollars over the years that Factcheck shows a surplus, they will be very interested in finding out about it. Because it will mean that their economists and researchers made a really, really big mistake. And when they, as opposed to you, make a mistake, they quickly and thoroughly admit it. Admit. Look it up. But your word will mean as much to them as it does to me. You will have the same problem. Finding an expert and impartial source. Good luck with that. You have failed completely so far.
The only thing I'm kissing is the proverbial paddle I'm kicking your ass with.Here's another question you can't answer.... you'll notice that shadowstats mirrors the U-6 rate from 1994 only at a higher rate; but then deviates from the U-6 at around 2009...Well maybe you can answer the question then that Markle could not ....I listen to economists on youtube all the time like Jim Willie that have been claiming the real Unemployment is over 20 percent if not higher for the last three years. I know that becasuse you are a shill for the Barrypuppet that you want to pretend like everything is great and wonderful but the fact remains is that things suck for 101 million people that are on some type of "gubermint" subsidy while Barrypuppet allows in illegals and flies in muslim refugees that WE have to pay for. Your rose colored glasses keep you from seeing the real truth....enjoy.
What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?
I have no idea but the WH deducts those that no longer receive unemployment payments because it ran out as not counting on the roll. The numbers are totally "fudged" and do not represent the unemployment problem of DECENT paying jobs in this country.
... and now for the question you can't answer (at least not with any amount of lucidity) .... what changed in 2009 with the way the BLS collects CPS data to cause shadowstats to veer off into la-la land?
Anything that doesn't paint the Barrypuppet in a good light is going to piss of partisan shills like you. You kiss his skinny shanks when he has followed the orders of his puppetmasters to the proverbial "T" that has killed job growth. Part-time workers are counted as being "employed" and still the numbers suuuuuuck.
Here's yet another example... you go by shadowstats.com, even though you don't have the foggiest clue how he arrives at the numbers he posts, and now you can't explain what the BLS changed in 2009 to inspire shadowstats.com to go off the rails that year.
At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.Oh? What's the formula shadowstats uses for their unemployment rate?
45 posts since I first asked Markle, "What's the formula shadowstats uses for their [23%] unemployment rate," and he still can't say.
As you know, I never posted anything from Shadowstats. But I'll bet that if you go to the website, they will educate you which is not my job.
But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.
Not only does shadowsstats have no specified methodology, you don't even care that they don't. You swallow their bullshit for the mere fact you like what they say. How they arrive at their figures doesn't even matter to you. That's how non-existent your principles are.
At least the BLS has a methodology. You may not like it. You may not agree with it. That's your opinion. But at least they have one.You claimed they're a "legit" site. Only like Dale Smith, you can't explain their methodology which makes them "legit." Making such baseless claims when you can't back them up reflects more upon you than it does to show they're as legit as you claim them to be.45 posts since I first asked Markle, "What's the formula shadowstats uses for their [23%] unemployment rate," and he still can't say.
As you know, I never posted anything from Shadowstats. But I'll bet that if you go to the website, they will educate you which is not my job.
But Faun believes in the methodology of his beloved corporate federal "gubermint: that would never, EVER think about fudging numbers. Numbers that cannot be disputed is the low and dtagnant wahges where 71 percent that havbe a job make less than 50K a year, 51 percent make less than 30K per year and 38 percent make less than 20K per year. Leftards are about importing muislim refugees and leaving the southern border wide open....but leftards say??? "Times are great and how about that hope and change???? Jump on that train lest you be left behind!!"....Fuck Barrypuppet and fuck the leftard clown posse of sniveling pussies and fools.....here is a big ol' loogie hocked from the lungs of which I will use to spit upon you.
!I never used loose. What i did was type lose. And the apple spell check on my mac turned it into Loose. Happens often, when I use the mac book. But i do indeed understand the difference.I made the point with proof in the form of an expert and impartial source. You said it was wrong, but offered no proof. Of any kind. YOU LOOSE. I say again, YOU LOOSE by the basic rules of debate.
On a side note, what was your highest level of education?
My education is high enough to know the difference between "lose" and "loose"....which means my level of education is higher than yours. Clinton was just a puppet of the Rockefellers and international bankers that backed him and they were the same oligarchs thjat backed Bush in 1988...btw, it was agreed upon in advance that Bush would cede the presidency to Clinton because GH Bush was the one really running things during Reagan's presidency. Reagan was just a figurehead and this was decided in 1984. The system is totally rigged and idiots like you totally buy into this left versus right paradigm because you lack ANY critical thinking skills. The fact that you are claiming that Clinton left office with not only a zero balance but a SURPLUS shows just how fucking ignorant you are.
But, me boy, part of it was to see if you had any idea of how a debate works and what makes it valid. You could have learned that much in high school, but you did not.
Sorry, it was either believe you, who has been known to base things on stupid sources often, or to believe Factcheck.org, who has been an unimpeachable source for YEARS. So you loose, me boy. Regardless of how much you protest. Your opinion is noted, but baseless and useless.
But in addition, you have proven yourself incapable of analyzing any subject, or of making valid points. Though they typically do not throw students out of debate in high school, I am completely certain they would have tossed you out. Cause you are a nut case.
By the way, since you had a problem with my typo of lose versus loose, perhaps you can tell me what "thiat" means. Since, after all, we should apparently check your spelling from here forward. Dipshit.
You used "loose" over lose multiple times....I made a typo...you believe that "loose" = lose thus you LOSE yet again. I want you on record as saying that USA.INC was totally out of debt and was left a surplus by Bill "drop trou"....can ya do it? Because I can prove that Bill "drop trou" added an additional 1.23 TRILLION dollars to the national debt because it is UNAVOIDABLE when you have a central bank that attaches usury to every dollar created....how and the fuck do you not get that basic principle?????
1. It makes no difference how much new debt was created, as long as enough revenue came in. Dipshit.
2. You have not provided proof of anything. Just your "word" which has NO VALUE.
3. USA INC is not the federal government, no matter how badly you want it to be. You are talking about an entity that has nothing directly to do with the USA.
Let me inform you that your basic principle is nonsense. Bullshit. It was a surplus. As the source explained. Sorry, me boy. You lost. sorry you are a sore looser.
Some times it is difficult to accept that you have been wrong for years. But you have.
You need to look up the meaning of a surplus. It entails government assets and liabilities.
And if you could prove that the national debt was increased in net by 1.23 trillion dollars over the years that Factcheck shows a surplus, they will be very interested in finding out about it. Because it will mean that their economists and researchers made a really, really big mistake. And when they, as opposed to you, make a mistake, they quickly and thoroughly admit it. Admit. Look it up. But your word will mean as much to them as it does to me. You will have the same problem. Finding an expert and impartial source. Good luck with that. You have failed completely so far.
Holyfuckingshit!What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?
I have no idea ...
If you have no idea how he arrives at 23% unemployment; then you have no idea that his site is "legit."
Thinking is clearly not your strong suit.
!I never used loose. What i did was type lose. And the apple spell check on my mac turned it into Loose. Happens often, when I use the mac book. But i do indeed understand the difference.
My education is high enough to know the difference between "lose" and "loose"....which means my level of education is higher than yours. Clinton was just a puppet of the Rockefellers and international bankers that backed him and they were the same oligarchs thjat backed Bush in 1988...btw, it was agreed upon in advance that Bush would cede the presidency to Clinton because GH Bush was the one really running things during Reagan's presidency. Reagan was just a figurehead and this was decided in 1984. The system is totally rigged and idiots like you totally buy into this left versus right paradigm because you lack ANY critical thinking skills. The fact that you are claiming that Clinton left office with not only a zero balance but a SURPLUS shows just how fucking ignorant you are.
But, me boy, part of it was to see if you had any idea of how a debate works and what makes it valid. You could have learned that much in high school, but you did not.
Sorry, it was either believe you, who has been known to base things on stupid sources often, or to believe Factcheck.org, who has been an unimpeachable source for YEARS. So you loose, me boy. Regardless of how much you protest. Your opinion is noted, but baseless and useless.
But in addition, you have proven yourself incapable of analyzing any subject, or of making valid points. Though they typically do not throw students out of debate in high school, I am completely certain they would have tossed you out. Cause you are a nut case.
By the way, since you had a problem with my typo of lose versus loose, perhaps you can tell me what "thiat" means. Since, after all, we should apparently check your spelling from here forward. Dipshit.
You used "loose" over lose multiple times....I made a typo...you believe that "loose" = lose thus you LOSE yet again. I want you on record as saying that USA.INC was totally out of debt and was left a surplus by Bill "drop trou"....can ya do it? Because I can prove that Bill "drop trou" added an additional 1.23 TRILLION dollars to the national debt because it is UNAVOIDABLE when you have a central bank that attaches usury to every dollar created....how and the fuck do you not get that basic principle?????
1. It makes no difference how much new debt was created, as long as enough revenue came in. Dipshit.
2. You have not provided proof of anything. Just your "word" which has NO VALUE.
3. USA INC is not the federal government, no matter how badly you want it to be. You are talking about an entity that has nothing directly to do with the USA.
Let me inform you that your basic principle is nonsense. Bullshit. It was a surplus. As the source explained. Sorry, me boy. You lost. sorry you are a sore looser.
Some times it is difficult to accept that you have been wrong for years. But you have.
You need to look up the meaning of a surplus. It entails government assets and liabilities.
And if you could prove that the national debt was increased in net by 1.23 trillion dollars over the years that Factcheck shows a surplus, they will be very interested in finding out about it. Because it will mean that their economists and researchers made a really, really big mistake. And when they, as opposed to you, make a mistake, they quickly and thoroughly admit it. Admit. Look it up. But your word will mean as much to them as it does to me. You will have the same problem. Finding an expert and impartial source. Good luck with that. You have failed completely so far.
First Rshermr claims the reason he can't spell is because his "secretary" always proofs his writing.I never said that, me boy. I said in the past she had done so. But as a dish washer you probably never had..now he claims that it's spellcheck that's screwing up...not him? There is a reason why he has the rating he does! He's not only an idiot and a poser but he always tries to pass the buck
Like many, I find many of the clowns that I am responding to not worth the time of spell checking anything.
So often I do not spend any time on it. As many others don't. There are phd economists on the board, and they have the same problem. But very, very small minds do get concerned about the issue of spelling and typo's Poor little minds.
Holyfuckingshit!What's the formula shadowstats uses for their 23% unemployment rate?
I have no idea ...
If you have no idea how he arrives at 23% unemployment; then you have no idea that his site is "legit."
Thinking is clearly not your strong suit.
How does the Barrypuppet and crew come up with the figure that we only have 4.9 percent unemployment? If you actually believe that, it's not me that has an issue with "thinking". Personally, I believe that 23 percent is being generous to the Barrypuppet's term.
First, anyone who uses derogatory names for a sitting president, either republican or democrat, proves that he has no class, no integrity. But then, it is common for you, me boy.
Second, if you would go to the BLS site you would find the definition of how they find it. But it is not controlled by the president, and it is not his crew. Just more of your bullshit. If you believe in 23%, using the same definitions as for the 4.7% number, you just lost another debate. Unless you can quickly come up with an expert and impartial source. Because here is the source that says 4.7% is the current ue rate:
"THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION — MAY 2016 The unemployment rate declined by 0.3 percentage point to 4.7 percent in May, and nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+38,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in health care. Mining continued to lose jobs, and employment in information decreased due to a strike."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
So, you loose again. 2 for 2 for me. O for 2 for you.
